Talk:Israel/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Brenard bichem

I am not sure IF I am spelling his name correctly but in the year 1949 there was a british photographer who took a color documetary film of the early israel , anyone has any info about him and his footage?

Wrong way round?

On the page, the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert inaccurately is above the President Moshe Katsav. I thought you put the head of state first, then the head of government. Can someone please sort it out? I can't because of this semi-protection (I'm a new Wikipedian). Thanks RJL 20:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It was originally the way you say, then changed, citing the fact that the PM holds the power. However, that doesn't seem to be a relevant argument, as the head of state is the first mentioned in all the articles I looked at, such as Germany, United Kingdom, and India, all of them countries where actual power is wielded by the PM, not the president/monarch. Thus, I'm changing it back. okedem 20:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above (section 23.1 in the table of contents), from a couple of days ago, after this change was made. I agree, the president should be listed above the PM. It is a matter of "protocol", not actual power. 6SJ7 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Head of State should go first. This shouldn't even be an issue. john k 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag for Human Rights

(Everybody check Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Human_Rights_in_Israel!)

Editors on this page have consistently deleted a vague listing noting a few major organizations that criticize human rights in Israel. As it stands now, there is no indication there is any criticism whatsoever. This is not a representation of the reality of the situation, and represents a severe bias. Therefore the article does not have neutrality. I suggest we work on a way to address this fairly together, so that a handful will stop hurting the article by deleting anything they see as criticism. Sarastro777 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a nice link to the main article on Human rights in Israel just after the heading, and there is plenty of fodder for those who wish to find fault with the state of Israel in that article :) So, what exactly is your gripe, if I may ask? Thanks. -- Avi 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. "for those who wish to find fault with the State of Israel" -- we've been over this. Any "fault" is from the attributed Human Rights Groups, not the personal view of the editor. You need to work on not taking documentation of human rights issues as an individual assault from the editors working on such articles in good faith.

Humus Sapien's edit note: replaced Sarastro's cherrypicking of irrelevant groups with a variety of relevant ones, mention freedom of press within Israel)

the "irrelevant groups" he deleted were:

• Human Rights Watch
• Amnesty International
• The United Nations General Assembly
• The International Court of Justice
• Association for Human Rights in Israel

To say these groups are irrelevant is so funny it is hard to believe he actually expects anyone to take him credibly. Each group was followed with a specific reference to insure verifiability.

The "Freedom of the Press" is already in the main article. This out of context and isolated mention is inviting a lengthy examination of exceptions, which are already well documented. I don't see why it is helpful to go down this road. Your very smug response seems to indicate that you accept a bias issue in the section but are comfortable with it because you think the HR article contains "plenty of fodder." That viewpoint is not productive.

Sarastro777 05:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is my edit: [1]. Note how I added a variety of relevant links of the groups highly critical of Israeli govt. policies, rather than Sarastro's cherrypicked selection [2] of reports. Certain orgs have controversial relations with Israel (covered elsewhere: follow links), and issues of the conflict are also covered elsewhere. To say that freedom of speech does not belong to human rights section is ridiculous. Your constant efforts to besmirch Israel are duly noted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith & Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks Sarastro777 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Humus please refrain from personal attacks. I do not see any besmirching by any party other than yourself. Can we please focus on the improvement of this article and not attacking Sarastro777.--Oiboy77 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Said the thrice-blocked vandal. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The section on Human Rights in Israel is a joke, and censors any criticicism of the state of Israel by human rights groups. It even contradicts the main article on the subject, which includes statements giving a fair assessment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.40.24.189 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What follows is the paragraph I added in the Human Rights section to correct the obvious bias present there:

On the other hand, Amnesty International reported that in 2005 "The Israeli army killed more than 700 Palestinians, including some 150 children. Most were killed unlawfully — in reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian residential areas; in extrajudicial executions; and as a result of excessive use of force. [...] The Israeli army destroyed several hundred Palestinian homes, large areas of agricultural land, and infrastructure networks. Israel continued to expand illegal settlements and to build a fence/wall through the West Bank, confining Palestinians in isolated enclaves cut off from their land and essential services in nearby towns and villages. Israeli settlers increased their attacks against Palestinians and their property and against international human rights workers. Certain abuses committed by the Israeli army constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes [...] In August the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called for the revocation of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, passed the previous year and extended for six months in July. The law institutionalized racial discrimination. It barred Israeli Arab citizens married to Palestinians from the Occupied Territories from living with their spouses in Israel, and forced families to either live apart or leave the country altogether.".

I see no reason why User:Humus sapiens has deleted it. He justified this deletion telling that the article is not about "the conflict". Neither the AI report is (indeed, half of the cite is about a law enforced by the State of Israel, it's about domestic policy). Moreover, I find it quite absurd to consider the Human Rights' record of Israel irrespective of its role in the Occupied Territories and irrespective of the "little detail" that this country is unfortunately involved in a conflict with its Arab neighbours since its very foundation! I reversed the deletion. If I did wrong, please explain me why before redeleting it. --MauroVan 13:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Certain organizations have controversial relations with Israel (covered elsewhere: follow links), and issues of the conflict are also covered elsewhere. In particular AI is not a reliable source for such claims. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that "somebody" (ie: you and probably the government of Israel) consider Amnesty International to be unreliable (without giving any explanation of the reason why) doesn't mean that such a famous and widely known organization shouldn't be cited in Wikipedia. I think that other organizations (ie: the ones that you and the government of Israel like to quote) are much more unreliable (because they are strongly biased in favour of the USA and their allies, and I have an unverified theory on the reason why, too), and yet I didn't delete their astonishing statements from this article.

Moreover, as you can see on the same Wikipedia article you linked, AI is not being accused by anybody of falsification, it's just being accused of attacking democratic countries more than the others. Since I didn't quote a comparison between Israel and other countries (if we just want to understand whether Israel violates human rights, what Egypt does has no importance), these allegations simply don't fit in the debate.

You didn't give a good justification for your aggressive deletion, so my edit will be there again, and I really urge you to avoid deleting it again (that's what most people call an "edit war" and it's not allowed on Wikipedia). Let the readers decide if they feel AI deserves their confidence, and let the readers decide if they want to find by themselves some more information on this issue. Don't just prevent them from getting information because you believe you know what's best for them to read or not to read. Thank you very much and forgive my bad English. --MauroVan 08:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not represent the government of Israel. Unfortunately, AI's is one of groups (another is HRW) whose record towards Israel is highly controversial. Again, do not turn this article into one about the conflict. "Let the readers decide" is a really bad argument not worthy a response. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly waging an edit war. You just rewrote exactly what I already replied to, ignoring completely my lenghty explanation about why you should NOT delete those sentences. The fact that you and somebody else (who?) feel that AI is a "controversial organization" does not mean that they falsify their reports. If you think that, please explain why and AFTER THAT maybe delete the paragraph. I will not put the paragraph back because I am not a vandal. First you need to be blocked because you wage edit wars. AFTER THAT I will put the paragraph there. --MauroVan 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

First, the deletion by Humus Sapiens, so far, can not really be described as vandalsim. Please assume that he is acting in good faith. The problem is, however, that whatever the intentions, his edits are detracting from the completeness of the article. With reputable onganizations such as AI issuing reports on Israel like those described in the deleted section, not including their findings in the article is adopting a very specific POV.

That said, the section in question (as it stood when last included in the article) read like anti-Israel propaganda. It seems that information for this section was used very selectively. This material must be included so as not to show favoritism, but a substantial rewrite should be done by somebody that has a good deal of knowledge on the issue (not Humus Sapiens because of a clear bias). Markovich292 14:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a reasonable comment and I welcome it and its author. I didn't tell that User:Humus sapiens is vandalizing the article, I told that I don't want to vandalize it. I told that this user is waging an edit war since he deleted 3 times, with insufficient explanation, what he didn't like in the article, even if it's undeniably true at least that AI told that (indeed, he never questioned the truth of Amnesty International's assertions; in any case, I didn't tell that AI is right, I just stated that AI has stated something). I didn't let myself sucked into this edit war and I asked for a comment from outside, and everybody can find it below. One last thing - there can be two opposite explanations why the comment from Amnesty International can sound like anti-Israel propaganda:

1. Because Amnesty International is a bunch of Anti-Semites. I think that Anti-Semitism exists and I hate it with my deepest self. I'm currently trying to add Talk:Benito Mussolini to the Anti-Semitic People list on Wikipedia and I got involved in a sort-of-a-debate with some right-wing guys who argue that he didn't persecute Jews, which is a blatant lie. I'm very sensitive on this issue but I must tell that I never heard such an incredible story as Amnesty International being an Anti-Jew organization.
2. Because Israel really violates human rights, and Amnesty International tend to criticize sharply whoever does that.

Why should the easiest and less "conspiracy theory"-like explanation be ruled out? --MauroVan 15:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my vandalism comment wasn't meant for you. I thought I remembered accusations of him vandalizing this section higher up in the writing (turns out I was thinking of a different article, but same person).

Considering the sheer size and diversity of AI, there is no way to reasonably state that the organization is Anti-Semitic. Humus Sapiens is probably only referring to the allegations that they work more in democratic states (Israel included), as accuracy of their reports is never an issue. I have no doubt that any of the statements in the deleted paragraph are true, but my concern is still that the person who quoted from the report may have wanted to paint the worst picture possible. Other than that, I think that some of the ideas below are pretty good for a re-write. The only thing I disagree with is including the various "pro-Israel sources" that are critical of the human rights groups. The issue is well enough documented to stick to the facts and leave the criticisms section for the full article, Human rights in Israel. I hope this helps! :) Markovich292 16:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm here in response to MauroVan's request for comment. I recognize that you all know the subject matter better than I do, but can offer some suggestions.

1. In general, I think the goal of this section should be to offer a high-level summary of the information in the more specific Human rights in Israel article. I think in general, fewer quotes and a shorter, broad summary, would be good.
2. With regard to the UN and NGO criticism, the more specific article seems to say (1) some UN groups and NGOs are highly criticical of human rights in Israel but (2) various pro-Israel sources have accused those groups of bias. Is it possible to say something like that?
3. A lot of the UN and NGO criticism (although certainly not all) seems to focus around the Occupied Territories as opposed to Israel proper. Would it be helpful to have separate "Human rights in Israel" and "Human rights in the Occupied Territories" sections?

Thanks, and good luck, TheronJ 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you User:TheronJ, your response can be helpful if User:Humus sapiens accepts your advice. I am keen to follow most of your proposals, ie

1. Let's shorten the whole thing cutting away all cites in inverted commas.
2. Let's write in that section something like "Some UN groups and NGOs are highly criticical of human rights in Israel but various pro-Israel sources have accused those groups of bias".
3. Let's write in that section something like "A lot of the UN and NGO criticism (although certainly not all) seems to focus around the Occupied Territories as opposed to Israel proper".

I am not trying to depict Israel as a ruthless dictatorship with no freedom of speech etc. I know that this is not a truthful picture of the country. But you can't compare it to, say, Switzerland, nor can you forget the little detail of the Occupied Territories, the Wall (is it in the Territories or inside Israel? It is considered a human rights violation by many significant sources) etc.

Now let's see what User:Humus sapiens thinks about it. --MauroVan 15:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest something along the lines of your text, maybe:

Several UN groups and non-governmental organizations are highly critical Israel's human rights records, primarily with regard to Israel's laws regarding citizenship and conduct in the Occupied Territories. In response, various pro-Israel sources have accused these critics of bias.

Assuming that the other sources are reduced to a similar level of generality, the section would probably be a fairly good summary of the current Human rights in Israel article, and you could add 5 or 6 footnotes for people who want to see which groups have said what. Thanks, TheronJ 16:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is another good proposal, but I want to wait first for a reply by User:Humus sapiens because I don't want him to delete everything again. --MauroVan 16:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what's wrong with the current version. Referring to "some pro-Israel groups" is poisoning the well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also find the current version adequate. Let's remember that we are talking about a summary of a subarticle. If you followed the links that's already there, you'd see that they are quite critical of Israel's policies. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version (14:45, 29 Aug, last edit by Jebus1) seems like a reasonable summary to me. 6SJ7 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jayig that saying "some pro-Israel" groups is poisioning the well. I strongly object to the phrase. If we are going to use that phrase, why not call the UN and the NGOs "anti-Israel"? Elizmr 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be the only person to be critical of the current vesion, but I have one improvement suggestion. The human rights section in this article does a great job with accurately portraying Israel proper, but there is not an adequate summary of the "human rights in the occupied territories" section of the main article Human rights in Israel. For people that have not read this talk page and just refer to the summary of human rights on the Israel page, this does not give an accurate picture.Markovich292 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very critical of the current version (so, Markovich292, don't feel lonely), because it depicts Israel as a heaven-on-earth which is clearly a misrepresentation of the actual situation there. I wouldn't describe my own country in such terms, even if I live in a peaceful area of the world; it looks like somebody is consciously trying to conceal information not only on Israel but also on widespread opinions on Israel (information on opinions is just as important as information on facts). Anyway, I think I could accept something like "Some UN groups and NGOs are highly criticical of human rights in Israel but other sources have accused those groups of bias", it's indeed not necessary to tell that whoever denies any human rights violation by Israel is pro-Israel (the reader can figure it out by himself if he lives on this planet). I think I'm being very reasonable with the opposite side, therefore I'd like to ask: can we work out an improved version of the section now? New proposal:

1. Let's shorten the whole thing cutting away all cites in inverted commas: let's just turn them into links and write down a very brief summary of their general content ("These guys tell Israel has freedom of speech (link), these other guys tell they discriminate against Arabs (link)...").
2. Let's write in that section something like "Some UN groups and NGOs are highly criticical of human rights in Israel but other sources have accused those groups of bias" - thus we don't poison the well.
3. Let's write in that section something like "A lot of the UN and NGO criticism (although certainly not all) seems to focus around the Occupied Territories as opposed to Israel proper".

Does everybody agree? --MauroVan 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly - you keep using "tell" instead of "say". You tell someone about something ("I told him about the situation"), but you say things to no one in particular ("AI said the human rights condition is...").

The human rights section should make it clear that when it comes to human rights in Israel proper, the situation is comparable to other western countries, and is basically good, save for some discrimination is resource allocation against the arab minority, and some criminal issues, like human trafficking (which is also common in other countries, like the US).

The condition of human rights in the occupied territories is much worse, but it's a completely different situation, and should be discussed seperately (the same as you wouldn't discuss human rights in Iraq in the same sentence as the rights in the US itself, although they're all under american control).

If you discuss them in the same paragraph, your'e just giving the reader a flase picture.

BTW, I wonder (really - does anyone know?) - If an american woman marries an Iranian, or North Korean man, would he be allowed to live in the US? How about a Soviet man, during the cold war? okedem 09:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly - thank you for the advice on "tell" vs. "say", at last I'm understanding how it works! :-) English is not my mother tongue, as most of you could have noticed, therefore I apologize for my frequent mistakes.

I understand your point, but let me put some counter-arguments here:

1. Of course, while talking about human rights in the USA, it wouldn't be acceptable - in my opinion - to avoid mentioning Guantanamo or the occupation of Iraq. Of course, it should also be explained that the way Iraqis or alleged "terrorists" are treated by US forces in Fallujah or in Guantanamo is not the same way as American citizens are treated in Boston or Fargo. By the way, no country can preserve a democratic heaven in the motherland while violating peoples' rights in its "colonies".
2. The Occupied Territories for Israel is not exactly the same thing as Iraq for the USA. Iraq is in a different continent than Washington DC, but Israel has a fuzzy border with the Palestinian Territories; there are areas under Palestinian political control and Israeli military control, disputed areas, Palestinian areas where Israeli tanks enter whenever they want to etc. We can't forget the Israeli settlements in mostly-Arab areas (where many violations occur): is that Israel or not? Then we have the Israeli separation barrier: it's considered a human rights violation by different sources and it's not clear if it's inside or outside Israel...

About the marriage question: being allowed to live with your spouse is clearly a human right. In most democratic countries (I don't know in the States, but that's how it works in Europe), the spouse of a citizen gets either citizenship too or at least the right to live in the country. Israel allows in a big amount of people from all continents and yet it forbids Arab Palestinians to enter the country as full citizens. Your example, separation of families thanks to the Iron Curtain or the Berlin Wall during the Cold War, just supports my position, because I doubt anybody has every argued on a Wikipedia talk page that such a division improved human rights in Europe! This is not telling that it wasn't necessary, this is just telling that it was a human rights violation; maybe sometimes it is necessary to violate human rights, this is another issue and I'm not telling my opinion on that here. --MauroVan 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most of us have a mother tongue different than english. We just have to get by...

Well, when I say "Israel proper", I mean areas where the Israeli law is applied - i.e. - within the green line+Jerusalem and the Golan. Of ocurse the distinction is a bit fuzzier, what with the settlements and all, but still - Israeli citizens and residents live in a very different enviroment than the Palestinians, and the distinction between their conditions is important. An Israeli citizen enjoy an very good level of human rights, and that should be made clear.

The Seperation Barrier could, in part, be considered a violation, where it strays from the green line, into palestinian lands. It's important to note, in that regard, that Palestinians often turn to the Israeli court system for help in this matter, and the Supreme Court has often forced the government to change the path of the fence, to avoid harm to the palestinians' interests.

The marriage thing - I'm not saying it is or isn't a violation, but rather that I doubt Israel is unique in not allowing its enemies to come and live within it, and the Palestinians are, currently and unfortunately, Israel's enemies (their government is led by Hamas, an organization that has often called for the destruction of Israel). Israel does allow arabs from Egypt, or Jordan, to come and live with their Israeli spouses in Israel - it's not an Arab thing - it's because Israel is at war with the Palestinians. okedem 13:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's try and work on the article now. --MauroVan 11:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

MV, I found your version worse and full of editorializing. Already almost every line in the section mentions words like "criticism" or "discrimination", but some editors just don't know when to stop. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Your behaviour is absolutely unacceptable and you are clearly a mala fide vandal. You didn't make the smallest effort to respect the debate here. You're just always reverting to your "perfect" version every time somebody dares change it a little bit. I don't know which planet you live on, but here on planet Earth everybody knows that Israel is heavily criticised by many; you can agree or not, but it wouldn't be possible to write an article about this subject simply ignoring the opinion of billions of people. Similarly, since I live on planet Earth I also know that many defend Israel whole-heartedly, sometimes for noble but ill-targeted reasons (and I hope this is your case), sometimes with a more earthly motivation; that's why I would never try and hide the other side of the tale, at least here on Wikipedia (nobody's compelled to share the NPOV vision, I have a strong POV myself but that's how this site works). My version was very balanced, most cites were in favour of Israel, and everything was put in a doubtful light. Moreover, there's a talk going on here, you keep on ignoring it and this is not acceptable. The situation is going to escalate here until you accept that this is a wiki (therefore, people change what other people have written) and not your personal blog. --MauroVan 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The two versions are not that much different. The one you dislike uses chronological order and does not have your editorializing. It includes a lot of criticism and even scathing HRW report, but does not have the AI report (with wrong link you copy-pasted from another bad version). I (and many other editors, see above) wrote that this section is a wrong place to cover controversies such as the unreformed UN/AI/HRW. Try to stay cool and take a look at WP:VANDAL before throwing accusations around. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on comparing your revisions to all of the others I have seen, I have to say that I am given the impression that your goal is to cover up the majority of data regarding human rights in Israel and its territories. You have removed valid information, and aren't being reasonable about changing other people's edits. That said, we should keep the ratings you present on level of human rights (1, 5, 6, etc) if it is cited properly in the article. Just don't remove information that is unfavorable to Israel because you don't like it or don't believe it.

The last revision of this article that is by Davidoff (edit summary: this is not a government site) includes a great amount of info on both pros and cons of human rights. The revision by MauroVan (edit summary: Israel separation barrier --> Israeli separation barrier) was the most well organized. What do people think of combining the Human Rights section of these two versions? That is, some more of the facts from the first one and an organization pattern like the second one. Markovich292 11:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Markovich292's proposal.

I agree with Humus sapiens on two points. First, he's not exactly a vandal if one reads the definition of vandalism, he's just being unreasonably stubborn and he keeps on waging an edit war and escaping from sorting out the problems in the talk page. Second, the URL of the AI cite got lost in the war, the correct URL is http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/isr-summary-eng. This cite cannot be taken out of the article just because a few editors don't like this organization (along with the United Nations and other sources, elsewhere defined "irrelevant" by Humus sapiens).

There's a POV tag again on this section, I'm asking for arbitration from without. --MauroVan 11:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment that the "Human Rights" section should be a summary of the main article, and not contain info not present there. It should give the reader a concise explanation of the situation, and not delve into details. The cluster bomb reference, for that matter, is out of place, as it's about a particular incident, and not a general issue.okedem 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Okedem. MauroVan, everyone is entitled to their POV but I find your insistence on your version as unreasonable as your behavior here and I am not impressed by your namecalling. Including what AI calls "reports" will require us to talk about this org's bias in this conflict: Israel/Occupied Territories: Act Now! which in my and other's opinion (see above) strays far away from the focus of this article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that criticisms on human rights do not belong in a section entitled "Human Rights?" Can anybody say, "whitewash?" When you have an article about a nation as a whole, to be complete, everything about that nation has to be included even if it is unfavorable. Oh, and exactly how is that article supposed to prove that AI is biased against Israel? Relaying information about problems in Israel does not make somebody anti-Israel. AI has launched the same kind of campain to stop the US Government's [alleged] acceptance of torture, and that does not make them anti-US. Markovich292 00:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right, let's turn this into a soapbox for your righteous outrage. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, when people start making unfounded accusations like that, I find that they have nothing to support their position so personal attacks are what they resort to. Did you even read the "soapbox" page you directed me to? Here is a quote directly from it:

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable." Markovich292 01:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I am responding as an outsider to the controversy, as requested. This seems to me to be a simple case. In the vast majority of nations, Israel is regarded as highly controversial because of the persistant accusations that they violate human rights. The argument that all this criticism stems from anti-Semitism is not credible. The groups listed, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., are controversial, but anyone who follows the links will find the criticism of those groups. Therefore, the views of those groups should be included (and linked.) --ManEatingDonut 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually everything that ManEatingDonut states is not POV except the last sentence. It your POV that these facts should not be included in this article. I am afraid that wikipedia policy and guidelines are against you on this one. You are risking disciplinary action for your activity here. Markovich292 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Israel is regarded as highly controversial", oh please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That statement refers to the numerous reports from various organizations and governments, so it is more than just his POV. In this case, he is perfectly justified when he says "is regarded as highly controversial" because there are groups that call Israel a human rights violater, and there are people that oppose this assesment. Therefore, it is a controversial issue. Markovich292 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that anybody denying that "Israel is highly controversial" should not be writing on a page about Israel because he obviously ignores some very basic facts about how this country is considered in most of the planet. Saying that somebody is controversial doesn't mean to state that he is wrong, it just means that somebody likes him and somebody else doesn't. I'm a fervent supporter of Hugo Chávez and yet I would never deny that he's highly controversial, since many Venezuelans (although a minority) and many important governments (like the one led by a George W. Bush) accuse him of being a dangerous Communist dictator etc. User:Humus sapiens believes that Israel is not controversial and that the policies of its leadership are widely accepted and approved; his opinion, but this is a good example of "original research", something nearly nobody agrees with and absolutely not something that should appear on Wikipedia. 2 outsiders already gave their opinion and both agreed that Amnesty International should be added in the section, so let's proceed along the lines of those advices and please Humus sapiens don't revert it again because I really wouldn't like to demand some action to be taken against you.

PS: Even if I changed the version to the more neutral one, I left the Neutrality tag there because we still don't seem to be agreeing on the neutrality of the section.

PPS: The cites need to be reformatted, everybody so active in editing this section please find a moment to do that, too. --MauroVan 08:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the edit didn't last more than a few minutes. User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg couldn't resist reverting everything without writing a single line on the Talk page. The only thing we can do is asking for arbitration. --MauroVan 09:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(recovering from edit conflict) Without knowing what you're up to, I made an edit where I tried to find a compromise and incorporate some of your content to show an example of goodwill. Editorializing does not belong to WP. FYI, I ignored your inisinuations and threats for now. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, nothing short of arbitration huh? You've been here about 3 hours and you are acting as if you have tried every single possible option for dispute resolution, that in of itself is quite presumptuous. However, what really pushes it over the edge is the fact that you have arrived at this article and have attempted to practically rewrite it in its entirety from a single pov and included line after line of editoral-esque passages, and now you take on an incredulous tone because other editors here haven't kept it in its entirety. Furthermore, the person that you have targeted in almost every single post you have made to this page has himself agreed to keep some of your additions to the article, now please be understanding of the fact that this site must at least maintain the shell of neutrality so we can't take the explicit pov that you have in your article rewrite.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I have started my attempts to make this section a little less biased on August 25th, it's not 3 hours ago.
2. I didn't know that it works like in a barracks or in a college here... Do I get the right to tell my opinion and to edit an article only after a certain period? do I have to pass the freshman's quest first? what do I have to do, drink 3 liters of beer in a single night, sing naked on a cupboard? Please explain.
3. I did my best to solve this dispute but the other side didn't even try. Check the history of the edits and you will see that I'm telling the truth. I asked for mediation twice and I followed the advice given.
4. My version was not biased. I'm asking myself if you ever read it.
5. The problem is not that "other editors here haven't kept [my edit] in its entirety", the problem is that they (eg, you) have deleted it in its entirety. --MauroVan 13:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me as though you've exhausted all of the options suggested here - Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

I'm not aware of any mediators here - who are they? What did they say?

Your version was confusing, because it gave a false impression, as if Israeli citizens have serious human rights problems, and they don't. The only major issue is possible discrimination against the arab population, which is quite minor, and the government is working to stop it. Almost all of the criticism is about the territories, and that should be made clear. okedem 16:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to flood furtherly this page. Quickly:

• I don't think and I didn't tell that, eg, inhabitants of Tel Aviv have a serious problem with their human rights. On the opposite, my last proposal was to write that their condition is "comparable to Western standards". Sometimes it looks like most people here didn't read the proposal. "Almost all of the criticism is about the territories, and that should be made clear": I agree 100%, that's why I wrote exactly that. Check.
• You are right about the mediators. Indeed, I used the wrong word. It was not a formal mediation, rather a request for a comment from without. I couldn't ask for a mediation by myself, the policy states that "Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part" and that was not the case since the "pro-Israel" side (I hope it's OK if I use this shortcut definition) was arguing that there was no reason to change anything nor to find any mediation. --MauroVan 08:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Everybody check Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Human_Rights_in_Israel!

Hm. 10 minutes after I made a request for arbitration, Humus sapiens decided for the first time to include Amnesty International's criticism in his edit. This is a big step forward, because until now this user and his co-thinkers always did all they could to prevent any cite from Amnesty International and other blacklisted sources to appear on the page.

Unfortunately, the result isn't yet acceptable, in my opinion. Many de facto pro-Israel sources are quoted in length, while the only criticism is just given a link, followed by a sentence accusing the criticism to be biased. My proposal was to respect the advice we received from without, ie:

1. Keep it short.
2. Don't give direct cites in inverted commas, just tell the reader to check the main article or to follow the links.
3. Explain why it is a controversial issue and just introduce the different issues at debate.

If Humus sapiens wants to keep all his cites (I mean: those cites he likes so much) in inverted commas, we could simply add the cite from Amnesty International too. That was precisely my original edit, but nobody seemed to like it... --MauroVan 12:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I worked on a compromise without knowing what you were stirring. MauroVan, you seem to be very opinionated about the contents, the length, the cites, the inverted commas and about other editors and you have a lot to say. If I may suggest: tone your rhetoric down a little and don't make it into a personal vendetta. If the fact that several editors reverted your preferred version doesn't tell you something, reread what they say. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This section shouldn't exist. I examined many other countries' articles. There are only a few in existance and in all of them it is shorter as well. In Brazil, Vietnam, Iraq and others it is only listed in a "see also". There's no sense in listing this as a non "see also" but others on the "see also" starting from terrorism issue and so on. Remove, move to "see also" and deal with the article itself, is the only solution representing wiki policy. Amoruso 01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This section is unbelievably biased. There's no mention of any human rights abuses against either Arabs or Jews. What about Ammona? (video) HOw about the raid on Toldos Aaron in 1981, the raid on Meah SHarim in 1983, the French Hill Massacre, the 2005 Passover Raid against Satmer (there's video), the beatings of Jews protesting graves being uprooted where they used tazers on the protestors faces while they sat.(also video) The article is so biased it belongs in a Hassborah site not in an encyclopedia. 88.154.158.42 19:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Forcing civilians to leave their homes/country

Is considered terrorism. I added an NPOV-tag until this issue is resolved. --Daniel575 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

terrorism

1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the popuation of a state.

ANY QUESTIONS? --TheYmode 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if someone is trying to argue the IDF are terrorists for civilian deaths in Lebanon or if it is Hezbollah for the rockets. In either case, the definitions above hinge on the internal motive of the perpetrator. That is almost always hard to 'verify' and makes the label "terrorist" problematic and frequently based on the POV of the person using the word. 64.186.246.122 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the motive is important. There is no need to read their mind to verify it, just listen to what they say to learn there intent (the quote in the article). BTW the citation in the article is broken I think, here 2 with the same quote that works, I'll add them to the article later (or if someone want to add them feel free) [3] [4] --TheYmode 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So... I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with a factually accurate and less loaded term like "forcing civilians to leave" or "making civilians leave"? Could TheYmode or Daniel575 explain? Thanks. --Birdmessenger 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes it sound like there was no crime. It is a completely warped version of what happened. I do not know how else to explain this to anyone who does not understand. --Daniel575 22:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The term Terrorism IS factually and accurate in this case, its as simple as that. And calling it something else is POV. --TheYmode 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. --Daniel575 22:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

For better or worse, we are all obligated to justify our edits, even if they make common sense to you. And I appreciate your efforts to do so (sincerely).

I disagree that describing the situation as Hezbollah as trying to "force" Israelis to leave is "completely warped". Given that we provide a direct quote, why can't the reader be trusted to make up his or her own mind about the criminal nature of Hezbollah's intentions? --Birdmessenger 22:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So I guess we should remove the entire characterization "He further outlined his organization's strategy of terrorizing Israeli civilians into leaving their country", especially since the reference attached to it is a dead link. We don't really need a characterization one way or another; "We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis" is sufficiently vile (or, if you prefer, inspiring) that anyone can figure it out on their own. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've come up with a description which is accurate, but which doesn't use the contentious word "terrorising". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is somebody here actually trying to say that Israel is a terrorist state? No way this should be allowed. Ackoz 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, no, I don't think anyone's saying that right here. Actually, it was a question of how to characterize a specific statement by a Hezbollah leader. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Israel (and its precursor organizations - Irgun, etc.) use violence to intimidate innocent civilians from returning to their property so that it may be taken by Jews without compensation, for the political objective of creating a Jewish-dominated regime? Isn't this "terrorism" by dictionary definition? Where is the WP Official Policy that says we allowed to say that Osama bin Laden is a "terrorist" but not Israel? I guess it is an Unofficial Policy.24.64.165.176 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please. It is well documented that the official settlement lands were bought from their previous owners quite legally. While some radical settlers do use those tactics, they are not exactly acting on Israel's behalf. What do you think the Gaza evacuation was? Really, now. --Eliyak T·C 04:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

i agree that there are only a few israelis that do these things and that they dont act upon all of the isrealis behalf, but why is it that these few always seem to get into a position of power? Peace can only be created if israelis cooperate and the people in the government right now wont. so for all you israelis who claim not to be "zionists" its about time you do something about your country because it is causing the death of civilians on both the arab and israeli side Mac33c 15:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Haim Ramon Quote

This should be in the portion as much as the quote from the Hossein Safiadeen. Both are notable; unless of course you think it's NPOV to put in the quote that he said about justifying the killing of women and children and calling them terrorist as much as the Arab stating "They will not make Israel safe for Israelis."Volksgeist 13:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits by someone who states "Just because you are a Jewish" in an edit summary and accuses them of dual loyalty on their talk page will never, ever stay on this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So do you have a personal problem or can you respond to the question? Volksgeist 18:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've responded. Now, why don't you go defend apartheid or Adolf Hitler, or go rant about The Jews in the media and how the media is unfair to "white people", or go on about the kind of power Jews have over the US, or rant about how the "Jews of the world" are shoving "diversity" and "acceptance" down the throat of European peoples? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For someone with a German name translating roughly as "the people's ghost" I am not surprised. I already noticed his weird username immediately when he had just registered. --Daniel575 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "volksgeist" was some mystical notion about "the people's spirit", something the Nazis thought the "Aryan race" had an abundance of. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So, Jayjg, is your problem that the quote is accurate or that you simply have a personal problem with me? Volksgeist 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Our problem is with someone who has on multiple occasions expressed clear antisemitic thought. --Daniel575 18:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Does that not mean Mr Ramon did not state the quote at an Israel Security Cabinet meeting as Israel was bombing civilian targets in Lebanon? Volksgeist 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy that supports that, or is this just your POV? You can't just decide to disregard and attack a contributor because you have some personal animus against them. There are plenty of Editors on here who express clearly biased thoughts in other realms. I don't see any outcry against them, nor should there be as everyone's input counts. You can disagree with someone politically and still Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. I don't see that happening... very bad example from an Admin. Sarastro777 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, I would like you to check out this and the two things linked to there (July 1947 and November 1947). Also read this and also read this. That is my position. It is quite hilarious of you to accuse me of having a pro-Israel POV. If you check my talk page, you will see that Zionists threaten me and call me a poison, a dog, and other things. Your accusations of me being pro-Israel are plain hilarious. --Daniel575 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

On a different board I referred to people "here" (Wikipedia) having a Pro-Israel POV. You took this as a personal reference, which it was not. Your assumption that Daniel575 = "here" is equally hillarious :-) Sarastro777 22:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro777, I'm not sure what "political disgreement" you are referring to; are you referring to Volksgeist's beliefs that apartheid was wonderful, Hitler was great, the British and French started World War II, the Jews are forcing race-mixing on Europeans and controlling the United States? If so, I happen to disagree with that, but I don't view those as necessarily political positions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please cite something that is an example of how I think "Hitler was Great" or that the "British and French started World War II." You can see my contributions to articles and none of them are biased. Furthermore, this quote was in the article for at least a week before someone started throwing in NPOV and changed a lot of things (which I rewrote and still stand). The quote is in numerous sources and belongs here. You are removing it simply on the fact you do not like my opinions. Furthermore, from your history, you seem to have a pro-Israeli viewpoint, is that why are you removing the quote? Because you certainly don't want to value free speech if you feel on removing a citable quotation because you do not belief with the person who added it. Volksgeist 19:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"I don't get why Germany is blamed for the start of WW2 when the Soviets did the same. I would argue that France and the UK did by declaring war on Germany". [5] Now why don't you go and find a citation for your claim that the Uruguayan birth rate is low because of "the racial characteristics of the nation" Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You still have not answered me. Did the Haim Ramon not state the quote (and it is an acceptable contribution to the article) or are you simply removing it on your own personal bias of a wikipedia user? Volksgeist 19:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add this quote was in the article for a two weeks before someone decided to delete it. That's the RV. Volksgeist 19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And that's really the issue in this discussion, not what editors disagree with in entirely different articles. That's a distraction tactic from the point at hand. Sarastro777 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked me for a quote showing your claim that the British and French started WWII. I provided it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this quote should not be included in the article, because, veritable or not, it does not reflect the official standpoint of Israel in its conflict with Lebanon. The Israeli Defense Army's aim was all along to destroy Hezbollah's launching posts and eliminate its members. Unlike Hezbollah, the IDF warned the civilians in the areas it was about to bomb by means of leaflets dropped from aircrafts. The fact that many civilians didn't leave the attacked areas, for various reasons, and subsequently killed is another issue, and the death of civilians was unintentional. Therefore, using Ramon's slip of the tongue as a representation of Israel's standpoint puts it out of context. It is very curious indeed, Volksgeist, that you chose to quote this out of all the things said by Israel's political representatives, a quote which totally condratics the Israeli government's perception --Lividore 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

First, let's address your totally misconstrued and biased summary of leafletting. Civilians that were "fleeing" per leaflet instructions were blown up by the IDF using guided missiles, including at least one incident of an ambulance. Later Israel banned all vehicles South of the Litani river and targeted any violators. The routes of evacuation such as bridges were blown up along with other infrastructure preventing any civilians from fleeing. The fact that Israel dropped some leaflets made no effective difference to the civilians. You insinuate they stayed in a dangerous warzone completely by their own volition, which is one the largest stretches of imagination I have yet read on this "Encylopedia" Unlike the state of the art guided bombs and missiles given to Israel by the U.S., which are precise... Hezbollah had 40 year old Soviet missiles which basically point and shoot without any pinpoint accuracy. Even if we discount this, they additionally do not have an airforce like Israel, again a la the United States. So no mechanism to drop propaganda on the soil of sovreign foreign countries nor any way to know precisely where the missiles would land... so no area to leaflet even if they had the means and the desire.

But as you said, that is another issue. Why would it be curious to quote a State Official that said ""Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hezbollah." [[6]] That's an extremely belligerant and controversial statement. It's notable at the very least because of his positions as Minister of Justice and Minister of Internal Affairs, not to mention because of the content. Your position is nothing can be cited unless it is publicly passed by the Knesset as an official policy? I'm sorry, but that position is not supported by any Wikipedia guidelines. Sarastro777 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, Sarastro, we are also going to include some of this: "If they go from Sheba'a, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine...[Jews] can go back to Germany or wherever they came from.” (Hassan Ezzedin, Hezbollah spokesman) And this: Secretary-General Nasrallah’s official stance is that “Israel is an illegal usurper entity, which is based on falsehood, massacres, and illusions, and there is no chance for its survival.” And this: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel." Next we also have this one: Nasrallah said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle." So if you insist on including out-of-context quotes by Israeli politicians, we are also going to include these. Feel free to put Haim Ramon's quote back. But if you place it back, be aware that these quotes are going to be placed next to it. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you are threatening retaliatory vandalism because you disagree with what is clearly a relevant quote. Is it supposed to punish me personally that you say you are going to put a quote from Nasrallah? I am really confused by what you are trying to prove here other than you have a very strong bias. Sarastro777 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So what it looks like is the reason certain people do not want the quote in is because of a personal bias towards myself. Furthermore, it seems the people complaining about it also seem to be ones who are members of Jewish groups on Wikipedia. Is because the quote displays Israel in a negative light is somehow not appropriate? Volksgeist 00:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Jew-haters get short shrift on Wikipedia. Get used to it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So, I guess, NPOV does matter if the original article has something to do with Judaism or Israel? Is the NPOV only for article not relating to the aforementioned? Volksgeist 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My $0.02....first and foremost, in this case I think Volksgeist's credibility is irrelevant. The fact is that the quote in question is validated in major media (though I suspect it lost something in the translation) and I think we would need more factual grounds to keep it out. My recommendation would be to include it in a fashion that recognizes its context...a cabinet meeting discussion where the speaker's views were not adopted as the majority. A suggested inclusion: "Haim Ramon, the Israeli justice minister, fueled controversy and opposition to Israeli military actions when he said that 'Everyon in Lebanon etc etc.' The official Israeli position, however, remained one of attacking specific Hezbollah targets, some of which were in civilian areas." Schrodingers Mongoose 03:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rewrote the included quote and placed it inline with the comments from Hezbollah (this should appease both parties). They seem to go in par with each other. I've realized that when it comes to articles relating to Israel and Judaism, Wikipedia is hardly a place for a NPOV as articles will be reverted and Wikipedia administrator members of the "Judaism project" on Wikipedia will swoop in lock/delete/ban/whatever. Volksgeist 13:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk about WP:AGF -- Avi 13:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Volksgeist, you did not rewrite anything. You placed it back exactly as it was. The rest of what you are talking about is a big hallucination. As I said before, I am a virulent anti-Zionist who thinks Zionism is the biggest evil in the world. Zionism defiles the entire world with its impurity, Zionism causes wars, bloodshed and tragedies. The cursed Zionists, may their names be wiped out, such as Theodor Herzl, were atheist criminals, dirty traitors to the Jewish people. I do not want Israel to remain in existence, it should be dismantled as soon as this is practically feasible and replaced by a UN government. This is what those rabbis whom I consider to be the biggest Jewish leaders ever have determined. It is just laughable of you to accuse me of having a pro-Zionist POV. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I accused you of nothing. This is getting ridiculous, the quote was in the article for weeks and suddenly everyone that is part of the "Judasim project" here on Wikipedia keeps deleting the quote. It's verifable and should be included in the article, I have yet to hear a reason why it is not except by some idiot's personal bias. As I stated eariler it's quite obvious that anything having to do with Jews and Israel here is kept on a tight leash if it portrays them in anything that may be considered negative. Volksgeist 14:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not wanting input from Jew-haters into Jewish-related articles is hardly "some idiot's personal bias". Since you've expressed your position regarding Jews so clearly, it should hardly be a surprise that your contributions are looked at with skepticism and disgust. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a problem that the article is virtually controlled by an iron curtain, all of users of which are part of some sort Judiasm project on Wikipedia. Seems like a conflict of interest as well. I guess that's how "the tribe" operates, independent of the nation stupid enough to take them in. Soon they will find themselves destitute and finaically ruined as Spain was by "the tribe." Volksgeist 18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Volksgeist, you did. And you're doing it again. How many times do we have to repeat that this quote is a misrepresentation? It was one minister's opinion. It is not and was not and has never been the official opinion of the Israeli government. The way it was written and the way you want to put it back makes it sounds as if it is. It is not. That is a misrepresentation of the facts. Yes, Ramon said that. And the other cabinet members do not agree. It is not Israel's official policy. If you clarify that, it would change things. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe. Bombing women, children, civilians, etc and then going "wait, it's not government policy?" Whatever. They (Israel) are the sole reason they are in this situation but I'm sure others will have to fight, die, and pay for it for them. Volksgeist 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They (Israel) are the sole reason they are in this situation but I'm sure others will have to fight, die, and pay for it for them.

— Volksgeist, 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the above is WP:OR, and is not grounds for adding something to the article. -- Avi 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The above (18:41) is plain antisemitism. Any credibility Volksgeist ever had was just thrown out of the window. This is it. Volksgeist, just as a final desperate measure, take a look at this letter by Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum to a member of the British parliament. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How is saying Israel will get others to fight, die and pay for it for them... how is that anti-semitic (Is the nation of Israel a religion)? Do you not see the billions the United States gives Israel each year? (Even though their living standard is first world.) Volksgeist 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What I see is that you are seeing complot theories on Wikipedia, talking about 'nations stupid enough to allow the Jews in', and 'how the Jews ruined Spain'. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Back on Topic

Please, this section is for discussing the Chaim Ramon quote, not attacking User: Volksgeist

So the issue at hand:

Pro:the quote was made by an official during an official meeting and is notable and verifiable

Con:the quote does not represent official Israeli policy and therefore cannot/should not be included.

We need to come to a consensus on the above and stop the petty bickering/namecalling. Sarastro777 19:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you intend to say that Volksgeist neads to quit throwing around complot theories about Jews on Wikipedia, claiming that countries that let Jews in made a mistake, and that Jews ruined Spain? --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, on topic. The quote can be included if it is accompanied by a clarification that the rest of the cabinet does not agree, and that this is not and has never been the official government policy. In which case I do not see why it should be included in any case. As I said before, if this quote should be included, some nice Hezbollah quotes should also be included. They are as irrelevant as this one. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your guideline presumes that readers are going to assume a quotation from one minister represents official policy. I don't see this as being the case, or something that is assumed in other articles. The Hezbollah stuff belongs in a different discussion that is not about Chaim Ramon. 64.186.246.122 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about Ramon either. It is equally irrelevant. Add the Ramon quote and I will add Hezbollah quotes about all Israeli citizens having to die etc. Or don't add it and I won't add anything either. I would prefer the latter. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well clearly notable items related to Israel belong in the article about Israel. Obviously Ramon being a Gov't Official in an official meeting meets this criteria. So is your viewpoint really that you think it is irrelevant, or it is just not notable enough to include? Please stop the quid pro quo threats. I am not interested in discussing irrelevant (to Chaim Ramon), Hezbollah quotations with you in this thread. Sarastro777 20:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither am I interested in this whole thing. We leave the quote out and we present the official stance held by both (well, all) sides in the conflict. No problems then. We are not going to include extreme statements by leaders on both sides which are not official policy. Problem solved, right? --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If Israel's justice minister does not constitute an offical stance, then why is their a quote from "Hezbollah's envoy to Iran" on there? Certainly it looks like there is an Israel policy to virtually destroy Southern Lebanon as there is of Hezbollah to make life unpleasent in Northern Israel.Volksgeist 20:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Argh, do I really need to explain this?? The TASK of an envoy is to convey the POSITION OF HIS MASTERS. That is the whole purpose of an ENVOY. So yes, if Hezbollah's ENVOY says such a thing it is RELEVANT. Just like that if Israel's ambassador to the US says something it is RELEVANT. Because his words ARE assumed to be Israel's official government policy. I cannot believe that I am actually explaining this. Please go learn basic international relations and politics and come back afterwards. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I commend you for your patience. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's use your logic. "You can't include quotes by Hezbollah because they don't represent the official policy of Israel." The argument you are making for deleting the quote is that only official policy of Israel can be included, but yet you admit to breaking that guideline by having other quotes. Obviously what you really believe through your actions and what is substantiated by policy, is a requirement for notability and verifiability. Both of these requirements are meant by the Chaim Ramon quote. Not liking the contents does not entitle you to suppress the POV of a major official. Sarastro777 20:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you idiot, I never wrote that. Grow a brain. You are really acting like your brain is in your behind. And I am not going to apologize for this. You are completely twisting my words around and lying about what I said. I said that we should either include no statements by Israel or Hezbollah officials which are not official policy, or we include them both by Israeli and Hezbollah officials. Not only Israeli remarks and no Hezbollah remarks. You, apparently, fail to understand what I am saying here after I explained it at least five times. Grow a brain. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Haim Ramon to quit over sexual misconduct charges: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5262884.stm Volksgeist 14:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so what? This article isn't about the news. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ramon quote does not belong in this article, since this article is about Israel, and not about Ramon (however it might be a good idea to put the quote in the article about Ramon, if there is one). Similarly, the article does not need to be flooded with quotes by Nasrallah about Israel and Judaism. Those quotes belong in Hizballah (where they do indeed appear) and/or Hassan Nasrallah where *checks* they also appear. Anyway, the only quotes that would be relevant here would be by military policy makers such as Olmert, Peretz and Halutz. Other quotes may be of note, but only in relation to the individual making them. - LeaHazel 14:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel's Military

How does Israel's Air force and Army compare with Canada's? Which one is better, which one is better funded? Israel does not have a Navy right? Jamesino 18:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel has a navy, that's what was blockading the ports of Lebanon. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli navy is not a separate part of the military, I believe. You have only the IDF - Israel Defense Forces - and the IAF - Israel Air Force. The navy is part of the Army, formally. I believe it is the same way in China. Don't take this to court, I'm not sure of it. --Daniel575 18:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no. There are three seperate arms of the Israeli military - army, air force and navy. The IAF is an integral part of the IDF (the whole military). okedem 21:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How does Isreal's overall military power compare with Canada's? Jamesino 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, because while Israel has and is allowed to have nukes, Canada has no nukes. What's the point having a weapon that you can't use? "you can use nukes" lol use it and see what happens. This is 2006 86.138.21.180 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you discussing Canadian military? Its totally irrelevant to this topic. What you should be discussing is why the US will "allow" Israel to have nuclear war heads and are so against the Iran even developing nuclear energy.

Hi Jamesino...there is no comparison between the Israeli and Canadian militaries. Israel's battle-hardened armed forces are among the best trained and best supplied in the world. Canada's military, by contrast, lacks the strength and combat capability of many nations with less than 10% of its wealth and resources. Even without the nuclear issue, Israel is still militarily worlds ahead of Canada. Factor in Israel's nuclear weapons capabilities and the comparison becomes even more ludircously lopsided. Put another way, Israel's armed forces are certainly among the 10 most formidable in the world. Canada's would likely not be in the top 50 by most standards. Hope this gives you some idea. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the existance of Israel's nukes was never made official by the government, rather, it's just a "ghost weapon", to be used as a deterrant for any WMD usage upon it. To answer the above's question, Israel has never said that an entire country, or race should be killed, Iran has. Iran is run by a religious leader, which is never good news, wheras Israel is a democracy. Israel has never publically and completely persued a goal through ways unbecoming a democractic nation (I'm sure that many people will stand up tall and say "MOST CERTAINLY NOT, DEAR SIR!" but I've been around this country for a few years, and I know that if anyone messed up during a war, he pays for it afterwards, unlike Iran, where he is praised for it. Sendare

Where has the leader of Iran suggested killing an entire 'race' (I thought race didn't exist?) of people? Here's an interesting URL I found, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm "Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?" Volksgeist 20:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See the article on mahmud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad and I quote from the article: "According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to Israel as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world" that would be eliminated." I would say that saying that something "has to be eliminated" rarely means that the people should be whisked away with first class airplane tickets and flown to the french riviera. The person has denounced the existance of the Holocaust, he has called for the destruction of Israel, which is why he supplied Hizbollah with money and weapons, they are an indirect arm of execution for him, meaning that he can damage Israel without being "directly" linked to the damage, just like he can't be literally caught calling for the destruction of Israel. Just because someone doesn't spell anything out doesn't mean that he didn't say it, put 2 and 2 together, it's not hard. Stop being overly objective and neutral, because at situations like these, you don't need all that much personal judgement to see the truth. By the way, I respect the fact that you want to remain neutral, but neutrality tends to be overrated, especially when it comes to words that come from the mouths of politicians. Sendare

Mongoose.....I dont care to compare Canada/Israeli armies....but ake away the $5 billion in arms the US supplies Israel every year and we will see how big there army really is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.106.164 (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, it was around $3B, of which something like 2-2.5 comes back to the US and supports the US economy, but I could be misremembering. -- Avi 14:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's $1.8 billion, and I believe most of it is used on American products. Other than military equipment, many simple things in the IDF is often bought from US firms, such as some office equipment, water coolers, etc. I don't know why items exactly are US-made though. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So, Avi, what you want to say is that Israel receives $3B aid from the USA. 2-2.5B happens to be spent on US products. It is still a gift of $3B to Israel and an (inefficient) subsidy of the US economy. Tobi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.112.179 (talk • contribs)

let me clarify things...it is around $3 billion a year, but they also recieve another 3 bil from indirect aid, so you can say that israel gets a bit more than $5 bil a year from direct/indirect aid from the US. In 1967 99% of US foriegn aid went to israel...coincidentally around the same time as the 6 days war. now, israel recieves roughly 1/3 of the entire US's foriegn aid budget, an outrageous number, especially considereing israel only occupies .001% of the worlds population. since 1941, an estimation of around $95,000,000,000 has been given to israel, according to the AICE. (american-israeli cooperative enterprise. not only is this costing american taxpayers a large sum of money, it also violates american laws. "Israel is to be a military stronghold, a client state, and a proxy army, protecting US interests in the Middle East and throughout the world" -Matt Bowles

It basically works as a subsidy to American arms manufactuers, the US gives the money to Israel with a provision that Israel spends it on American arms, even if Israel has better domestic ones (which they often do) so you really can't seperate the subsidy without the provisions to how it is being used. Anyways the money is just a fraction of what Israel spends on its military (which comes from normal domestic sources) so even without the subsidy Israel would still have one of the best financed armies in the world. By the way, if you count up all the money that the US gives to potential enemies of Israel (like Egypt and Saudi Arabia) you would find that it dwarfs the amount that Israel gets.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

that is most definitely not true. let me put things this way...america gives israel the most money annualy. another thing...if you run a store, and every customer you recieve, you give them money to buy your products...does that make any sense at all? domestic sources...come on now, all im saying, is that without the US israel's military is nothing.

Please remain on topic, that is how to better this article. This is not a discussion forum. Thank you for your consideration. See WP:TALK and WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that the only thing you have to contribute to this talk page?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Israel is allowed to have nukes" not according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, they are outside of the non proliferation treaty, same boat as North Korea, Iran, ect. but no one seems to like to mention that fact. August 23rd JustinMcL

• They're not signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, so they're not bound by it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Israel has nukes" comes from foreign sources, most of these unverified. The Israeli government never declared it has nukes.

well then, dont you think america should run in an destroy the country looking for them like iraq?

As noted, they are outside the nuclear non proliferation treaty (in other words, they never signed it) and by no stretch of imigination is Israel allowed by any international body to have nuclear weapons JustinmclSeptember 3rd

There has never been an official government statement confirming it, but Shimon Peres confirmed it in a speech about eight or nine years ago IIRC. He was roundly condemned for doing so (and IMHO he should have been thrown out of office for it, and perhaps even been imprisoned), but the cat is now out of the bag. Zsero 07:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The State of Israel's armed forces can't be compared to Canada's for two main reasons: The IDF is a conscript force, Canada's is a volunteer force. In short, that means Canada's is superior, on average. In theory, everyone in the Canadian armed services wants to be there. This is not so in the IDF. Second, the IDF has a much lower combat to support troops ration as it is also ment to serve the function of hemoganizing a ethnically and ideologically diverse population as well as providing defence against outsiders. Most Israeli soldiers are "jobniks" who's main reason for being there is to interact with other Israelis from other backgrounds for three years and to be instructed on how to be valid Zionists first and whatever other identity they have second. 88.154.158.42 17:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 conflict section

Firstly, it should not be its own sub-section, any more than the Yom Kippur war and the 1982 conflict are their own sections. Secondly, it is inconsistent with the main article. It is suffering from the conflict being so recent. This should be dramatically cut down, following the pattern of all of the other conflicts. We have a main article for a reason. -- Avi 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's logical, since Wikipedia didn't exist in 1973 and 1982. I think this phenomenon is unavoidable. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand why it happened, but I believe we should restore the symmetry and balance. Summary-style and all. -- Avi 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I was pleased to find this sub-section exactly as it is, and it felt very natural balanced to me. I came to the Israel page looking to learn about the history of Isreal, and specifically how that history relates to the current conflict. I suspect the vast majority of visitors to this page will be interested in similar information. The current layout gave me exactly what I was seeking, and the fact that the current conflict is highlighted in its own section seems perfectly reasonable in light of its current importance to readers. No doubt, in another 5 or 10 years, this conflict will be no more important than other conflicts of other decades, and the section can be rebalanced at that time to account for the changing perspective. Drwr 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That is why we have wikilinks. Clicking on the blue/purple 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is just as good, and does not disrupt the flow of the text. -- Avi 03:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel

"28% of the land was already bought and owned by Zionist organizations plus additional private land owned by Jews[citation needed]." Could an administrator please either (1) allow me to edit numbers out of a beginning of a sentence, or (2) do it herself? Gracias.

Israel, why have you violated the cease fire five days after it started? I know some israeli is gonna come and delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.234.154 (talk • contribs) 15:36, August 19, 2006

^ ! !

Are you under the impression that the Israeli consulate reads Wikipedia talk sections?

• What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said previously, we should have pro Israeli view and pro Arab view. Even though they are both points of view, they would neutralize each other due to both being included. ≈MrBobla 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, we should have facts. Also, it's a bit ignorant to say "pro-Israeli and pro-Arab" as though the two are in conflict. Arabs enjoy more rights and a better standard of living in Israel than they do in any of its neighbours. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

According to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan Israel's raid violated the U.N ceasefire agreement. Volksgeist 02:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• And you put it in the article, thank you. Why are you pointing it out here also? It's certainly an uncontroversial addition. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That belongs in the main 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article, not here. -- Avi 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the person who keeps changing that Israel violated the ceasefire to "violations have occurred" a bit misleading. It's been all over the news the violations have been on the Israeli side, it's a bit ridiculous to say "although violations have occurred," I would appreciate if you stop changing it. I know you're from Israel but lets be real here, even the UN is upset about this one. Volksgeist 21:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, but as has been pointed out, your Jew-hating comments have made every edit you do here suspect. Perhaps you shouldn't have outed yourself so thoroughly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That does not mean Israel's cease-fire violations have not occurred and does not mean that my edits are not truthful. How am I any more biased then someone with 9 different wikipedia Judaism stars and resides in Israel? The bias in the same. To say "although cease-fire violations have occurred" is ridiculous and I saw this coming when Israel's violations occurred. The Jews and Israelis here will not allow anything that puts them in a negative light. It's quite obvious there is also a disproportional amount of administrators with the above. Volksgeist 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been Israeli violations, and there have been Hezbollah violations. to mention only the Israeli ones is POV. Isarig 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to have heard any in the news or I would of added them. Even Annan's statement only talked about Israel's raid and the airstrikes, where are the ones about Hizbollah? Volksgeist 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't read much, do you? Or rather, you are quite selective in what you read. Here you go, boy: [7][8]

[9] [10] Isarig 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrm... (aug15th) "UP to a dozen rockets have been fired at Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon, the army has said, in what Israel has called a violation of the hours-old ceasefire in the area." Rockets in Southern Lebanon? Is that part of Greater Israel yet? Why did the UN not issue a statement about it being a violation? They were pretty quick when Israel invaded Lebanon again in a raid and then issued air strikes. Way to go Israel, bombing a nation back into oblivion. It's quite obvious in this whole incident that Israel has escalated it far out of control and continues todo so. This megaphone software must be working great...The userpage of most of the administrators here usually spells most of it out. Volksgeist 10:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum. If you want to argue over Israel's actions, go find an appropriate political forum, or open a blog. This isn't the place. okedem 11:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but I was responding the sponsors who keep changing Israel's blatant ceasefire violations to "although ceasefire violations have occurred." It's quite obvious they don't want the fact that Israel has violated them in the main article and I doubt you're no exception hailing from Tel Aviv. Nothing on Judaism or Israel on Wikipedia is unbiased because of the overwhelmingly disproportional amounts of administrators. Volksgeist 13:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse you me... Are you asserting that there is an "overwhelmingly disproportional amounts of administrators" that are Jewish? Even if that was the case, in Wikipedia we do not discuss an editor's religion, political views, or otherwise. See WP:NPA that reads in reference to personal attacks that: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" is a personal attack, and not allowed in this project. Comment on the edits, and not on the editor. OK? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe an editor from Israel is going to post unbiased accounts of the Israel-Lebanese conflict and the edits in this forum have backed this up. Furthermore, there is a disproportionate amount of Jewish administrators on Wikipedia and I think there is a reason many consider Wikipedia to be biased with certain subjects, namely Israel. Volksgeist 04:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)1

You just keep burying yourself deeper. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing Wikipedia with a newspaper. Wikipedia reports what other reputable sources have reported, not original accounts. Thus, the nationality of the editors doesn't matter. And I remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks - editors' nationality or religion is NOT an legitimate issue here. okedem 06:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You do not understand what a "ceasefire" means (or rather, you understand very well, but pretend to be obtuse so as to bash Israel). A "Ceasefire" means you stop shooting. when a ceasefire is reached while one side is occupying part of the other side's land, and shooting by that other side, even if it is wholly within its land, is a vioaltion of the ceasefire. It's actually a good question to ask why the UN did not issue a statement regarding this vioalation. It speaks volumes about the UN's lack of objectivity. Isarig 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not for us to say, however. Surely the UN is the appropriate judge on whether its own resolution is being abided by, no? john k 16:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and we can say "Kofi Anan said..."; that's not the same as "The UN said", I don't think, since neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly has made such a determination. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting to note that Volksgeist has completely failed to respond to Isarig's links, but continues to make personal attacks on administrators and any users who disagree with his baseless view. I am left questioning if he should be allowed to edit any pages on wikipedia anywhere, and would suggest an IP ban. But I have no actual pull here; that's just my view.

For the record, I am Jewish and I live in Jerusalem; but Iagree with Volksgeist. The violations from reputable sources have all been from the Israeli side. No Hezbollah rocket fell on Israel since the ceasefire, but Israel has raided Lebenon. He's right, and his opinion on Jews is his own business and doesn't detract from him being correct on this issue. It's also annoying that any article on Judaism or Israel on wikkipedia is constantly patrolled to make sure nothing critical or even not approving of Zionism last long. 88.154.158.42 18:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

i agree...israel today wont accept any criticism whatsoever. Dan Gillerman was very disappointed in kofi annan when he said he didnt believe that the attack on the UN observitory was unintentional. kofi annan was destroyed by pro israeli politicians and he was forced to keep his mouth shut. Mac33c 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations pages

Please see Israel-Venezuela relations and Israel-New Zealand relations. They could both use the perspectives of Israelis. There appears to be a revived movement to merge the Israel-Ven relations page into Foreign relations of Venezuela so I urge other users to vote against this. Respectfully, Republitarian 19:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Israel" -> "State of Israel"

How about moving the title of the article to State of Israel....to be, you know, precise? Paul 02:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

State_of_Israel already redirects here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, actually. Bibically, "Israel" refers to the Jewish people, not to the country. Sneech2 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See the Coat of Arms of Israel. It has one word: Israel. Are we now renaming all the country articles to whatever is their official name? If so, why start with Israel? For Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, we have article Jordan, for Arab Republic of Egypt - Egypt, for Syrian Arab Republic - Syria, for Italian Republic - Italy. Shall we continue? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to move the article. Most people will look for Israel, and those looking for State of Israel will find it as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that, as Sneech says, "Israel" has a major meaning entirely independent of the State of Israel is worth considering, and makes the case different from those of the other states mentioned. That being said, I think that ultimately most people looking up "Israel" will be looking for the state, and moving the article is unnecessary. A disambiguation notice at the top, which is already present, seems sufficient. john k 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. -- Avi 15:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Detail of 2006 conflict in this article

This article is supposed to be about the State of Israel. There should be short entries about each war, with wikilinks to the specific articles. This is not the place to start copying every detail from the 2006 conflict article, that is why we have it, and its myriad daughter articles. -- Avi 14:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In the last few months, there are incessant attempts to turn WP into a blog which it is not. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Over-swift reverts by ==

I am concerned that some of my edits are being reverted by pro-Israeli forces within 1 minute of them being written and I am being accused of undue POV. I suggest that due consideration has not been given.

I was attempting to provide balance about the Lebanon-Israel war. Ar present it appears that the only casulaties have been Israelis (mentioned 4 times I think: my attempt to mention Lebanese casualties was immediately deleted. Johnbibby 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The article Lebanon does not have an extensive section on Israeli casualties, why should this article have one about Lebanese? But if you ask my opinion, the 2006 conflict should take up only a few lines in this article, not several paragraphs like it does now. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been working on Lebanon so I can't really comment. I suggest that 'both articles should show balance - it's not that each one is meant to balance the other article! (However, maybe the whoel lot should be in the Israel-Lebanon conflict 2006 article.

(But my main comment was that my revisions had been removed without due consideration.) Johnbibby 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What about revisions ADDED without due consideration?

Dear Anon. (please sign in future -thanks!) Oh I agree - there are lots of those! Johnbibby 16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

State of Israel

This should be redirected to the State of Israel with Israel being a disambiguation page with links to other articles.סרגון יוחנא 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No it should not. Pls. see above #"Israel" -> "State of Israel". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

lutherians

is in israel a lutherian church? simon mayer.

Needs a major clean up

This talk page is 90% bickering. It's about time that most of this was wiped clean. It's difficult to see any reasons for edits among all the PoV comments. If you want a chat room go meet in one but try to use this page for discussing the content of this entry rather than your own agendas. Candy 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Israel"

The current (29 Aug 06) version of the article states:

In an interlinear, literal translation of Genesis 32:28, the first mention of the word "Israel" in the Bible reads as follows: "And-he-is-saying not Jacob he-shall-be-said further name-of-you but rather Israel that you-are-upright with Elohim and with mortals and-you-are-prevailing." Thus one literal translation of ישראל, Israel, is "Upright (with) God" (ישר-אל; Ishr-al).

The link after the translation merely goes to the Hebrew Wikisource text of that verse. No justification is given for that particular translation, although there is some talk of it in the archives of the June 2006 Discussion page. I believe that this translation is in error, because that editor confused the root "yod-sin-resh" (which is the root which appears in the word "Yisrael") with the root "yod-shin-resh" (which does mean "upright" but is NOT in the word "Yisrael").

The Wikipedia article on Genesis offers several links to recognized translations. Here is how our verse appears in five of them:

Jewish Publication Society: ... thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

The Living Torah: ... You have become great (sar) before God and man. You have won.

Judaica Press: ... you have commanding power with [an angel of] God and with men, and you have prevailed.

New Revised Standard Version: ... you have striven with God and with humans, and have prevailed.

King James Version: ... for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

I find it difficult to choose from among these translations, and it would probably be a violation of Original Research if I tried to. Plus, I find the previous current "interlinear, literal translation" to be so convoluted as to be useless. I am therefore going to delete this paragraph, and merge important parts of it into the previous one. Anyone who disagrees with me, please discuss it here.

Thanks. --Keeves 02:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't like the tone of your commentary and find it both small-minded and poorly researched. In point of fact, you've deleted material that was both clearly provided in good faith and source-cited. The "Interlinear Scripture Analyzer" (ISA) that is made freely available at http://www.scripture4all.org/ was directly quoted...at least, until you destroyed that quote. Your "edit" borders on vandalism, and you're all too obviously relying on the fact that the vast majority of English-speaking people do not read Hebrew and thus will not try to catch you at it. The sub-word in "Israel" ישר does in fact mean "upright," as any Biblical Hebrew dictionary can confirm. As further evidence, according to the above analyzer, the word ישר translates exactly 30 (thirty) times as "upright" in the Bible. --66.69.219.9 20:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my tone. I sincerely apologize. I hope you won't mind if we set aside discussion of the ISA for now, as I'd like to ask you about the second half of your comments. Specifically, I do not dispute your claim that ישר means "upright". I only dispute (what seems to be) your claim that it means "upright" regardless of whether the ש is a sin or a shin. My claim (based not on the analyzer, nor on translations, but on my personal knowledge of the Hebrew language) is that ישר means "upright" only when the ש is a shin, and not when it is a sin, such as in the name "Yisrael". Please respond. Thank you. --Keeves 23:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do mind, as I can not so quickly set aside the use of citations, which the ISA-sourced quotation certainly is. Neither Wikipedia's Biblical_Hebrew_language nor Hebrew_square_script makes any meaningful distinction between shin and sin; in fact, the latter uses them as two names for a single character. Perhaps you can source your claim. Otherwise, since, as you say, your claim is based on your own original research, I think the matter is essentially settled unless you can source your "personal knowledge of the Hebrew language" in a relevant fashion per the above. In any case, the text should be restored rather than unjustifiably pre-empted such as you have done. Your claims regarding lack of citation in the first post on this topic were clearly wrong at best, or intentionally misleading at worst. --66.69.219.9 00:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(First, I sincerely thank you for this calm discussion rather than just changing my edits to your version.) Okay, I downloaded and installed ISA, and looked at this verse, and I still couldn't see your point of view. I clicked on the Hebrew word above "shrith", and got a box which led me to two verses (1 Ch 12:39 and our Gen 32:28). Looking at the links, it occurred to me that ISA seems to be based purely on spelling, while ignoring the various word forms. Granted, that might be an unfair jump-to-conclusion, but then I saw your post here, where you wrote: The sub-word in "Israel" ישר does in fact mean "upright," This confirms my suspicion! You are looking at the three letters ישר as a single root-word meaning upright. And I agree that ישר does mean upright. But that's not how it is used in this context! The י is not part of the root here, but is part of the verb construction. The root is merely שר (meaning prince) and the י makes it into a verb. Now, my guess is that you will reject all this as being original research, and you'd be right. That's why I am going to reinstate the text that I deleted, but I will also add the alternate possibilities. --Keeves 02:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And I appreciate both the calm dialogue and the response. While I agree with the fact that there are alternative "literal" interpretations...such as yours...these would ignore the major context provided by the words from Jacob's mysterious adversary to the effect that "you are upright with Elohim." By way of intellectual honesty, this alone clearly makes the described "upright" interpretation much, much more likely. Yes, proper Hebrew names referencing Elohim that are similar to "Israel" (Michael, Gabriel, Daniel, Uriel, Raphael, Samuel, etc.) do sometimes incorporate verbs...but the above context is of the essence. --66.69.219.9 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But there are no "words from Jacob's mysterious adversary to the effect that 'you are upright'...". The word there is שרית, not ישרת, and cannot possibly, under any circumstances, mean "you are upright".

What we have here is a dispute between someone who actually reads the language, and someone who cites a translation of unknown provenance and competence. Personal knowledge of a language is not "original research"; we all rely on our personal knowledge of English to interpret whatever sources we cite, and those editors whose personal knowledge of English is imperfect must defer to the rest of us whenever the question revolves around the meaning of a particular English word. So on this question, anybody who does not personally know Hebrew should defer to those who do. Zsero 20:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As a hebrew speaker, I agree with the comments above. Though the letters "Shin" and "Sin" look the same, they are different. In normal usage you just have to know the word to know whether it's an "s" sound or an "sh" sound. When Nikud is used, "shin" has a dot on its upper right, and "sin" on its upper left. In the Tanakh the name Yisrael is written with a dot on the left of the letter, thus it is "sin" (otherwise it whould be "Yishrael"). The traditional interpretation (according to the Israeli Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1988) says that this is from the verb "Sara" (=fought, or confronted), in the future tense (Yisr), and "El" means god. Thus - it means he confronted god. There is an alternative theory about "Upright before god", claiming that the name was originaly "Ysharel". okedem 18:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As a Hebrew reader, I, too, agree with Keeves on this. A shin and a sin are completely distinct for purposes of the meanings of words, although they look alike. ISA (which I have not checked) must simply be making a mistake in not differentiating them. All Hebrew versions of the Bible of which I'm aware that include niqqud (and thus distinguish sin from shin) spell Yisrael with a sin. The context of the fighting story makes 'fought' (or the like) a very reasonable translation also. And I have to agree with Zsero, with all due respect, that those who do not really know the word, and are relying on translations, should defer to those who do.—msh210℠ 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, and as clearly indicated above, provided citations are given I am willing to collaborate and compromise on the translation. And I have. But given that the Hebrew language has only been revived and become more common since the end of the 19th century by the Jewish linguist Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, I think it is merely egotistical to say that anyone should "defer" on the topic of the Hebrew language -- most certainly when good-faith citations are given.

Keeves', and others', existing translation of Israel as "princely...of God" is an acceptable translation, as similar words can be found in the Bible. However, if one wants to claim that Israel in some way translates as "one who struggles with God," they will be very hard-pressed to find any sort of comparable translation for "struggle" for similar Hebrew characters in the Bible...because such a similarity does not exist. Following Occam's Razor, that simply means that Israel doesn't translate that way.

In my opinion -- and merely in my opinion: (1) to say that Israel does translate as "one who struggles with God" is a self-flagellating (or perhaps even externally-originated) pejorative, and (2) if one 'believes that it translates that way, they it does -- for the person who believes that. I choose not to believe that. Moreover, I observe (not an opinion here) that there is clearly no evidence for it translating that way. But, according to your beliefs, so be it unto you.

The existing text provided by Keeves is adequate, if only in that it highlights the paradox that this word challenges each of us with. I am truly a big believer in paradox, as it exists in an abundance in nature, so when I say that Israel means what you choose for it to mean, I'm quite serious. --66.69.219.9 00:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The "struggle" interpretation is obvious if you read the preceding verses -

"24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.

27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob."

and the verses right after that:

"29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.

30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

(see [11], [12])

The word "Sara" is listed in the Even-Shoshan Dictionary (considered the definitive dictionary in the hebrew language) as meaning - "Fought, struggled".

Summary - He struggles with a strange man, and wins. The man blesses him, and tells him he has struggled with god and prevailed, and Jacob says he's seen god face to face and survived - seems he means the mysterious man, since I read no other encounter here.

Hebrew has been widely used continuesly since biblical times, as a language of worship and study, but also as a language between Jews from different countries (like Jews from Poland talking to Jews from Spain). I find it quite... annoying.. to argue over fine points of hebrew words with someone who doesn't even know the difference between Shin and Sin. okedem 10:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

66.69.219.9 wrote:

Keeves', and others', existing translation of Israel as "princely...of God" is an acceptable translation, as similar words can be found in the Bible.

"similar words"??? No, not "similar". Rather, they are the same words, being spelled with a "sin". "Yashar/upright", which is spelled with a "shin", is an entirely different word. To the others who have written here, I thank you for your support. To 66.69.219.9, here is my suggestion: Let's reinstate my edit of Aug 29, which is to delete everything from this section except for the first paragraph, and add just one thing to that first paragraph, that being the reference to Genesis 32:28. This change will remove both your translation and mine, and will allow readers to look at those verses and draw their own conclusion. I will even allow the words "wrestling with" to remain, instead of my change to "successfully defeating", in deference to Okedem's view about "struggling". If you do not find this offer acceptable, I think that will need to follow the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, of which we are currently in Step One. Step Two seems to suggest that people who have already posted on this page should avoid doing so for some set period of time. I think to the end of this week might be appropriate. What do others think? --Keeves 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's changed, in that I'm fully willing to accept other points of view. Your proposed change sounds headed in the right direction, but it does substantially erase the various points of view instead of pointing out &/or clarifying the reasons for the existing ones. Deleting the core of what's currently listed is not going to make the paradox of Israel (or inflexible mindsets) go away. With that caveat, be thoughtful, be bold and edit freely. שָׁלוֹם (Shalom). --66.69.219.9 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, here it is, Saturday night, and no one has offered any comments or suggestions in several days. I did promise that I'd wait until "the end of this week", and so - given that there can be various interpretations of that phrase, I will wait until Monday morning before changing anything. But in the interest of full disclosure, I point out that I will not only be changing the text of this article, but the Wiktionary entry [[13]] as well. (I would have mentioned that several days ago, but had not yet seen it at that point.) --Keeves 01:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Okedem's comment of 10:06 on Sept. 4. --Daniel575 | (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And that's why, as I wrote on Sept 5, I will allow the words "wrestling with" to remain, instead of changing it to "successfully defeating". All translations will be out, but we'll have a reference to the verse which they're all based on, and allow readers to decide on their own. If they're really that interested, that is. As long as the context of the story is given, a precise translation is nice but not essential. And given the difficulty (impossiblity?) of a precise translation which maintains the ambiguity of the original, it's not gonna happen. --Keeves 03:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition by User:Gallaher san@msn.com

• The contribution talked about HRW and AI, but only referenced the HRW properly. Each citation should use a different "ref", and preferably link to a URL, where everyone can read the source.
• The HRW source said nothing about "deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians", only that the IDF isn't taking civilians into consideration properly.
• The HRW source also didn't mention cluster bombs.
• It also didn't mention the Geneva Conventions. Detemening whether something is a breach of the conventions is a legal matter, and an editor saying that here would constitute original research.

okedem 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I will add a new HRW source on Israels use of cluster bombs [[14]]. --Oiboy77 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Area of Israel

Our article states that the area of Israel is 22,145 km² (149th) 8,019 sq mi - Water (%) ~2%

The BBC profile states that "Area: Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics cites 22,072 sq km (8,522 sq miles), including Jerusalem and Golan." Where does our figure come from and how reliable is it?

Capitalistroadster 01:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Conflict Information

Just a minor detail...the capture and killing of Israeli soldiers in the Israel-Gaza conflict of 2006 occurred on June 24, 2006, not June 28.

Which is capital: Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?

I see the capital city listed as Jerusalem - I thought that Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel? Rarelibra 15:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel considers Jerusalem to be the capital, but most other contries do not recognize it. See Positions on Jerusalem for more info. --Keeves 16:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to anyone to "recognise" where a country has its capital. If a country puts its capital somewhere, that's where it is – it's a matter of fact, not opinion. East Germany had its capital in East Berlin, and everyone recognised that it was so, even though the city wasn't technically part of its territory; nobody ever claimed that the East German capital was "really" in Karl-Marx-Stadt or Rostock or somewhere. Zsero 20:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. However, Tel-Aviv is more recognized due to it's size. I wanted to point out that on the page about Israel it says that Jerusalem is the largest city, which is false. Tel-Aviv has a population of about two million, while Jerusalem has a population of about a million and a half.

Please don't write about what you don't know as if it's fact - as you can easily see in the articles about Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Jerusalem has twice as many inhabitants. Your confusion probably stems from Tel Aviv being the center of Gush Dan, a large metropolitan area. However, Tel Aviv itself has only 379,000 residents. okedem 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then we do have to agree to disagree. I consider Tel-Aviv and Yafo the same city, as do all Israelies, because they have reached the size where they are the same city. Once two cities physically connect they become the same one. If you check any map from Israel it says Tel-Aviv Yafo as the same city. So when you count the size of the population, please count Yafo as well next time.

And please bother reading the article I linked to. I'll do it again - Tel Aviv. See what it says? "Tel Aviv-Yafo" - it's legally one city, has been for 56 years now. The number I've given includes Yafo (not that it matter a lot). However, your definition, "once two cities physically connect they become the same one" is absurd, and unacceptable. A city is defined by its own local governing body (city council or the like), and has set borders. It doesn't matter if it's physcially connected to another city. Tel-Aviv Yafo is one city, and it borders several others - Ramat Gan, Givaataim, etc. But they're still seperate entities. That what's called a Metropolitan Area. okedem 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Once two cities physically connect they become the same one." Ah! Then the news musn't have reached the North of England yet becasue Manchester and Salford are merged but retain distinct identities. What's the name of that city in Germany that's made of Recklinghausen, Dusien and Gelsenkirchen? Has no one told the Germans to rename it Ruhr? Please try to either keep to known facts or if your information is specifically about Israel then state that and give a reference. Candy 21:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is there arguement here? Tel aviv is the internationally recognized capital of Israel. It's the capital recognized by the United Nations. Shia1 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What business is it of the United Nations where Israel has its capital? Since when does a capital depend on anyone's "recognition"? What does it mean to "recognise" where it is? A nation's capital is where it is, and where Israel's is is Jerusalem. Zsero 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is the business of the UN since Israel made it the UNs business by joining the UN and promised to abide by its resolutions. Also, consensus is the only way to arrive at a NPOV article. Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a Zionist Israeli POV. The rest of the world recognizes Tel Aviv as the capital. THe concencus is that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. That's the closest thing to NPOV available. I think it may be that you don't understand why it might be POV for Jerusalem to be the capital. THe answer is since half of the city is not recognized as part of the country by the rest of the world, saying that the city is the capital is recognition of the claim of one small group of people over the consensus of the entire world. Thats very POV. The fair thing might be to list Tel Aviv as the internationally recognized capital, and add that Israel says Jerusalem is the capital. Shia1 00:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when does the UN tell countries where to put their capital?

"You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." The location of a country's capital is a fact, not an opinion, and is not subject to anybody's "recognition". Other countries may not like the fact that Israel made J'lem its capital, they may wish that Israel would decide to move its capital somewhere else, but that doesn't affect the fact that J'lem is the capital. And their wish certainly doesn't magically move the capital to some other randomly selected city.

See my earlier comment about East Germany. Zsero 23:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

These arguments keep repeating themselves, to no end. The point of the matter, is that Jerusalem is the capital de jure (according to Israeli law), and de facto (it houses all of the facilities usually found in a capital - Paliament, government, supreme court, etc.). That makes it the capital. Tel Aviv is not the legal capital, and never has been. The UN's recognition doesn't matter, it's not up to them or to anyone else. okedem 03:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, why Jerusalem or Tel Aviv ? Because governments chose to place their embassies there ? It should be Jerusalem or... Hebron surely. Hebron was David's capital before Jerusalem. And if not, just go with Eilat or some other place. Amoruso 03:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

King David did not live in the State of Israel, and Hebron is not part of Israel nor does anyone claim it is the modern capital. The Fact is that Tel Aviv is the internationally recognized capital of Israel, and Israel is not entitled to its own facts either. Nor is Okedem entitled to his own facts concerning international law. There needs to be something that says Tel Aviv is the internationaly recognized capital in the article. Jerusalem should also be listed as where Israel says its capital is. My soloution is a good compromise. 88.153.87.107 04:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, your solution is absurd. Is the capital just what other countries say it is? The state in question has no right to decide for itself?

If you can come up with an alternative definition to capital, go ahead, but Jerusalem serves as capital, and is capital according to Israel - thus, it is the capital. Tel Aviv was never Israel's capital, and to say it is has no basis. It doesn't serve as such, and never has. As far as I'm concerned the UN can say Haifa is capital, or Beer Sheva, or Tiberias - it doesn't make it true. Even if Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital is disputed, it's the closest to the definition of capital - Israel has designated it as such, and it houses the relevant institutions, which is way more than can be said for any other city in Israel, including Tel Aviv. Anyway, the article currently talks about the controversy in detail, so the reader has all the information.

There was a long arguement about it some time ago - you can read it in the archives, no point in repeating ourselves ad infinitum. okedem 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points of clarification:

• There is no state or organization that has made the case that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital. Size is irrelevant. The reason most (but not all) foreign consular offices are in or near Tel Aviv is out of convenience. It's an easy commute to Jerusalem, to Ben Gurion airport, etc. So it is complete fabrication to say that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital. Israel, as a sovereign state, has the undisputable and inalienable right to choose its own capital.
• Now, as far as Jerusalem is concerned, there are many states that dispute Israel's right to establish a capital there, since they believe that at least parts of Jerusalem are disputed, and hence not within the borders of Israel. This is discussed at length in various articles on Wikipedia.
• Nevertheless, nobody has the right to default the capital to Tel Aviv instead. If there are states and organizations that don't accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, then the only logical conclusion is that Israel has no capital, or at least no undisputed capital. There can be no question that Jerusalem is Israel's de facto capital, but the de jure issue is contentious.
• I think it is fine to say that Jerusalem's status as a capital is disputed; it would be more precise to say that Israel's right to establish a capital is disputed, but that's a nuance that's lost to most people. But it is false and dishonest to say that Tel Aviv is the capital instead. --Leifern 18:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Leifern, although I'm dubious that foriegn embassies are in Tel Aviv mostly because of "convenience." At any rate, it is ridiculous to call Tel Aviv Israel's capital, given that it fulfills just about none of the characteristics normally associated with capital cities (it is not so designated by the government of Israel, and it is not the seat of Israel's national government. I'm not sure how a city can be a capital if it fulfills neither of these criteria.) john k 19:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to move all this section to the Positions on Jerusalem article.

All that is needed here is something like.

The legal status of jerusalem is disputed. Israel regards Jerusalem as her capital, but ....

What do others think?

Johnbibby 19:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That already exists. It says Jerusalem with a footnote with "but". wikipedia is full of buts on the issue. What Leifern has so eloquently explained is that Tel Aviv has nothing to do with it - nobody serious is saying Tel Aviv is Israel's capital. The UN position talks about Jerusalem , not about Tel Aviv. That's just fabrication. Also, U.N doesn't equal international law. Amoruso 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no "but". Jerusalem is the Israeli capital, whether it's technically in Israel's borders or not. The location of a capital isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. While East Germany existed, did any reference book ever quibble with the fact that East Berlin was its capital? Did anyone feel the need to qualify that fact with a "but", because East Berlin wasn't actually in East Germany's sovereign territory? Did anyone pick another city and declare that the East German capital, "because we say so"? No, nobody did any of these things. Everyone accepted that, like it or not, East Germany had its capital in a city which wasn't technically within its borders, and they dealt with it. Refusal to do the same with Jerusalem, whatever ones view of the Israeli annexation, can only be ascribed to antisemitism. Zsero 00:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all true, but there are some who insist on putting a lot of emphasise on the U.N position whose decisions are of course political. If Jews had 22 states, then decisions will be taken differently but Israel is the only country not to be part of the S.C as of yet, for example. Since they insist on it, unfortunately these u.n remarks are loaded through wikipedia but at the very least the basic fact that jerusalem is the capital should be delcared like now. Amoruso 01:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the reference to GDR is irrelevant. Everybody accepted Berlin as part of Germany, and eventually Berlin (E.) was accepted as "Hauptstadt der DDR" and all national had their embassies there.

No other state made claim to Berlin.

In Jerusalem, Israel's claim is a political ambition. I think it is perfectly correct to emphasise the dispute - but prbably on the Position of jerusalm page, not this one!

Johnbibby 19:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel under the Ottomans?

It would be nice to see a little more information on what was going on in the region of Israel between the years of 1517-1920, including information about the relations of Jews and non-Jews in the region during this period.

This article is about the modern Israel rather than History of the region of Palestine, Ottoman Empire or Jewish history. HTH. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This article does describe the immigration of Jews to Israel before Israel becomes a "modern" state; however it does not describe the relations of these immmgrants with non-immagrants, including non-Jews. Since (as you point out) this article is not about Jewish History, but rather about the State of Israel, its account of they years leading to the founding of Israel should not focus only on the waves of Jewish immigration to the region, but should at least mention the other groups encountered by these immigrants (who are also a part of the history of Israel), and the social and political framework into which these Jewish immigrants arrived. This area of history has always been murky to me, and I think many readers would welcome some accurate information about the circumstances that immediately preceeded Israel's founding (btw, the articles you link to have very little information on this).

I totally agree. I came here looking for that information. It mentions Jewish immigration but fails to explain who controlled the region during this period. Even if this article is strictly about the modern state of Israel, as Humus Sapiens asserts, some background information is in order. Ancient Jewish history is included, but there is barely a mention of Palestine. I can't help but think that ignoring the long history as Palestine was deliberate. Lagringa 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Israel, which was founded by the Jews, so it obviously talks about the Jewish presence in Israel.

What would you write in the history section? Would you write about the Mamlukes? The Caliphate? Any other empires that controled this land? There really wasn't an independant entity in Palestine since the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It was just part other empires, since 1516 part of the ottoman empire. Really, what would you write? Give suggestions, and we can discuss them.

The article says very clearly who had control over the land - here's two quotes:

"Under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and (briefly) Sassanian rule, Jewish presence in the region dwindled because of mass expulsions. In particular, the failure of the Bar Kochba Revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE resulted in a large-scale expulsion of Jews. It was during this time that the Romans gave the name Syria Palaestina to the geographic area, in an attempt to erase Jewish ties to the land.[6] The Mishnah and Jerusalem Talmud, two of Judaism's most important religious texts, were composed in the region during this period. The Muslims conquered the land from the Byzantine Empire in 638 CE. The area was ruled by various Muslim states (interrupted by the rule of the Crusaders) before becoming part of the Ottoman Empire in 1517."

"In 1920, Palestine became a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain."

Oh, and before accusing people of "hiding the truth", or whatever, try to Assume Good Faith, and see that, at least the way I see it, there's really nothing relevant to add to the article. okedem 22:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish WIKIVERSITY

NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views. Thank you. IZAK 09:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Human rights. Part 2

MauroVan asked me to explain what I believe is problematic about his version: [15].

1. I concur with Okedem's concerns. Your version mention the Occupied Territores (yes, Capitalized) at least 3 times and makes it a focus of that section. Note that this article is Israel, and not Israeli-occupied territories. Your other focus is claimed discrimination of the Arab population: your piece starts and ends with it. It feels as if you are trying to make a point.
2. Problems with the unreformed UN are much bigger than simply human rights. In the next section, Foreign relations, we link to Israel and the United Nations.
3. Barrier and the ICJ - another issue not directly related to human rights inside Israel and the article already mentions it.
4. You failed to mention that Israeli media is the most free in the region, and that Israeli press and NGOs fully use their freedom to criticise Israeli govt. and its policies.
5. I am not trying to say that the other version (you call it mine, but it's not) is perfect, but I find its narrative logical. OTOH, I cannot see any logic in the order you list issues and I find the level of editorializing too tendentious.
6. Finally, please try to concentrate on arguments rather than persons. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.

Firstly, I already wrote, in this same page, that the last version looks like an improvement to me, though (IMHO) it's not yet enough. Some people here just seem to ignore the evolution of the debate, but I don't. I would like the revert war to reach an end so that we could improve step by step the article instead of focusing on which version is better (something I absolutely don't care about). You all like this version so much? OK, so let me change it instead of rewriting it: that's exactly what I did in the beginning.

1. My favourite version does explain that there's a difference between Israel and the Occupied Territories (I like to write it capitalized - why? - but maybe I'm wrong). Instead of explaining this controversial point, you'd rather like simply to ignore it; I don't think it's the best way of dealing with it because most criticism of Israel is related to what Israel does beyond its fuzzy border (the fuzziness of the border is another important issue you don't take into proper consideration).
2. I don't like the UNO, but I don't understand exactly what your criticism is. You talk about the "unreformed UN"; I've always heard this expression used to mean that the United Nations' statute should be changed to remove the veto right of the Security Council's permanent members. Since one of those permanent members is the USA (notoriously an uncritical supporter of Tel Aviv) I don't see how the current organization of the UN could encourage a bias against Israel.
3. Frankly, how can you argue that the Fence (capitalized again ;-) ) is not relevant in an article about human rights in Israel? Wouldn't you include any reference to the Berlin Wall (capitalized) in a historical article about human rights in East Germany? If Israel builds a wall somewhere, this must imply that Israel considers that place to be a part of its own territory. Are you stating that Israel is building the Fence in a foreign land?
4. I didn't fail to mention that Israeli media is the most free in the region, the link was still there (I didn't delete a single link). However, I agree to mention that more explicitly if you feel that more emphasis should be given to this piece of information.
5. I couldn't care less about the order information is given. Shuffle it as much as you want.
6. I would have liked to find a more cooperative approach on your side, if you want to change it I will not talk any more of your past behaviour. It must be told that in the Request for Arbitration page several persons (you among them) attacked me directly instead of criticizing my proposal; the attack involved lies (like that I refused to discuss my changes etc., which is the exact opposite of the truth), freshman allegiations (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers) etc. On the contrary I declared that "I'm not asking for any measure to be taken against anybody, I just would like to have a balanced article there".

At least, decide this: should we (a) keep the section short without cites in inverted commas or (b) not? Please everybody answer this last question.

Regards. --MauroVan 11:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Maurovan, when the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Knesset, and the Jewish Agency for Israel all recognize that Arab citizens of Israel are discriminated against then there is no question that such discrimination does take place and this information should unambiguously stay in the human rights section. On the other hand the very same references demonstrate that these Israeli institutions are aware of the problem and are trying to correct it - much to Israel's merit I think. Dianelos 10:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's make a quick comparison to the "notoriously an uncritical supporter of Tel Aviv" (a phrase that says a lot about its author). The WP article United States does not have a section on the human rights in the USA at all: it only contains a link to Human rights in the United States. In turn, that article only contains a link to United States Mexico barrier.

My "past behaviour"? Whatever. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all people have the time or interest to go to the main page on a particular topic that is mentioned within an article like this, so that is what a summary is for. It is probably the preference of most wikipedia users and editors that there be a decent summary in every single section of articles, even if it includes a link. The issue mentioned above will probably be changed soon enough, but just because that article is lacking does not mean that we should abandon making a good summary here.

Some of the things that are a must for this article; human rights in Israel proper (generally decent); human rights in the occupied territories (not as good); issues with minorities (with mention of how the government is addressing this). I would also advize that the "freedom index" is used in the new version, and that you leave "the fence" issue to the main page. I also don't feel that the Israeli media deserves mention in this article; that does not have to do with human rights, it is a freedom of the press issue.

Lastly, I think when you say "inverted commas" you are saying the same thing as "quotation marks." If that is the case, I suggest that you use them, but only if the comments within are representative of the majority of sources that address the same issue as the quote. Markovich292 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of the press is very much a human rights issue - it stems directly from "freedom of speech". If you look at various countries, freedom of the press corresponds wonderfully with the human rights condition. okedem 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to compare the amount and the volume of criticism directed at Israel with WP articles for other countries. Take a look at People's Republic of China#Human rights or Cuba#Human rights: pretty mild. Many if not most articles on the worst HR violators such as Pakistan or Zimbabwe (which dedicates less than 4 lines to a brief note "Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth of Nations on charges of human rights abuses") do not even have a separate Human rights section. Egypt doesn't even mention "human rights". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That is why there is a "countering systemic bias" task force. Many people know more about Israel (and more people care about human rights there) than about those other places. I think it is obvious to everyone the motivation for this off-topic comment BTW. Markovich292 02:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a very bizzare comment. Why would people who care about human rights care more about human rights in location X than in location Y? Please explain. And I find it hard to believe that more people know baout Israel that about China. what's the basis for that assertion? Isarig 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

More people in general, not necessarily more human rights activists. With Israel in the news so much, more people hear about human rights issues there, so they naturally care about those issues and do not focus elsewhere. For the second question, I should say first that I mean more wikipedians know about Israel. The basis for that is that the edits for China seem to be by fewer people than the edits for Israel. Markovich292 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you are aware of the circular nature of your argument, which goes "there is a section on HR in Israel and not one HR in China, because people care more about HR and Israel, and the reason they care more about HR in Israel is because they can read about HR in Israel ...Your reasoning about China is similarly circular, and the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Isarig 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You got all that from my two first statements in that post? First, I don't know how you can come up with that idea because there is an HR section in China, so I never would say that in the first place. I never made any kind of argument saying anything even close to what you said. Second, my conclusion on China (# of editors I ssume you are talking about) follows the premise perfectly. The # of editors working on China is lower than Israel, and as a representative sample that implies the total number of editors that have knowledge enough to contribute to China is lower than to Israel. It may not be right, but it is still valid. Markovich292 03:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's what you said, excerpted from your recent posts, with some interpolation"

• "Many people know more about Israel ... than about [China].
• [And that is bacause] "With Israel in the news so much, more people hear about human rights issues there"

I believe my paraphrase of your argumentation is quite accurate, and it is circular. As to the China part, it does not follow that if fewer editors are working on China, then we can conclude that fewer people know about China. There are several implict assumptions there, none of which are fact (e.g: that people only write about that which they know about, or that there are no reasons which may cause people who know about something not to write about it). In other words, your decduction of the form -There are fewer editors working on China than on Israel , therefor it must be that editors know less about China is invalid. Isarig 03:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Many people know more [facts] about Israel." That is the meaning of the first sentence in context. You took the second sentence ("With Israel in the news so much, more people hear about human rights issues there") and assumed it was the reason people "know more about Israel." That is where the problem started I think. But the rest (claiming I argued "there is a section on...Israel...because people care more about...Israel, and the reason they care more about...Israel is because they can read about...Israel") does not even come close to what I said. About the China part; you are paraphrasing my conclusion incorrectly. I said the number of editors that have enough knowledge to contribute to China is lower. The complications you mentioned are somewhat offset because I used the word "editor" for this very reason. Anyway, I never said my hypothesis was correct, but it still is valid (just to inform you, there is a difference between a valid argument and a correct one). Markovich292 05:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing; if the following (From the article China) is what you call "mild", why do you object to the same kind of facts in the Israel article?

"PRC is faced with criticism...concerning allegations of gross human rights violations...widespread practice of lengthy detentions without trial, forced confessions, torture, mistreatment of prisoners, as well as...restrictions on freedoms of speech, assembly, association, religion, the press, and workers' rights...China leads the world in capital punishment..." Markovich292 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Compared to China's HR record, "mild" is a very mild word. Also, I find your explanation for singling out Israel unconvincing to say the least. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Umpf.

Is there anybody out there wishing to solve this specific issue instead of always adding something else to the stack??

The article on Zimbabwe is simply not relevant. I don't see why the alleged low quality of that article should justify a low quality in this article. That's all I need to say on such useless comparisons.

The comparison with the article on the USA is a boomerang-argument, Humus sapiens. The article there talks about the barrier with Mexico (a link is given), Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo... if we want to use that article as a model, all issues like the Fence, the Occupied Territories, the status of Arab Palestinians inside Israel etc should be considered part of "Human rights in Israel" without any distinction between "Israel proper" and "Israel-occupied areas".

If you talked about the USA just to point out that no section on human rights is included in the main article (USA) and therefore to suggest that we do the same, this could be acceptable to me: let's just give a link to Human rights in Israel without any summary. However, please tell me what you propose to do because you always change your position.

I don't understand why accusing the USA of being an uncritical supporter of the Israeli government should "say much" about me. What does it say? (anyway, I said that while asking a question, and you didn't answer my question which was relevant in order to understand your opposition to a part of my edits)

Let's upgrade the option list: should we (a) keep the section short without cites in inverted commas, (b) have a rather long section with all cites in inverted commas or (c) just give a link to the detailed article? Please everybody answer this last question! You just need to write a letter: a, b or c.

Lastly, quotation marks are also properly called inverted commas. My English sucks but no so much! :-) --MauroVan 09:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and WP Manual of style would help, but why, out of the entire WP, this particular article should be turned into a WP:sandbox to play with inverted commas?

As to the section on the human rights, my position stays the same. It is someone else who keeps changing positions: from adding a huge quote from AI to requests to shorten the section, to making a "definitive" version and after 2 hours running with it to the ArbCom and now to removing it altogether. What is wrong with the section now? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't change my position, I just don't have one. It's exactly the same for me to have (a) a short section without cites in inverted commas, (b) a rather long section with all cites in inverted commas or (c) just a link to the detailed article. Who cares. You and the others please choose and then we make it your way. Presently it's (d) a rather long section with pro-Israel cites in inverted commas and other cites hardly mentioned and followed by a lengthy bias advice. Option d is the only one I reject.

The sandbox sentence is just an attempt to be unpolite. The attempt succeeded.

PS: Of course you didn't answer my questions, but I'm getting accustomed to that. --MauroVan 11:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a Human Rights section should exist in the main article of any country where there are serious allegations of human rights violations. On the other hand I think it's true that Israel is much better in this respect than any other country in the region. So why not make this basic fact clear at the very beginning and rewrite the section with something like this: "There is more respect for human rights in Israel than in any other country in the region. In Israel there is a democratic government, minorities are represented in the legislature, there is genuinely free press, and NGOs who publicly criticize the government and its policies. These freedoms in Israel are especially remarkable considering that Israel has been throughout its history in a virtually constant state of war and many of its neighbors have still official policies that call for its destruction, and considering that Israeli society is the victim of continuous terrorist attacks. Nevertheless the Israeli government is responsible for severe violations of the human rights of the non-Jewish people under its control. Specifically: 1) Significant discrimination against the Arab citizens of Israel, 2) Occupation of the West Bank and expansion of illegal expropriations and settlements there. 3) Holding aprox. 9,000 Palestinian prisoners some under administrative detention. 4) Use of torture in interrogations. 5) Bulldozing homes and punishing entire families for the crimes of one of its members. 5) Building the wall in the occupied territories. There have also been allegations of disproportionate use of force and even of war crimes committed by Israel in the Second Lebanon War. There are several Israeli organizations that recognize these problems and try to correct them.” It won’t be difficult to find good references for the above – the ACRI site is one good source and it certainly is not anti-Israeli. I think it does not honor nor befits Israel to whitewash these issues. And certainly this is all relevant information that should be present in an encyclopedia. Dianelos 19:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A combination of A and B would be best. As I said before (and as Dianelos says above), there should certainly be a section in the main article when it is an important issue. It should not drone on and on, but it should certainly be longer than just 2 paragraphs. My view (and probably a common one) is that quotations give an article A) more credibility and B) give it more "life." The problem with the current article is that it hardly addresses the negative aspect of human rights, instead opting to use glittering generalities. It also lacks any good examples on either positive or negative aspects. Markovich292 00:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

HawkerTyphoon you toned down the expression "the discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel constitutes one of the most severe infringements of equality in the State of Israel." alleging this is POV. But exactly the same expression is present in the site of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and in the site of the joint project of the Knesset and the Jewish Agency for Israel for drafting Israel's constitution. I mean how can this be POV? Wikipedia must be neutral, but this is like trying to be more catholic than the Pope. If Israeli society is mature and brave enough to recognize that such discrimination does take place, so should wikipedia. So if there aren't any objections here I intend to revert this back in a few days. Dianelos 11:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That I did. Saying it's one of the most severe is PoV... In my opinion, at least. You could mention that Knesset etc say that it's one of the most severe? Governments and agencies can be poV - WP can't. HawkerTyphoon 02:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, when all major parties basically agree on something then I think it's safe to call it a fact and present it as such in wikipedia. For example recently Bush acknowledged that the US maintains "hidden prisons". Do you think it reasonable to call this POV and insist that the relevant item in WP is written as "According to the UN, EU, CNN, BBC, HRW, and the President of the US, the CIA maintains hidden prisons overseas"? In our case, one could rewrite this item like "According to <Assorted list of international organizations>, <assorted list of Arab organizations>, <assorted list of major news outlets>, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Jewish Agency for Israel, and the Knesset, there exists discrimination against the Arab citizens of Israel"; but I think this would look horrid and be pointless really. I think to put this discrimination as a fact and present convincing references is quite sufficient. I could easily find many more references, but including only Jewish ones makes it clear I think that Israeli society recognizes this problem and is working on it. Which is only fair.

Nevertheless I am intrigued. Do you know of any trustworthy references that claim that there is no discrimination against Arab citizens in Israel? Dianelos 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Iranian State"

from my talk page, okedem 12:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC):

Okedem - Unfortunately it sounds like you are pushing a point of view.Thousands of Kurds and Tats residents is certainly an important part of a location's history. However, removing references to important historical events goes strongly against Wikipedia policy. See for comparison MORE INFORMATION:[16] part of that refrenced template & [17] & [18] -ZANDWEBT. DON'T REMOVE AGAIN .

Israel is a country built on immigration. You'll find many people who are native French, English, Russian, Hungarian, Ukranian, Italian etc. speakers. If we add all of these templates, the article wouldn't look very good, would it? And to a country like the US - you'd have to add all the templates in Wikipedia, wouldn't you?

Having a small population speaking a certain language doesn't make that country a "x speaking nation".

Don't accuse me of POV, and don't cite WP policy to me. I know it very well, thank you.

And please don't use ALL CAPS, especially not bold. It's shouting, and it's rude. okedem 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

btw, shouldn't it be "Persian speaking" anyway... Amoruso

You mean Farsi speaking? Ramallite ^(talk) 15:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:) Amoruso 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could someone explain to me the politics of saying "Farsi" vs "Persian" (feel free to do so on my talk page). I am out of the loop. Elizmr 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Widespread damage to Israel's infrastructure?

It says, in the article under the Israel-Lebanonese conflict, "Lebanon and Israel's," did the 30 year old soviet rockets really damage power supplies, food, and water like the huge US-funded/paid for airstrikes in Lebanon did? If not the sentence is misleading. Volksgeist 00:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the question is "did the thousands of rockets fired by Hizballah really damage Israel" then the answer is yes - The north's economy suffered a great deal. Amoruso 01:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

However, the article says "widespread damage...to northern Israel's infrastructure". But the article cited indicates "widespread" might be a problematic term here. Perhaps it wants to be removed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

When every town, city, village, kibutz, chursha, zimmer, moshav, community in the north got hit, I think it's widespread enough. Amoruso 02:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not what "infrastructure" means. What's more, the source doesn't say "widespread" -- it just gives numbers -- so using the term "widespread" is OR, since it doesn't follow directly from the source, but is an interpretation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And did every one of those places get hit? HawkerTyphoon 03:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, they were all hit. I didn't enter the source, it's not WP:OR - simply if the source doesn't say that, then there is need for more sources which are abundant and can be supplied easily. Amoruso 03:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this adequate - translation, newssite:

"Olmert annouced this morning a new special cabinet to deal with the issues or recovering the institutions and the infrastructures in the north" , and peres : the priority will be to rehabilitate the north of the country, it's rejunevation and strenghting it in all levels. [19] here it talks about 12,000 structures damaged wide spread in the noth [20], here it talks about long rehabilitations (talks about the thousands of dunams burnt...) plenty. [21] Amoruso

• Sounds right to me, then. Thanks! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to put Israel and Lebanon in the same boat (I wasn't under the impression that power/food/water supplies were hit in Israel), comparing the damage in Lebanon to Israel is like comparing a lion to a mouse. And a question, are non-English language sources acceptable on English Wikipedia? Volksgeist 06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at the numbers. Hezbollah fired some 4,000 primitive Katyusha rockets which curry a 20 kg warhead and are very inaccurate: less than one fourth of these rockets actually landed in Israeli cities (the rest presumably landing in nearby fields). In contrast Israel's airforce flew over 12,000 combat missions, its navy conducted 2,500 bombardments, and its artillery shot over 100,000 shells. We can safely guess that each of these attacks delivered more than 20 kg of explosives and that most of them met their targets. So there is really no comparison. Stating in the same sentence that both Lebanon and Israel suffered widespread damage is grossly misleading. Dianelos 11:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You are lying. Many of these warheads carried not 20kg, but up to 100kg of explosives. Quit this idiotic vandalism. You are making a total fool out of yourself. Hundreds of houses were destroyed, thousands of acres of forest burned down, a million people fled from their homes - and you claim there was no considerable damage? This is plain antisemitic vandalism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No-one is lying. The basic problem we have is that although there was damage caused to israel, it doesn't compare with the damage caused to Lebanon, so putting the two in the same sentence is inaccurate HawkerTyphoon 12:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Then we make it two sentences. "There was extensive damage to the infrastructure of Lebanon. There was extensive damage to the infrastructure of northern Israel." No longer the same sentence. Happy? Now on a serious note. Reverted back, rephrased and added this source. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm sure you won't accuse me of being anti-Israel - but this war did not cause "extensive damage to the infrastructure of northern Israel". It killed a lot of people in Israel, damaged many buildings and houses, but I don't think those count as infrastructure - there was no major damage to road networks, electricity, bridges or water pipes. Let's just not use the word infrastructure here. "The war caused many fatalities and injuries, and did extensive damage to buildings in towns across northern Israel." - though that caused be better phrased, I'm sure. (and please tone it down a bit - if someone says "20kg", they're more probably misinformed than intentionally lying). okedem 13:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased according to your suggestion. And everybody knows that 20kg is a lie... The rockets were from 30kg to 175kg. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority (aprox 95%) of the rockets Hezbollah shot into Israel were 122mm Katyushas. These are very small rockets standing a little over 1m tall, carry a 21 kg warhead and have a range of some 20km. The fact that they are so small explains why they are so easy to hide. The largest rockets that Hezbollah shot into Israel (the Fajr-5 and maybe the 220mm Katyusha) carry up to 100 kg warheads and have a range of some 75km. See Hezbollah rocket force for more information. - As for Daniel's estimate that "hundreds of buildings across northern Israel" were damaged I think it's probably correct considering that 900 Hezbollah rockets did land in Israel cities. On the other hand 130,000 homes in Lebanon were damaged and 15,000 destroyed, as were 400 miles of roads and 73 bridges (See 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict for more numbers and references]]. So unless we wish to add such info in the Israel article (which I think we shouldn't) I think it's best to leave things as they stood: Lebanon's infrastructure did suffer extensive damage (and Israel's didn't). Dianelos 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel suffered damage to 12,000 buildings - that's huge impact on infrastructure. reverting back. also, this "mostly civilians" is wrong. in fact from israeli sources it's almost half-half. it's misleading and biased towards lebanon side, where in lebanon article israel is like a monster. deleting it. Amoruso 23:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But it didn't recieve as much damage as Lebanon, which is what we're arguing. Also, Amoruso, aren't you slightly biased? You have strong feelings on the matter at hand, I'm guessing, per your user page - and we're also saying in the article that 'Lebanese Civilians' are different to 'Hezbollah militants'. I'm reverting the edits back, but also cleaning them, until we reach a concensus ideally. HawkerTyphoon 00:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Going by 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and the reference I picked up, it's actually mainly civilians and mainly soldiers, as previously stated, even going by israeli measurements. HawkerTyphoon 00:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

current version seems fine. no, it's not - mainly gives a wrong perception, if you want give the whole numbers or leave it like this. What does my userpage have to do with it ? Amoruso 00:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that maybe it would be difficult for you to be entirely impartial in the matter at hand. According to Israel, it's

Hezbollah/Lebanese Civilians - "440 dead confirmed by Maj. General Yaakov Amidror"/1,187 dead

Israeli Soldiers/Civilians - 119 dead/44 dead

HawkerTyphoon 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

All references agree that only about 900 Hezbollah rockets actually hit built-up areas. Most (about 95%) of them had small 20kg (some claim 30kg) warheads. Then how come "thousands" of buildings in Israel were "destroyed", as the article currently claims? The numbers do not add up. This report by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (and they certainly cannot be accused of anti-Israel bias) only reports "extensive damage to hundreds of buildings". - I also question the inclusion of a reference in Hebrew in the English wikipedia. Dianelos 10:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have ammended the information to reflect the sources cited, the Guardian article reports 6000 claims for damage to buildings, but the article stated they had been destroyed. Also ammended to indicate that infrastructure includes cities, not just roads/bridges etc. Boynamedsue

Have deleted hebrew journalistic source and replaced with its source the estimates of the israzli environment agency. The estimates are a little vague (necessarily) but they appear to be classifying each appartment within a building seperately, so the 2000 buildings destroyed are actually 2000 properties destroyed (estimate). I feel the current wording is adequate as it is not clear from the text how many buildings were damaged ,how many properties in damaged buildings were still habitable, etc etc, lets leave it at this until until the fog of war clears and there are accurate figures available. BNS

The numbers still do not add up. How can the 900 artillery rockets that did land in built-up areas "hit 12,000 buildings" as the Israeli government source claims? It also claims "2,000 buildings/apartements were totally destroyed", but how is one to explain the discrepancy with the far more credible claim of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs of "extensive damage to hundreds of dwellings, several public utilities, and dozens of industrial plants"? The minister of industry, trade and labor of the Israeli government has claimed in this interview that "We estimate that 80 percent of the 80,000-90,000 business owners from Haifa and northward sustained severe damage." Does this sound credible to you? I submit that Israeli government statements about the damage suffered by Israel in this war are not unbiased and should not be used as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, especially after the many accusations of an disproportionate response to Hezbollah's july 12 actions. Dianelos 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually a recent amnesty report says the same - 4000 missles : 900 hit where people were present at the time (the ones that hit the homes much more), and 43 people killed (7 kids). 1000 missles in kiryat shmona, 800 in nahariya, 471 in safed, 100 in haifa and hundreds other in other towns. According to the report 12,000 structures were damaged, most are homes. 400 public strucures, 4 hospitals, synagogues, schools, business. 350-500,000 were refugees during the war. [22] this is amnesty report which concludes that hizballah has done war crimes. Amoruso 21:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like comment on something here:

1. One rocket can destroy several apartments - they can pass through them, and destroy a whole building.
2. The damage to business mostly refers to indirect damage - from not making any sales during the month, not having employees coming in, not getting supplies from other companies, etc. okedem 07:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso provided a link to a site in Hebrew...why not provide the link directly to the Amnesty site? Here: [23]. There Amnesty clearly states: "According to the estimates of Israel’s Ministry of Building and Housing, and its Property Tax department, rocket attacks by Hizbullah damaged about 12,000 buildings," and it continues: "Amnesty International understands that the figure of 12,000 includes the full range of buildings damaged. .... Most .... suffered lighter damage, such as broken windows, shrapnel marks in the walls or cracked tiles." Regards, Huldra 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The reason was laziness, couldn't find it at the time. This should be incorporated into the different articles, the amnesty report. Amoruso 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

12,000 buildings is rediculous! Where? It has to be counting rather light damage, like people went to the bomb shelter so mold grew or something. I was up north during the bombing. Most of the rockets were landing in open fields. The estimate I've heard is 900 landed in populated areas. Each would have to do damage to over ten buildings. Being that I had a friend who was literally 20 ft from a rocket that exploded and he was uninjured, I doubt these little rockets could each do damage to 10 buildings a piece. Shia1 02:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a way to say what's accurate would be to say the rockets did sever damage to Israel's Economy. The infrastructure wasn't damage so much. That's not an accurate statement. Shia1 00:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was. Btw, not infrastrucutre maybe but I've recently discovered that the main cable car service in the north won't operate for a year now... imagine the damage for that kind of thing. Amoruso 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am agreeing with you that the economy was damaged, perhaps even severely. I would not argue if the word severely was used. People up north are poor people and they were out of jobs for a month. THat is perhaps severe. But infrastructure, like electricity, roads, water, etc. wasn't severely damaged. The lights are on in every house up north, and were on most of the war. Egged still goes up there, the water is running fine, and ran fine the entire war. TV and cable are on, and never went off in most of the affected area. THat's what I mean by the infrastructure wasn't severely damaged. One cable car, while annoying, isn't severe war damage. Just take the bus. 88.153.87.107 01:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

aww come on, these numbers are VERY highly exaggerated. most of the rockets fired into israel hit either nothing or military targets. those numbers dont make any sense at all. I dont know if its sympathy israel wants or to show how "bad" hezbollah is, but they cant be speaking for all of the destruction in lebanon that has been caused. if by infrastructure you mean that wide open fields and military targets then this quote should stay, other than that get rid of it because it is very misleading. Mac33c 01:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that Israel suffered infrastructe damages in water/electricity/tv. It says what's WP:V and true and that's the damage for thousands of structures. I don't see what's the argument about. Amoruso 01:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel's Immigration Policy

Would be great if somebody could write a short component about this.

true, it's mentioned in zionism and alyiah and then in the years sections but should be expanded. Amoruso 02:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Only people with 1/4 or more Jewish blood as determined by the Orthodox Rabbinical Court. With some numerically insignificant exceptions. 24.64.165.176 20:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)