Misplaced Pages

Actually, I changed it back. Anyways, I've given him a warning on his talk page. The next time, it will be a stronger warning, and if he vandalizes again, someone reports him to WP:AIV, where administrators will block him. You might also want to read WP:VANDALISM. Good luck! · AndonicO 11:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of vandalism, will an admin please enact semi-protection for this page? It's under constant attack, mostly by anons and new users. okedem 13:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I don't think it's bad enough for protection. You can try WP:RfP though. · AndonicO 13:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Palestine

I was just wondering if there is a section devoted to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, much like the United States is occupying Native American land. And also if there is a section devoted to how present-day Israel is a pseudo-country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.101.71 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, it's right up there with the articles on how France is and always shall be the property of the Roman Empire. You would be well advised to leave extremist points of view away from Misplaced Pages.Schrodingers Mongoose 02:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How is that an extremist point of view? It's a valid point of view. Israel was established IN the land of Palestine. There's even a UN Resolution declaring Zionism as a form of racism, look it up if you don't believe me. I just want to get the facts straight so it doesn't seem like Israel is a country like the U.K., Germany, or Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.101.71 (talk • contribs)

First of all, please "sign" your talk page posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your message. Second of all, I was going to try to write some sort of response, but I think you fall under the definition of "troll" i.e. you are just trying to get people angry, and we're not supposed to respond to those. I do have a question for you though, if you live in the U.S., have you given your land back to the Native Americans yet? (And if you live elsewhere, as Schrodingers Mongoose suggests, similar questions could be asked. The U.K. and Italy were part of the Roman Empire as well, and before that they belong to other peoples. Germany was conquered multiple times as well. For that matter, long before the word "Palestine" was invented, there was a Kingdom of Israel, so how far do you want to go back? Wait, I'm responding...) 6SJ7 04:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, that resolution was rescinded years ago. okedem 06:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that anon's posts above are pretty "troll-ish" I suggest using less inflammatory language when making such editing suggestions. That said, I do agree that a section on the occupied territories would be very appropriate. How could such a section not be highly relevant to the topic of Israel? Also to answer Okedem's question about whether the U.S. has given land back to the Native Americans yet ... well actually yes the U.S. government has, albeit in an woefully inadequate fashion. There have been many court cases over the years with varying rewards and reparations to the Native American tribes for land taken from them. Can the same be said for the Palestinian land? Granted that is something left for a final peace settlement, but I don't see the Israeli government pursuing this reparation issue with much vigor. Also, the comparison between Israel and France, Italy, UK, Germany, and even the U.S. is not really fair. There is a huge difference in time. The Israeli occupation of the territories occurred within the last generation. The occupations you reference in Europe and the U.S., though equally unjust in my opinion, happened much further back in history. There are no people living today that directly experienced those occupations as opposed to the Palestinian territories which still contain many survivors.Fugliesunited 05:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7 asked the question about the US, not I. This isn't the place to discuss the vigor with which Israel's government does this of that. I don't want to turn this into a general political argument. If you think you can write a section about the territories, and make it very NPOV, presenting only the bare facts (and making it short!), I won't object. I suggest you write it here first, where we can discuss it, and reach some agreement, before adding it to the article itself. okedem 09:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Israel actually gave alot of land back to the palestinians. Ever heard of the gaza strip? but then those animals started firing rockets into israel, so the occupation needed to start again. 69.118.112.119 04:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Map of Israel

Hi, I just wanted to note, that for some reason, the map of Israel presented in the main article doesn't note that the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights are being occupied by Israel. I replaced it with a map that notes these facts. Jondr12 19:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. The map you replaced it with is a 7Kb png file. If you click on it it doesn't get any bigger. I suggest making and svg file and have it shaded so that Israel proper, and the occupied territories are noted. Chikanamakalaka 01:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The map you're discussing is just meant to show Israel's location in the world. There is no need for shading of any disputed territory, and to avoid controversy it is best to just leave Israel's recognized territory in black. There's also no need for the file to be expandable to a large size given its limited purpose. There is a much larger map of the country with the disputed territories shaded in, located later in the article. Schrodingers Mongoose 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me that noting that there are disputed areas of a country within a map would fall within NPOV guidelines whereas not noting them could be viewed as POV. jankyalias 12:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would second that notion. This entire article glosses over essential facts regarding Israel's establishment, the distinctions in law and administrative practice regarding the land area and populations under its control, as well as completely ignoring the perspectives of its non-Jewish citizens who form over 20% of the population. For example, for the sake of "simplicity" or "neutrality", there is no mention that Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in 1967 is still viewed as illegal under international law. Or that the annexations of the Golan and East Jerusalem are not recognized by the international community as legitimate. Everything that might cast Israel in a less than rosy light, is left out. The map should stay. and a whole lot of over things need to be added to balance the Zionist POV dominating this article. Tiamut 12:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I support a map which would show the disputed/occupied territories, in some different color. The current map is problematic, since it doesn't show Israel controls them, and it doesn't even show that Israel is in control of the Golan Heights - it just shows them as a part of Syria, contradicting the reality or Israeli control since 1967.

Tiamut - if you'll write a section about the territories, written in an NPOV manner, I would support it. okedem 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused. The full-sized map of Israel half way down the page clearly shows the disputed territories and outlines their status. Why would we get fired upover a tiny map that exists solely to show where Israel is located? The mini-map does manage to indicate that the west bank is not part of Israel proper, which is really all that is reasonable at its size. Schrodingers Mongoose 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Minorities at Risk"

Joffeloff has requested a review of the reliability of "Minorities at Risk", source 32 on the page.

I've read the source, and agree with his remark. It contains numerous mistakes and half-truths:

• "as a 1985 law has required that to participate in elections Arab parties must accept the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state" - The law forbids parties with a political platform opposed to Israel's nature as a "Democratic, Jewish state" from participating in the elections. Jewish - as that is the very reason for Israel's existence, and Democratic, as a democracy has the right to defend itself (lest it fall like some others - note the Weimar Republic). That law was actually used only once (as far as I can remember) - to prevent the ultra right-wing, Jewish extremist party Kach from participating.
• "Arabs are barred from the military" - Crap. Unlike most Jews, most Arabs are exempt from conscription, but can still join if they want to - not that I can see why they'd want to. Many Jews find ways to evade conscription, and don't suffer any ill consequences. The small benefits given by the state are nothing compared to the fact that Arabs can work (or study) during the 2/3 years most Jews spend in the military (not getting paid). Some Arabs do serve in the military - like the Beduin.
• "yet by established JNF policy, these lands can not be alienated to non-Jews." - The source fails to claim that the JNF was established as a private organization, collecting donations from world Jewry to purchase land for the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel/Palestine. Thus, most of its lands are privately-owned, not public lands (I say most, because some lands were given to it by the state). Anyway, the source is also outdated, as the issue has been largely resolved.
• "...cultural organizations which openly promote Arab culture are prohibited" - That is just not true. I don't know how else to say this, but it's just false. Untrue, fallacious, erroneous.
• "...for security reasons, in 2001 and 2002, the Government did not allow male Muslim citizens under 30 to perform the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia)" - The source fails to mention that Saudi Arabia is formally an enemy state (of Israel).
• "Arab Israelis married to Palestinians have long experienced difficulties in obtaining permits to get their spouses into Israel... prohibit residency permits to Palestinian spouses, therefore restricting the family life of Arab Israeli citizens" - Although rare, there are Jews married to Palestinians, and they experience the same difficulties. As Israel is currently at an armed conflict with the Palestinians, it's only reasonable it wouldn't allow Palestinians to receive permits to live in Israel.

This so-called source is extremely biased, and, in my view, should not be used. okedem 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the quote and the source, as there were no objections here. okedem 09:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally object to you removing that source. Please restore the quote so I don't have to. Tiamut 18:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As per your request, I've restored the text. Please address the points I've listed above. okedem 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

point #1 the report says: "... Arabs are restricted from ... political organizing (POLIC496-03 = 1, as a 1985 law has required that to participate in elections Arab parties must accept the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state)." This is true. No party can participate in elections running on a platform of Israel as a secular state for all its citizens. The law has been used more than once to harass Arab politicians whose views challenge Zionism. Most recently in 2002 when MK Bishara was disqualified from running in the elections by the CEC, though the Supreme Court overruled the decision. In order to avoid further disqualifications, Bishara's party Tajammu has included reference to the Partition Plan resolution that recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. Other political movements that refuse to make such concessions and insist on a truly secular state cannot run in elections. This is constitutes a restriction on political rights.

A reasonable one, see the term Defensive democracy (You'll forgive me if I reply right after every one of the points, right? Seems more readable, maybe). okedem 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

point # 2 the actual text of the report says: "Tangible benefits in housing, employment, taxes, and education are provided by the government upon completion of military service, yet Arabs are barred from the military." It also says, "Although there is no official policy of discrimination, Arabs are restricted from military service (POLIC696-03 = 2)..." "Barred" and "restricted" are accurate terms - not any Arab can join the military, while for most Jews, it is compulsory and encouraged. That's a restriction or an obstruction or a hindrance. Look up the meanings of "barred" and "restricted" and you will see that they do not necessarily entail a total blockage. So while strong terminology, it is not inaccurate.

Well, the dictionary I consulted claims it means a complete restriction, but forget it. The army is nothing more than an obligation most Jews fulfill. Arabs should be glad they don't have to do it. It's no walk in the park. The so-called "tangible benefits" are pathetic, and don't compare to the fact that people who serve in the military, beside the risk of bodily harm, give 3 years (or 2 years for women), with almost no compensation. All the while others can work or study. This more than negates the few benefits of military service, but the source fails to mention that - here lies its bias. (By the way, I'd like to know of these "Tangible benefits in housing, employment, taxes, and education..." - nobody told me anything about it... I pay like anyone else. okedem 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

point #3 the JNF is a quasi-private organization. It's complex relationship with the state remains a large bone of contention for the Arab community. It holds ownership over 12% of the land in Israel. Some 3% is owned by private Arab owners. The remainder is divided between the Israel Lands Administration (ILA) and the Regional Rural Councils. Half of the ILA body is made up of JNF members, so they influence enormous control over how Israel's land resources distributed. The report states that: "Additionally, the Jewish National Fund (JNF), an organ of the voluntary, nongovernmental World Zionist Organization, owns a high percentage of Israeli land, and yet by established JNF policy, these lands can not be alienated to non-Jews." This is all true. How is this not true?

It should mention that these lands are *privately owned*, and so their owner can do whatever they wish with them. The ILA is not mentioned in the source. Also, it's a shame the source is outdated on this subject. okedem 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

point #4 I agree that there is no all-out prohibition on operations of organizations that openly Arab culture, though I know of many people who have been invited to visit the Shabak for being involved in youth cultural groups that exhibit a proud sense of Arab identity and culture, without a similar love for the Israeli aspects of their identity. perhaps they meant to icnlude the word "some" somewhere in there?

I don't know what they meant to write, but what they did write is a bold lie. Even if the Shabak harasses some people (and I know they do), that's no prohibition, and certainly not compatible with what MAR wrote. okedem 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

point #5 i don't think the report has to mention that Saudi Arabia is an "enemy state". Most people know that. I also don't think that jusitifies denying people the right to carry out religious pilgrimages. Even Iran, for example, allows Iranian Jews to visit Israel.

I don't think "most people know that". It's not like Syria, with which Israel fought several wars. Saudi-Arabia is an enemy state since 1948, and that completely justified preventing any travel to it, even if it's for pilgrimages. There's nothing special here. That's part of what "enemy state" means - no free travel. And the source doesn't even claim Israel always prevents such travel (though it does have a right to), but only for some people, for two years. okedem 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

point #6 i agree that the report might have mentioned the Jews that suffer from the new laws preventing people from bringing Palestinian spouses into Israel. They represent, however, a very very small number of people affected by the law. You opinion on whether it is justified or not is frankly irrevelant. The report judges the restriction against the requirements of international law and justice. The security needs of any state should never ne used to compromise the individual rights of freedoms of its citizens, including those most basic, like who we love and where we live. Perhaps that's idealistic to you, but it's pretty damn basic to me. Tiamut 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning only Arabs is also a manifestation of the source's bias, since it makes the reader think it's a law for Arabs only. The report doesn't seem to mention any "international law". Regardless of idealism, security is an important concern for every state, and states in open war with one another don't usually allow enemy citizens to resides within their territory. This is pretty basic stuff - you don't allow the enemy to come live in your country. Making it seem like it's some sort of Israeli idea is even more bias - this is what warring parties do, whether we like it or not. okedem 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Having looked over the source, as well as the discussion above, I strongly agree it should be removed. Its bias is clear. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There are many sources quoted throughout this article that have a strong pro-Zionist, pro-Israel bias. This is one of the very few sources that challenges that deliberately filtered consensus. I refuse to stand by and let a straw-man argument result in this source being expurgated from the article, simply because it does not match the strong Zionist POV evident throughout the article. WP:NPOV is not about exclusing sources that have a POV, it's about providing balance. This is one of the few sources that balances out the "rah-rah Israel" information here. Please respect that there are a diversity of views on Israel that should be represented here. Tiamut 09:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, this source is not only biased, it lies! You can't balance one side with another's lies. This disqualifies it from being a source, and I would say the same for any "pro-Israel" source. okedem 10:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Democracy (consolidated discussion)

(The following was previously under the "Minorities At Risk" discussion)

Okedem. We have been through this kind of thing before. To me, the Freedom House source is disreputable and inaccurate. It fails to mention that Turkey is in the Middle East and that Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy. It represents a given viewpoint that is contentious, but it made the grade for this article. You approved its inclusion despite the many concerns raised by myself and others. The MAR source may pose similar problems from your POV, but that does not mean it should be excluded as a source here. The requirements of balance under WP:NPOV mandate that it be included here. If you insist on having it removed, I will find other sources that support the same position; i.e. that Israel is an "ethnic democracy"; however, I am quite sure that you will try to find some reason to disqualify that article from inclusion since it will contradict the POV that Zionism and Israel are blameless paragons of Jewish democracy and a beacon unto all nations - a view this article clearly attempts to convey by excluding any information or analysis that belies that image. Tiamut 10:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you want a fight or a discussion?

Does Freedom House lie? Does it say things which are false? Because MAR does, and even you seem to recognize that. It also goes out of its way to make Israel look bad, which always amazes me - Israel really does enough bad things one can report, without having to make stuff up.

The Middle East has a foggy definition, and Turkey anyway isn't a liberal democracy. Lebanon certainly isn't one - when the position you can fill depends on your sectional identity, that's no real democracy. If you'll remember, I was actually against the whole "the only liberal democracy" thing in the lead.

I don't see what "straw-man" has to do with this. The source is not credible, as it lets its bias influence its findings, and it contains patently false information. If you can find a respectable source to replace it, please do. okedem 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be replaced, but if you're going to insist on disqualifying it as a source, here are others:

Arab-Israeli sociologist Sammy Smooha once acknowledged that “Israel is considered a western democracy by the Jewish elite, including the Zionist left, as well as by mainstream Israeli social scientists and western scholars…”, but he took issue with that description, instead describing Israel as an “ethnic democracy”. He writes: “Israel is a diminished ethnic democracy and not a liberal democracy because the state recognizes ethnic groups, and not just individuals. It is neither a liberal nor a multicultural democracy because it makes the Jews a core ethnic nation and the Arabs non-core outsiders. It imposes separation between Arabs and Jews through the law of religious marriages, making intermarriages infrequent and illegitimate (but recognizable by law). Israel lacks a national identity of its own that is shared by all of its citizens, and instead of treating all citizens equally, it privileges the Jews. The state is explicitly partial, serving as the homeland of all Jews in the world, not impartially catering to all its citizens regardless of ethnic origin.” His work has since become mainstream in western academia and the view that Israel is an "ethnic democracy" is shared by academics like Ezra Kopelowitz, , Yoav Peled , Assad Ghanem , journalists like Jonathan Cook and Ori Nir , and NGOs like MAR. Tiamut 13:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is just the POV of Samy Smooha, who is a far-left activist. And I never heard of any of the other people you mention. You want to know what my grand-father thinks also ? Who cares. We are speaking of facts, not the opinion of some people. The facts you provide are wrong as established before. Benjil 13:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but it looks like you need to go back and read policy here. WP:NPOV is not about excluding sources whose POVs you disagree with. It's about providing the totality of views and letting the reader decide for themself. I don't understand why you are so threatened by facilitating access to the wide variety of opinions on the status of Israel's democracy. It is a matter of contention and not black and white, right and wrong as you try to pretend above. It is a fact that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. It is a fact that it has non-Jewish citizens, some 20% of the population, that are not considered to be part of the Jewish people. Don't you think this has some implications for democracy? Don't states that define themselves is exclusionary terms vis a vis segments of their population have a tendency to discriminate against those outside the fold? Can't you admit that the description "liberal democracy" fails to fully account for this reality? Or at least, can't you admit that others are entitled to think so and have their views represented here? Tiamut 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. This isn't a place for "views", but for facts. The source is question presents few facts, a lot of views, and very little substantiation. More importantly, it is outright dishonest in places and clearly has a POV that borders on extremist. So again, no, I don't believe everyone's views should be represented here, any more than I believe the views of someone who says the earth is flat should be seriously represented on the page about the Earth. Schrodingers Mongoose 00:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the same could be said of describing Israel as a "as the only Liberal Democracy" in the region. This is not a fact, but also POV. So in order to attain NPOV, the article must be balanced presenting all substantial points-of-view. This article does not do that. I personally think it would be best to remove the contentious items altogether than the difficult task of balancing the views. Why not simply remove the reference to "Liberal Democracy" and avoid the debate about what kind of democracy Israel has. Fugliesunited 22:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Liberal Democracy" is a well-defined term. There is only one country in the Middle East that follows its principles. This isn't POV. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, this is an issue ruled upon by expert RS like Freedom House, which demands a counter-claim of equal weight to merit an appearance here. Tewfik 05:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not suggest that "Liberal Democarcy" is not a well-defined term. I am saying that calling Israel a "Liberal Democracy" is POV. Whether "Israel is the only country in the Middle East that follows its principles," this is open to debate and certainly not a settled matter. As such, using the term is contentious and needs to be balanced, or simply left out altogether. I prefer the latter (including removing the MAR). Will the article be so diminished by simply stating "Israel is a democracy" without qualifying which flavor of democracy is practiced? I think most people here could agree with that simple statement. Fugliesunited 06:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite many people having shared your view, there is a small core of extremist editors here that will not accept such a formulation. We have had this entire debate. The MAR info was offered as a counter-balance to the Freedom House opinion that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. Many took issue with that formulation and another POV was brought in to balance it out. Now they are trying to remove it and despite all the other sources I have offered to replace the MAR quote, none has been incorporated. I fully agree with your position and would like to re-open that debate as well. Tiamut 10:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So can we agree that simply stating "Israel is a democracy" is a neutral statement? If so, we should remove the "ethnic" or "liberal" democracy labels. Fugliesunited 18:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is fair. In addition to the various problems with MAR listed above, it only makes reference to "ethnic democracy" as an aside, and not to the exclusion of Israel being a "liberal democracy". It seems okay to include it as a differing opinion in the "Government" section, but it is not a source of equal quality to the Freedom House country report, and shouldn't be a reason for removing their conclusion. Tewfik 04:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What is unfair, the statement "Israel is a democracy" or the removal of the "ethnic" and "liberal" democracy language? Can you please tell me where to find Freedom House's conclusion that Israel is a "Liberal Democracy"? I read their report and could only find their ranking of Israel as "Free" (Israel 2006: Political Rights - Score 1, Civil Liberties - Score 2). I could not find any mention of "Liberal Democracy" in that report. Could you please confirm the attribution and tell me where I can verify it? Fugliesunited 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Without getting involved in what is clearly an argument that is not going to be resolved without mediation, a quick look at User:Fugliesunited's Contributions would lead one to believe that we have a sock/meat puppet on our hands. Feel free to prove me wrong and I'd be happy to apologize, but the evidence seems to be fairly clear... -- Chabuk 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what you mean by sock/meat puppet? I can't prove you wrong until I know what you are accusing me of. Fugliesunited 06:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Freedom House does call Israel an "electoral democracy," an honor it denies to, for instance, Lebanon. I don't see that we should account this as being equivalent to "liberal democracy." john k 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see now what you are accusing me of (Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry). Funny. Why is it so clear to you that I am somebody's multiple Misplaced Pages account? I would be happy to prove you wrong, but that's like asking me to prove that I am not Santa Claus. Maybe since you are the one throwing these accusations, you should provide the evidence that you so clearly see. So unless you can do that, I do think you should apologize. Also, if seeking mediation is the only way to introduce neutrality here, then I welcome it. I was hoping that I could appeal to people's sense of neutrality instead, but apparently not without these baseless personal attacks. Fugliesunited 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uhhhh, maybe you missed it, but I did provide evidence. Your contribution list is very suspicious. Your first contribution was on the 15th, right when this discussion was starting, and since then you have only contributed to Israel related articles. I'm only saying, it's quite suspicious set of coincidences. -- Chabuk 03:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is silly and I'm sorry I even responded to this personal attack. Chabuk, you are free to think what you wish, but please stop distracting from the discussion here and let us focus on the true issues. If you have problems with me, feel free to report me to the WP authorities or leave something on my talk page.

Now to get back to the issue, it appears that the "Minorities At Risk" section has been completely removed from the article since I was here last. That is fine with me, but the references to "Liberal Democracy" need to be cleaned up also. I see people have already started doing. Hopefully we'll be able to strip out all contentious POV (both pro-Jewish and pro-Palestinian) and get this article to be more neutral than it currently is. Fugliesunited 08:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(The following was previously under the "Contentious statement" discussion)

I wasn't fond of the inclusion of the phrase "liberal democracy" -- a nebulous and self-serving descriptor -- before this edit, but labelling Israel the "only democracy" in the "Middle East" is absurd and unacceptable. Alyoshenka 06:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you say why ? Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East, I can't really understand what is wrong with saying it. Benjil 08:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinian territories are democratic to varying degrees of effectiveness and efficiency. This is not to mention that there is no academic consensus on the phrase "democracy" or what constitutes one; "democracies" come in many forms. It is untrue and tendentious at best to label Israel the "only democracy" in the "Middle East." Alyoshenka 08:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you don't clearly understand what "democracy" means. There are different forms of democracies, but regimes where there is only one party (Egypt), where the power is divided according to a religious and ethnic key (Lebanon), where the power is in the hand of the king (Jordan) - are not democracies, by definition. Regarding the Palestinian territories, they have relatively free elections, but they lack all the other criteria, like an independent judiciary, a free press, etc... and anyway they are in such a state of anarchy that even speaking of political regime is irrelevant. Benjil 12:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are appealing to a "definition" which does not exist. Democracies do not require "independent judiciaries" or a "free press" -- they do not even need to follow the traditional nation-state model. Egypt is nominally and, in part, practically a multi-party state; the Lebanese political system is irrelevant to its developed democratic features and Jordan, like the United Kingdom, is a constitutional monarchy. Many more states and Middle Eastern authorities concert with the features of democracy as described by Misplaced Pages.

You should start by reading your own sources: "The definition of democracy is simple, the rule of the people". That is not the case in *any* of the countries you cited. Bogus elections and candy-eye constitutions are not enough. Benjil 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Before this discussion becomes embroiled in semantics, I would like to emphasise that the inclusion of this statement is unacceptable and will be removed until a source is provided. Alyoshenka 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what "source" ? Israel is a democracy ? There is not another democracy around ? So that's easy. Benjil 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the idea that Israel is the only democracy in the Mideast is taught in Camp Kutz, or at least it was whrn I was there at the NFTY Leadership Academy. Not that it's notable at all, just an interesting aside. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the only mid-eastern country, besides Israel, that can lay claim to the title "Democracy", might be Lebanon. Egypt in a dictatorship, where the sole ruler is planning to transfer power to his son. Jordan is a monarchy, and completely unlike the UK. They don't pretend to be a democracy. The king holds the power. The PA is not a democracy, because it's not a country, only a somewhat autonomous region (barely). Lebanon comes closer, though it's community based government is hardly compatible with the meaning of Democracy.

Saying Egypt or Jordan are democracies is as ridicules as believing the DDR was a democracy, because its name said so. However, since this is a nebulous issue, I don't want the "only democracy" thing in the lead, also because some consider Turkey to be in the middle east, and it is a democracy. I support the previous title, "the only liberal democracy", as it truly differentiates between Israel and its neighbors. okedem 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkey and Lebanon (especially the former) are enough to rule out the "only democracy" phrasing. As for "liberal democracy", many would object to "liberal", as Israel has no proper constitution, only partial protection of civil rights, and almost no protection of minority rights. I think that for the lead, "parliamentary democracy" is informative enough, and yet perfectly factual.--Doron 15:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use the absurd constitution argument. A constitution is not a prerequisite for a liberal democracy - for instance, the UK don't have one. I also don't really see the point in the "minority rights" claim. Can you elaborate on why this is different from civil rights?

What civil rights aren't protected? I think Israeli law is quite good at this. okedem 16:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware of the controversy, even within Israel, if not I'll provide references. The United Kingdom article's lead describes it as a constitutional monarchy. What's wrong with "Parliamentary democracy"? Why not choose a widely-accepted description?--Doron 17:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. (we had a long discussion about the lead a while ago, where some folks really wanted the "only" statement. I don't really mind either way.) okedem 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(The following was previously under the "Is it acceptable to use bogus sources in this article?" discussion)

Please have a look at this edit. I deleted the sequence about Israel being the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. My reason for doing so is that the given source does not support the claim, and thus is a bogus. However, it has been reverted two times. As I have a hard time imagining anyone defending use of bogus sources I urge all to keep an eye on this. I am aware that the given viewpoint is widely held, and would not oppose it being included in the article, but then we need to find a verifiable source. Bertilvidet 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(Please continue discussion about "Liberal Democracy" here.)

The main article now describes Israel's democracy as a "Parliamentary Democracy". I agree with this designation. I believe this is a neutral way of describing Israel's governmental structure and avoid the problems with POV and neutrality. I feel that qualifying the democracy as "Liberal" or "Ethnic" or "the only Democracy" will only detract from the NPOV of this article. Fugliesunited 23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I will make this as quick, short, and simple as I can. "1) To me, the Freedom House source is disreputable and inaccurate." And my ask, who are you to consider them disreputable? Because they do not agree with what you believe? They do extensive, and i mean EXTENSIVE, I repeat: EXTENSIVE research annually, every year and publish a report measuring democracy and freedom every year. 2) There is no such thing as an "ethnic democracy". No such thing. Yes okay, you read about it. It means nothing. It is an unsubstanciated coined term that belongs in a poem. What about Azmi Bishara's acknowledgement of democracy? "Give us back Palestine and take your democracy with you..." They both essentially mean nothing, and by nothing I mean nothing at all whatsoever. You are adding a lot of opinion about Zionism, Israel, other things which is just plainly irrelevant and frankly WP:OR. Next, you say that they discredit Turkey as a democracy or say that Turkey is in the Middle East and Freedom House doesnt consider it as such. Lets look at this closely: 1) Turkey is considered in Western Europe as per FH probably due to its membership to the Western European and Others Group in the United Nations. Let's pretend that FH did include Turkey in the Middle East. If that were so, Israel would STILL be considered the only liberal democracy since Turkey is only an electoral democracy. Please (I said this a hundrend times already) read the difference. Now let's say Lebanon is in the picture. The fact that Lebanon has a parliament does not necessarily make them a) a parliamentary democracy, b) an electoral democracy, or c) a liberal democracy. According to Freedom House, which is what Misplaced Pages uses and is beyond reliable, Israel is the only liberal democracy. In order to make that a dispute, one would have to bring on another source that measures up to Freedom House, because as of now, a couple of articles written by a couple of journalists means nothing. It is Freedom House who accurately assesses what is freedom and what is democracy. --Shamir1 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Also, Tiamut, review WP:Notability. I remind you to leave out personal opinion, WP:Original research as well as unreliable sources (including articles by journalists who are expressing their own opinion). If you are interested in what hinders Lebanon of its status as a true democracy, you can review its country report. What I strongly encourage you to do is to read Freedom House's overview, which gives a very decent explanation of what it all is and is not. It explains terminology and how/what is measured. --Shamir1 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To be clear - the Freedom House source never claims that Israel is a "Liberal Democracy." The Freedom House report only ranks "freedom" and scores Israel as 1 & 2 (out of 7) for political freedom and civil liberties respectively. Nowhere in the report does Freedom house use the term "Liberal Democracy." Those are the facts. Some people here are interpreting the report to mean that Israel is a "Liberal Democracy," but this is a conclusion not explicitly supported by the source. In addition, the description "Liberal Democracy" is obviously contentious in light of the many objections that have been raised.

So to the point: Is "Parliamentary Democracy" a sufficiently neutral description or not? Please answer this question. Remember, we are trying to achieve neutrality here. We should avoid terminology and language that is contentious or raises questions about POV. Fugliesunited 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not done enough research. Please read here and here. They say that Israel is the only 'Free' country, which means per their methodology a liberal democracy. A country rated as free denotes that it is a liberal democracy. Not only is Israel the only the only free country in the represented region, but no other country is even an electoral democracy. That is pointed out explicitly. They write that Israel is the *only* one to be "Free", and as well as the *only* electoral democracy. According to them this is what 'Free' means: "In the survey, all Free countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies." And yes, neutrality. Because one user does not like it does not make it untrue that Freedom House has surveyed the world. And even if the "ethnic democracy" shananigans was actually taken seriously, there is nothing to say that an "ethnic democracy" cannot be a liberal democracy, one does not necessarily cancel the other out. Please be real. --Shamir1 07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Status of Israel's capital Jerusalem is disputed

Hi all, why do we not mention in the lead that the status of Israel's capital is actually disputed? Thanks. Yas121 17:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first source is a Canadian court - which has no bearing on reality, and your second source - is nothing but a wikipedia mirror.

Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Go through the archives for all the arguments about it, but it is the capital, de facto and de jure, and a country doesn't need anyone's approval to appoint a capital city.

If you wish, we can remove that tiny remark ("Its capital is Jerusalem"), as that was only added a few days ago, and the capital is already listed, with a proper footnote, in the info-box on the right. okedem 17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK sure. I agree :-) Yas121 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I know, no other country recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Tel Aviv is the internationally recognized capital. Note: I may be wrong and so begin the hunt for sources. Jankyalias 12:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are wrong. Tel Aviv is not recognized as Israel's capital. It is just where most (not all) the embassies dwell. In fact, most countries don't really know what to do on the issue so they leave Israel without a capital. Not that it changes anything to the fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital on the ground. Benjil 13:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how what a country's capital is is an issue for other countries to recognize. It is a matter of a) self-declaration; and b) actual location of government. By both those criteria the capital is at Jerusalem. john k 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be important if the country's chosen capital is in part under dispute/occupation. The fact that the rest of the world (with the exception of a few allies) does not recognize a country's capital is worth noting, since it's not that common (and therefore obviously worth noting) when it comes to democracies. (85.228.66.50 12:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

Do you think it would be a fair compromise to word it as "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and de facto capital"? Cigrainger 09:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1948 War of Independence and migration

I question the NPOV of this statement:

Some Israeli historians suggest that the Palestinians fled because of orders from Arab generals. Many Palestinians left under the belief that the Arab armies would prevail and they would return.

Besides being rather biased, the source for this doesn't appear to be particularly credible. It cites a NY Post article from 1948 written by "Observer". Reading this apparent primary source clearly shows that the source itself is biased. Also, the article is from the Immanuel Velikovsky website, which in itself should raise some questions about neutrality (IV is not known for his neutral and objective stance). Fugliesunited 07:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with quoting an Israeli hitorian and saying that this is the opinion of an Israeli historian.

However, there is no shortage of evidence that this was the case. Would you find it less objectionable if the source were changed? While the Jewish Community Relations council is not exactly unbiased, it quotes Edward Atiyah, the Secretary of the Arab League Office in London in 1953 as saying:

“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks

before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country.”

I m dude2002 19:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Which only proves that the Jewish Community Relations council is not a reliable source. Atiyah continues: "But it was also, and in many parts of the country, largely due to a policy of deliberate terrorism and eviction followed by the Jewish commanders in the areas they occupied, and reaching its peak of brutality in the massacre of Deir Yassin. There were two good reasons why the Jews should follow such a policy. First, the problem of harbouring within the Jewish State a large and disaffected Arab population had always troubled them. They wanted an exclusively Jewish state, and the presence of such a population that could never be assimilated, that would always resent its inferior position under Jewish rule and stretch a hand across so many frontiers to its Arab cousins in the surrounding countries, would not only detract from the Jewishness of Israel, but also constitute a danger to its existence. Secondly, the Israelis wanted to open the doors of Palestine to unrestricted Jewish immigration. Obviously, the fewer Arabs there were in the country the more room there would be for Jewish immigrants. If the Arabs could be driven out of the land in the course of the fighting, the Jews would have their homes, their lands, whole villages and towns, without even having to purchase them. And this is exactly what happened." --Zero

The implications here seem a bit problematic. Palestinians left the war zone, certainly. I wouldn't be surprised if they generally believed that the Arab armies would be victorious and they would be able to return. But is there any reason to think that they didn't think they would also be able to return in the instance that the Arab armies were defeated? The implication of putting it this way is that, by leaving the scene of an ongoing war, these civilians were somehow active partisans, and thus deserved what they got (dispossession). The claim that they left because Arab generals ordered them to makes this implication even worse. On the whole, I'd say that this article is an overview. It is not an article on the 1948 War, or even one on the history of Israel. The exact motivations of the flight of Arab civilians is not really appropriate to this article, as any brief statement is likely to tend more towards one side or the other. I'd prefer to just mention that Arab civilians fled during the war, without getting into motivations. john k 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Benny Morris's book 1948 and after; Israel and the Palestinians deals with this question in some depth and debunks the "theory" outlined above that Arabs fled as a result of Arab orders. In Ramla for instance the population was expelled by the Palmach under the command of Yizhak Rabin ابو علي 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the expulsion from Ramla has never been a secret, it was in Rabin's memories, and was strategically justified. This is in fact the only case of expulsion in all the war and it stresses the fact that the other 95% refugees fled. Benjil 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. It was a secret and it was censored from the printed version of Rabins memoirs. The fact that the residents of Ramla were expelled obviously does not mean that all other Paletinians abandoned their homes, their crops and everything else they had willingly. For instance the population of the entire costal region was ethnicly cleansed (except for Jisr az-Zarqa and Furadis who were allowed to stay because the farmers in Zikron Yaakov needed labourers to work their fields). Anyway the sentence quoted above about Arabs leaving because of the order of unkown general is a piece of pure propoganda which has no place in an objective encyclopedia. ابو علي 10:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's get back to my original issue with this section. I am question its NPOV. I think john k has got it correct: debating the motivations for fleeing the land does not lend to the NPOV of this article. Why are debating the reasons for Arabs fleeing in an article about Israel? Would it not be sufficient to just state the fact that Arabs fled the region? Adding additional commentary about the motives only detracts from the NPOV of this article ... which I believe is sorely lacking. Fugliesunited 22:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fugliesunited and John K. my original reason for disputing the NPOV of this article was the reason given for the Palestinian flight from Israel. Bored college student 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wonder if there is any way to say this without implying that arabs fled for good reasons, or vice versa. I think if one tried to write it without the two very different versions of why the exodus occured, it will come out sounding biased even if it doesn't mean to be. But by all means give it a shot.Schrodingers Mongoose 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the 1948 War section to remove statements about Arab and Jewish motivations for fleeing. This is the revised section on the migrations:

Large numbers of the Arab population fled the newly-created Jewish State during the Palestinian exodus, which is referred to by many Palestinian groups and individuals as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة ), meaning "disaster" or "cataclysm". Estimates of the final Palestinian refugee count range from 400,000 to 900,000 with the official United Nations count at 711,000. The unresolved conflict between Israel and the Arab world that persists to this day has resulted in a lasting displacement of Palestinians refugees.

In addition, the entire Jewish population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip also fled to Israel. Within a year of 1948 war, immigration of Jewish refugees from Arab lands doubled Israel's population. Over the following years approximately 850,000 Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews fled or were expelled from surrounding Arab countries. Of these, about 600,000 settled in Israel; the remainder went to Europe and the Americas (see Jewish exodus from Arab lands).

Please discuss if you feel this is not sufficiently neutral. Thanks. Fugliesunited 07:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

I have failed this article as a GA per lack of references and in-line citations. While there are many sections that do really well at this, there are still quite a lot of places where non-trivial information or statistics is stated without citations. I would have guessed that some of these would have references on the {{main}} pages corresponding to the sections, but I have checked a couple (for example the Music section) and this is not entirely true. Quite a lot of {{fact}} statements sticking out as well. I have not spotted any other problems.--Konstable 02:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

About "jewish" and "arabs"

Sorry if I am putting this in the wrong place...I don't really know how to use the website. Under the religion section, it says that most people are Jews, and that the second largest religious group is "Arabs." "Arabs" is not a religion, and there are Arab people who are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc.

You're right, that section mixes up ethnicity and religion. I'll try to think of a better way to saying that. okedem 16:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Acting President"

Acting President is not a title, it is a temporary function. Dalia Itzik did not attain a new title when Katzav took a leave of absence. Now it appears Dalia Itzik is out of the country, so the infobox says Majalli Wahabi is the acting president. Next, Wahabi will sneeze, and someone else will be acting president for a few seconds! Itzik's title is still the speaker of the knesset, and that should be her title in the infobox. Wahabi did not get a new title when Dalia Itzik boarded the airplane, he's still just a deputy speaker. I think the infobox should reflect positions, not temporary functions.--Doron 08:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. okedem 15:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Geographic, demographic info should cover same regions

The article gives "the total area under Israeli control, including the military-controlled and Palestinian-governed territory of the West Bank" but not the population. I will put in the corresponding demographic info. Fourtildas 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Area figure in infobox includes the Golan Heights

The area figure in the infobox includes the Golan Heights, altough they are not recognized as part of Israel by the international community. Even from the Israeli point of view it is not clear they should be included, indeed Israel did not formally annex the Golan Heights. The Golan Law carefully avoided implications regarding annexation or sovereignty, and Begin's comments on the issue at the time indicate that this was intentional. Therefore including the Golan Heights as part of the area of Israel is controversial, to say the least.--Doron 09:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. okedem 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the story with the map?

Lately, there were a couple of attempts (like this one) to replace the newer map with an older and unintelligible one. I don't understand what is the deal here exactly, but if the newer one contains an error, it needs to be corrected. The old one is so much worse, it's a non-starter. ←Humus sapiens 06:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you know the people on this page it has to be the Kosovo ;-).--Stone 10:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I too think that it must be corrected, because this newer map outlines Israel a lot better. It's a minor error that could be corrected. The situation is the same with the Iraq map and Syria map... >_> --Krytan 02:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been reverting these map changes since they started. No one has given any reasonable explanation why the map should be changed to the less clear, inaccurate png version. If there is an error in the good verion I can't make it out, but the other one doesn't even look like Israel. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The West Bank / Gaza are disputed - could we have a map which somehow highlights that rather than the current one which makes it appear that Palestine is a sovereign country rather than an area which is still rightly or wrongly an area under Israeli juristiction. Maybe the disputed territories in a different colour with a note below explaining their status?

The previous map was a bit too small to make out anything 172.189.33.31 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A map exactly as you describe is already in the article. The little map at the top is just meant to show Israel's location in the world. Schrodingers Mongoose 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Israel's "name"

I'm sure everybody knows the history of the Hebrew. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered and its people disappeared over time but the Southern Kingdom of Judah and its people were displaced but remained together til this day. So here's my question. Why is the present-day Jewish state called "Israel" when the people are clearly the descendants of Judah? Wouldn't calling the state Judah be more correct?--Secret Agent Man 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons (that I see right now) - first, it's in the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel). Second, note that the United Monarchy, (that existed before the split) was known as the Kingdom of Israel. okedem 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Music section - mushroom

This is minor, but I think worthwhile. That picture of "infected mushroom" is very bad and unnecessary. How about removing it? The other picture is enough for the small section. The Behnam 01:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "infected mushroom" picture seems very out of place in an article about Israel. Fugliesunited 01:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Israels Capital City

''''The capital city of Israel is Tel Aviv.

To suggest that it is Jerusalem is factually incorrect, indicative of zionist extremism, and blatantly racist.

The classification of Jerusalem as Israel's capital city is contrary to world opinion (except of course Israel and America..thanks AIPAC!), and contrary to countless UN resolutions.

It is wholly irresponsible, and unacademic for the administrators of wikpedia, to allow this so called fact to be presented.

So long as you allow zionist extremism and blatant racism to go unchallenged, wikipedia will never be accepted by mainstream academic circles as anything but garbage.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.224.190.3 (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

You obviously don't know what capital city means. By any definition, Jerusalem is the capital city. okedem 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If foreign nations decided that Toronto, not Ottawa, should be considered capital of Canada, would that make it even remotely true? Schrodingers Mongoose 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, he doesnt know what Zionism is. He sounds primitive. --Shamir1 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Foreign nations have not decided that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, there was an Arab attempt to cut the supply route between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Since it was unsafe to put in an embassy in a location under Arab siege, most put them in Jerusalem. After the war, only a few countries located their embassies to Jerusalem. The foreign nations have not said that Tel Aviv is the capital, maintaining an embassy there does not necessarily mean that that is where they believe it should be. --Shamir1 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters much, but just for your information -- Tel Aviv was the seat of government and the de facto capital of Israel until December 1949, when it was moved to Jerusalem .--Doron 07:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"The world's perception"

The section "The world's perception" was removed for the following reasons:

• No other country article has anything like it
• 165 out of 192 UN member states did not participate in the survey (not to mention unrecognized states and territories)
• Muslim countries, and Muslims in Western countries, are a large influence
• There are other factors involved, and public opinion regarding the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is largely complete, or possibly Israel's alliance with the United States, or many other separate or intertwined conflicts pertaining to Israel
• Public opinion is everchanging and fluctuates daily, just as wars, conflicts, and other matters will change pertaining to the subject
• The statistics somewhat conflict with similar stats, such as that of The Economist and others
• Having such a section is undoubtedly bound to edit wars, overfilling of information, competing sources, etc. It would not stop there.

--Shamir1 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And the most important reason - it's just a silly survey, and means nothing. Misplaced Pages doesn't hold country popularity contests. okedem 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please correct population counts

Population counts in large cities are totally wrong:

"As of 2006, The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics defines three metropolitan areas: Tel Aviv (population 3,040,400), Haifa (population 996,000) and Beersheba (population 531,600). The capital, Jerusalem, has a population of 719,900. The Jerusalem Institute of Israel Studies defines the metropolitan area Jerusalem (population 2,300,000, including 700,000 Jews and 1,600,000 Arabs)."

The right figures would be

Jerusalim 720,000 Tel-aviv - 378,000 Haifa - 267,000

from http://www1.cbs.gov.il/webgis/website/yishuvim/yishuvim_2005/XLS/bycode.xls —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.139.145.105 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Read again, these figures refer to the metropolitan areas, not to the respective core cities.--Doron 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel pre-planned War in Lebanon

According to Haaretz, Ehud Olmert said it was decided at least four months before that any kidnap of Israeli troops on its border would trigger war.

On 12 July 2006 Hezbollah militants seized two Israeli soldiers sparking an all-out assault by Israel's military.

Mr Olmert reportedly made the claim to an inquiry last month.

The Winograd Commission is an Israeli government-appointed commission tasked with investigating last summer's conflict with Lebanon and identifying lessons to be learned from it.

It is expected to release its interim report this month.

I am a new user so I can't edit this page, but I think someone should add at the end of the last paragraph in the history of the 2000's something along the lines of "It has recently come to light that the strategy used in this war was planned months in advance." Use as the source.

Cigrainger 09:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1) This is not an article on the Israel-Lebanon conflict. 2) Every country has some security plans. In July 2006, Hezbollah shelled Israeli territory their cross-border raid left Israeli soldiers killed. Sounds like a legitimate casus belli. Those who don't want wars do not start them. I don't see anything special about this supposed revelation. ←Humus sapiens 11:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hizballah (the "Party of God", not "Hezbollah") shelled Israeli territory after the Israelis committed human rights atrocities in Gaza (as stated by the UN) such as cutting off energy and water to civilians after an Israeli soldier was taken hostage by the terrorist group Hamas. I'm not saying the shelling was acceptable by any means, but the destruction of Beirut was an unnecessary act of violence on the civilians and nation of Lebanon (which achieved no inroads on destroying Hizballah, only killing over 1000 civilians), and was a continuation of the decades-long history of such. Having plans to decimate much of the capital city of a country with whom you at peace, based on the actions of a militant extremist terrorist group, is a decidedly "special" revelation. Cigrainger 13:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Peace? Lebanon is in Peace with Israel? You're proving serious ignorance here. Lebanon is an enemy of Israel. It waged war on it in 1948, and that status has never been changed. Beirut was not destroyed, and we can without the hyperbolae. Lebanon allowed Hizbollah to operate within its territory, and allowed them to attack Israel.

Did you know the US used to have plans for war against Canada? All nations have plans for war, against many possible targets, even including allies, at times. Since Lebanon, like Syria, is an enemy of Israel, and since Hizbollah has been attacking Israel to years, even after it withdrew from Lebanon to the international border (the "Blue Line", determined by the UN), having war plans is a trivial thing to do. It has no importance here. okedem 13:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, the only way this would be an interesting revelation is if Israel DIDN'T have plans for war with Lebanon (and the many other countries that have attacked Israel repeatedly for 60 years). Schrodingers Mongoose 19:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel provoked it.... --MiddleEastern 21:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course. It is always Israel's fault. When Israel acts first, they are an agressor. When they are attacked, they "provoked" it. You are off to a stellar career as a Misplaced Pages editor. Isarig 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

ZIONIST! We'll show you yet, zionist opressors, if you are pro-Israel you are PRO MURDER! --MiddleEastern 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Underground Groups

I think it is important to note that the Irgun and Lehi were both terrorist organizations as recognized by the British government. Failure to do so is quite hypocritical if we are to recognize groups such as the early PLO as terrorist organizations (which I do). I'm honestly not trying to be biased or hate-mongering -- if we look at what a terrorist organization is, the Irgun and Lehi fall under those terms. Bombing buildings, killing innocents, et al for political gain are certainly acts of political terrorism.

"Who Are the Terrorists?", Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1. (Autumn, 1979), pp. 154-160.

Cigrainger 09:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wording of the article (inherent bias)

Is it really appropriate to say that Israel is "considered to be the most advanced in ... overall human development" in the opening of the article? Is "overall human development" defined? I'd say that there are quite a few people around the world who might argue that the country's policies place it squarely last in the region. I think it's fair to say that Israeli law squarely rejects the idea of equality among men and universal human rights (a concept accepted by the UN and member nations since the signing of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights) - something I would say is a cornerstone of "overall human development". I'd be interested to hear an intelligent debate on the wisdom of using this type of language or subjective reasoning in this article. Welrifai 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Wael - 11 March, 2007

Yes, it is defined; see the links. Jayjg 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"intermittent rule over the region that lasted more than a millenium"

"Starting around the eleventh century BCE, the first of a series of Jewish kingdoms and states established intermittent rule over the region that lasted more than a millennium."

When I check out link it looks like a country calling itself Israel gets established about 1100 BCE, and then survives until about 600 BCE and then gets stomped on, and never reappears until 1948. So in what sense does a Jewish kingdom/state rule over the region for a millenium? I also looked at History of ancient Israel and Judah and it doesn't seem to mention anything.WolfKeeper 09:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I could certainly buy Jewish people living there for well over a thousand years, but it doesn't look at the moment to me like they were self-ruling. Shouldn't this read "lasted more than 500 years"? Is there a cite anywhere explaining?WolfKeeper 09:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also a little state called Judaea. It was independent from about 160 BC to 6 AD, and again from 41-44 (although it was a Roman client after 63 BC). In the intermittent period, under the Persians, Ptolemies, and Seleucids, the Jews largely ruled themselves through their high priest, although they didn't have political independence, so I wouldn't describe it as rule. But certainly the Hasmoneans and the Herods were real "rulers" of the region. john k 15:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)