Talk:Israel/Archive 23

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the word 'Jew' only refers to descendants of Judah; notably, not to the ancient Kingdom of Israel, especially after the reign of Solomon.  Thus in the etymology and history sections, some references to 'Jews' have been changed to 'Israelites'.
--NZUlysses 13:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time please start new section at the bottom of the page. As far as I know, 'Israelite' refers to religious Jewish people, but those sections also talk about secular Jews. Squash Racket 14:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology & History

message: === "autonomy to Palestinians"? ===
In the section "The first fifty years, 1950s-1990s", third paragraph, it says: 
"...signed the Camp David Accords and the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula and gave autonomy to Palestinians across the Green Line." - I've never heard of this, nor do I understand what it means. The first time the Palestinians were given autonomy, to my (incomplete) knowledge was with the 1993 Oslo Accords. Clarifications? okedem 10:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found out that such a plan was proposed, but never implemented, due to reluctance on all sides, particularly the Palestinians themselves (see here, for example). Also see last clause of Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. okedem 17:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The links aren't very useful, I'm afraid. They don't really give more details. I had trouble finding anything out about that part of the agreement. okedem 10:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to the change. -- tariqabjotu 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments for FAC

message: In the section "The first fifty years, 1950s-1990s", third paragraph, it says: 
"...signed the Camp David Accords and the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula and gave autonomy to Palestinians across the Green Line." - I've never heard of this, nor do I understand what it means. The first time the Palestinians were given autonomy, to my (incomplete) knowledge was with the 1993 Oslo Accords. Clarifications? okedem 10:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found out that such a plan was proposed, but never implemented, due to reluctance on all sides, particularly the Palestinians themselves (see here, for example). Also see last clause of Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. okedem 17:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The links aren't very useful, I'm afraid. They don't really give more details. I had trouble finding anything out about that part of the agreement. okedem 10:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "autonomy to Palestinians"? 

message: It says: "Egypt, Jordan, and Mauritania are currently the only members of the Arab League to have normalized relations with Israel, having signed peace treaties in 1979, 1994, and 1999, respectively."
Mauritania did not sign a peace treaty with Israel, since it was never at war with Israel. They only refrained from diplomatic relations with it till 1994, and opted for full diplomatic relations in 1999 (Two other Arab League members, Tunisia and Morocco, had diplomatic relations with Israel, but broke most of them off in 2000, when the second intifada broke out). okedem 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to the change. -- tariqabjotu 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign relations 

message: The section on foreign relations names Lebanon, Saudi and others as "enemy countries", citing ref 112. This reference does indeed say that Israelis can't visit "enemy countries", but doesn't list them as could be inferred by the use of the reference. I have no resopn to doubt that the statement is factual, but it is not supported by reference given. anyone got a better one? Epeeist smudge 15:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enemy countries 

message: This new sentence does not appear to be related to any of the surrounding content. I'm unsure it should be included. -- tariqabjotu 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence out of place 

message: Here's my suggestion:
Change "Arab persecution of Jewish communities precipitated a similar Jewish exodus from Arab lands." to "Several factors, including Arab persecution of Jewish communities, and Zionist aspirations precipitated a similar Jewish exodus from Arab lands."
We can also mention the Jews who were killed or expelled from Jewish towns by Palestinian Arabs/Arab armies, like Gush Etzion, Kfar Darom, Atarot, Neve Yaakov, Beit Haarava, Ein Zurim, and others, among them the Jews residing in the Jewish Quarter. But, as with the Palestinians, this isn't the place for that much detail. okedem 14:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you apparently think that the exodus of Jews from Arab lands "had everything to do with the 1948 War," which I can't see. Why do you think this? As I mentioned before, the earliest major migration began after the war was over. You seem to have bought in to the moral "settling of accounts" position that I mentioned before: that because similar numbers of Jews fled Arab lands, this somehow makes the Palestinian refugee situation more acceptable. Is that accurate? I don't think such a position holds water for a few fairly obvious reasons, which I can discuss with you if there is a need. Anyway, I think the statement belongs in the "First fifty years" section rather than the "Independence" section. But I do like your idea of noting multiple reasons for the exodus. Tegwarrior 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You ask if this is accurate or not, so I will refer you to WP:V, that reads: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. . In simple words, in Wikipedia we describe what significant sources say about a subject, and we avoid letting our opinions drive content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposition

message: Regarding some of the comments above:  There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. 
Some suggestions:
* Discuss the article, not the subject;
* Discuss the edit, not the editor;
* Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
* If you feel attacked, do not attack back.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]]

message: POV tags are not a weapon. If there are specific POV aspects, please provide rationale here.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many POV aspects, in my opinion. The most glaring at the moment is that almost nothing is said of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tegwarrior 14:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not cross-post on my talk page. I have this page in my watchlist. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag? 

message: There seemed to be at least some non-disagreement that anything on the exodus of Arab Jews probably belongs in the "First 50 years" section rather than in the "Independence" section. Can we all agree with that? Tegwarrior 17:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where you got the impression there is some non-disagreement on that. -- tariqabjotu 04:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the passage reads, "During the course of the hostilities, 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, fled from Israel. Arab persecution of Jewish communities precipitated a similar Jewish exodus from Arab lands." Did a similar Jewish exodus from Arab lands, which I think strongly implies in numbers approaching 711,000, occur during the Independence phase of Israel's history? No, it did not. So why is this statement in the "Independence" section? Tegwarrior 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's not go for the "this is anti-Semitism" approach. Also, I'm quite certain  is female. -- tariqabjotu 15:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a major problem here is that some have decided to interpret the lack of coverage of certain subjects as bias. This article is not intended to be all there is to know about Israel; Wikipedia has a large number of articles related to the State of Israel as well as the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's time editors stop advocating that we add more about some ethnic group or another so that readers can understand their position. We're not here to garner sympathy for anyone – Israeli or Palestinian. (For the record, I don't believe the Black Panthers bit is necessary.) -- tariqabjotu 18:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of Agreement 

message: I was just looking at the government and politics section and it struck me that criticisms of Israel's human rights policies by international groups like Amnesty basically relate to the Occupied Territories. Shouldn't that disctinction be made in the text? We make it earlier about the Freedom House index.
While this is on the agenda, why not mention that israel is the most democratic country in the region in the intro? I looked at the definition of the Middle East and Cyprus is not usually considered part of the Middle East, expecially now that it's part of the EU.
Telaviv1 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason not to mention it is that it leans toward being cheerleading rather than informative. Why not say more about Israel's democracy directly instead of noting that it stands out in one of the most undemocratic regions of the world? Really, being the most democratic country in the Middle East is similar to being not bad looking for a fat girl. Of course, maybe cheerleading is the intent. Tegwarrior 03:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that such a reference should be included. Context matters. A democracy surrounded by theocracies and various sorts of dictatorships faces a very different reality than a democracy bordered by liberal democratic neighbours. Any other thoughts on this? I'm not going to rush in and change the article without some consensus. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have a comment. It is also more cheerleading and less informative to say that Israel is a "liberal democracy," which is a profoundly meaning-deficient but positive term, as opposed to saying that it has a parliamentary government or something with similar, specific meaning. That, and I think you're toast. Tegwarrior 05:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No need to change the article; this was, is, and, for the most part, has always been in the article, in the introduction no less. I'm not sure what else Telaviv wants, but the mention of its status as one of the only democracies in the Middle East is sufficient. The Cyprus is in the EU does not change its status as possibly being in the Middle East. Cyprus is considered part of the Middle East in, for instance, the CIA Factbook. As for the part about human rights, it is noted that the criticism relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict; would you prefer it say the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights ''again''

message: A few folks here want to get this article to be a featured article. But apparently what they really want is to get a version of this article that promotes a few of their preferred viewpoints to be a featured article. Toward that end, when people come along and question aspects of the article that promote the preferred viewpoints, these people are subjected to argumentative babble and disrespect, and the viewpoints are protected. And every so often someone will archive a lot of the dissent from the talk page so that the ridiculous claim that there is a "stable version" of this article can be promoted.
What you folks don't get is, you're engaging in a sort of mental masturbation here, and getting a seriously inbred perspective that directs this article. You make people who agree with you happy, and drive anyone else off.
But at some point, this article will face a nominally objective and removed audience to decide whether it should become a featured article. Maybe you've already got that process rigged, and so don't need to worry about this, which would be a sad situation for Wikipedia. If you don't have the process rigged, however, you're going to be in a situation where you will likely see a lot of the criticism that you've ignored, but, as far as getting the article to be featured goes, you won't be able to ignore it. And frankly there is probably so much worthy of criticism that the article will hit the wall early in the process, and not at the point where you get asked to make a few changes in order to bring it up to standards.
Tegwarrior 03:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Number of uses of the "you" to directly attack other authors: 9. Number of suggestions for improving the article: 0. This ad hominem, argumentative style is counterproductive. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto. You have assumed bad faith of everyone else here since the moment you looked at this article. -- tariqabjotu 05:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely toast. This should be fun to watch. By the way, Tariq, just because I think you're biased (which clearly you are) doesn't mean I have assumed bad faith of you. I wish there were some way to roast marshmallows on the flames I expect you to go up in. Tegwarrior 05:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Tariq will figuratively burn when his preferred version of this article gets considered to be a featured article, and he will get burned because he has been unable constructively to accommodate legitimate criticism of the article, and it will happen on these very web pages. Why do you ask, Telaviv1? Tegwarrior 14:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: Tariq himself lights the match. Tegwarrior 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think you're toast 

message: Some objections to a few recent changes by Gilabrand:
*09:38, Sep 25 (UTC): I just changed this back, but essentially this is not political whitewashing. The article is called Iranian Revolution on Wikipedia, so we should assume that should be accepted as the best name for referring to it (and I fail to see what's wrong with that name anyway). If you have a problem with that, state your case on the talk page there.
*09:36, Sep 25: This new sentence does not belong. I'm not sure if or how the present situation with Iran should be mentioned, but focusing on the invitation for Israelis to come to Iran is not the way to go.
*08:19, Sep 25: I believe the fact that very few Bahá'ís live in Israel (and are not supposed to according to religious rulings) is significant.
*07:58, Sep 25: This needs a reference. Also, this might introduce confusion with the next sentence, which begins with "It".
*07:48, Sep 25: The change from "albeit not without conflicts" is contrary to the source. Do you want me to present the quote supporting that statement?
Also, I don't know how the serious error to the references got introduced, but I am not fixing it. Gilabrand has been editing Wikipedia for over six months now, and this is not his major first referencing mistake on this article. He should know how to double-check major edits by now. And he should also know how to use citation templates. If that is not the case, now is a good time to learn. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted on his talk wall about reverts and making changes without coming here and discussing them.  He's either refused to acknowledge this or completely ignored me. I'm a relatively new wikipedia editor.  What's the solution to this? --Jdcaust 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He hasn't refused to acknowledge you or completely ignored your comment; he responded to your comment and stated he made a mistake. For the record, though, not all changes have to go through the talk page. Drastic changes to an article such as this one probably should go through the talk page, but there's really no reason to do that unless people have objections. Small changes, like the one's Gilabrand made above, don't really need to go through the discussion page though. I disagree with a few of his recent changes, but he was not wrong to just go ahead and make them. -- tariqabjotu 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, then, and I apologize to Gilabrand if I missed his response.  I swear I searched the talk page and couldn't find it anywhere.  In any case, I'm still learning and I appreciate the feedback. --Jdcaust 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilabrand's recent changes 

message: Amongst all the fighting about what parts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should and should not be included, no one noticed that the article has grown to 125kb.  If you look at the top when you edit, there's a tag that mentions that the article is over 100kb and could use cutting down.  To me, this means too much has been included, as opposed to not enough.  I propose we start a discussion on what gets too much exposition and can be cut down and halt further discussion on what isn't here.  Much of what people propose should be here is already covered exhaustively in other articles.  Let's link to those and keep this one clean and succinct. Any thoughts? --Jdcaust 20:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The numerous references are because every single word here gets attacked, and has to be defended with sources. okedem 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) The article is actually 100kb long, as the header says when you edit the article. You receive that message quite often for major topics since it appears after an article reaches 50-60 kb (not sure what the exact setting is now). However, this is not really a problem here as much of the length is due to the numerous references. Looking at the amount of prose (which you can estimate from copying the printable version to a different page), the article has about 42 kb of prose. According to WP:LENGTH#A rule of thumb, that's reasonable. -- tariqabjotu 20:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The need for the number of references is, of course, incredibly frustrating and unfortunate. My main point is that before we continue to propose new sections and more references and words to be added, lets try and find ways to cut things down. We're not writing a book here. I don't know that we need to add a whole lengthy section about the Israeli-occupied territories when there's already an article on this titled that exact way! Things like this should be linked. Instead of appeasing everyone by including more, let's try and have an even discussion about what can be linked off instead. --Jdcaust 20:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not supporting the Occupied territories section to appease anyone. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not here to start another fight, by any means. If there's no support for this, then so be it. However, in comparing this article to other featured articles about countries, it just seems too long. Japan and Germany, for example, both have had histories as exhaustive, eventful, and controversial as Israel, but follow WP:Summary_style. If the ultimate goal is to eventually make this a featured article, wouldn't these examples be the ones to follow? WP:Summary_style also includes ideas about ways to avoid long lists of references. --Jdcaust 20:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me take this moment to once again express my objection to having the sentence, "Demonstrations by the Israeli Black Panthers generated public awareness of resentment within the Mizrahi community at inequalities in Israeli society.", included. It's out of place and does not relate to the surrounding content. Feedback on this would be appreciated. -- tariqabjotu 20:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to agree with you there.  I don't know how it makes sense to go from talking about the Olympic attacks to the Israeli Black Panthers, then on to the Yom Kippur War.  --Jdcaust 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree the Operation Wrath of God piece is probably not necessary either, but I'm wondering what should go in its place. Removing that and the Black Panther reference would result in a jump between the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Certainly something happened in between then. Perhaps involving Golda Meir? -- tariqabjotu 00:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is too long. 

message: Referring to Gush emunim is not intended to elicit sympathy. Gush Emunim and their supporters were the prime force behind the settlements and it was the settlements that led to increased conflict with the Palestinians.  I can provide a reference but not immedately.   Sorry if I piss you off Tariq...
Telaviv1 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think mentioning Golda is a good idea but prefer to keep mention of Palestinian attacks: I would leave in the Munich attack. From that point I can start to remember things...
The sub-headings need changing.  there should be a new sub-heading after 1967 (1967 - ?) and another I would suggest after Oslo or Rabin's assasination (1995 - present).  the 21st century is not relevant. Its too late for me now so I'm off to bed.
Telaviv1 01:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gush Emunim 

message: The last time I posted on this page it was to express my displeasure at the lack of content regarding the conflict.  At the time, my own thoughts were more akin to those of Tiamut and Tegwarrior.  Every attempt I made to insert a mention of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was instantly reverted.  This was incredibly frustrating.  As has been rightly acknowledged by the editors on this page (finally!) this is not simply a trivial aspect of Israeli history of politics.  This has been a defining characteristic of the country almost since the moment of its inception.  As I've mentioned the few other times I've posted here, my viewpoint is largely that of an outsider.  I'm not well-learned about Israel or the conflict.  The latter I know of because, in the Western media, that is largely the lens through which we view Israel.  I've had some time to observe the progression of this page, and while some of it is inspiring, some of it is frustrating, to say the least.  
I want to say, first, that I understand the viewpoint of those who don't want an article on "Israel" to become an article on the conflict.  This point did not particular strike me the first few times I visited this page, but has become more convincing to me as I've watched discussions and arguments unfold.  However, as mentioned by me at the time, it is also unencylclopedic to expect that no criticism should be entered into a country article.  The analogy I used mostly related to the United States (my own country of origin).  For a long time, any and all criticism of the U.S. was edited out. It took a FA nomination to finally drive a consensus to the point where certain disreptuable aspects of American history (slavery, previously without a mention!) were inserted.  This is most evident in the foreign policy section of the United States article, an area of American policy that is, I think it is safe to say, one of the most controversial.  Yet, by that same token, the United States article is by no means a rampant criicism of the United States.  It mentions these controversial aspects of U.S. history, and current U.S. policy, while at the same time mentioning objectively positive aspects such as the economy and the standard of living. 
The point I'm trying to make with this, I think, is that you take the good with the bad.  If you look at the foreign policy section of the United States article, you'll see it links to another article that discusses U.S. foreign policy in much further detail, and is laced with much more specific criticism that is inappropriate in a summation article about the entire country.  That is to say, an entire article about a country should not be limited to mentioning criticism of that countries political/military policies.  There are other things to discuss here, and links to specific articles on those topics where those criticisms can be elaborated upon are more appropriate.
At the same time, controversial aspects of a country's history and current political/military policy should absolutely not be omitted because people with ties to the country are afraid that it will paint the country in a negative light.  Especially with appropriate citation, a major international issue like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot simply be omitted from the Israel article.  I would like to start by commending Okedem (who is Israeli, I believe?) for finally deciding to write and insert a section on the conflict.  That took enormous initiative, especially as his repeated requests for such a section have been unmet.  Furthermore, Tariqabjotu (a Muslim, I believe?) is to be commended for attempting to balance both sides in his relentless attempt to bring this article up to FA status.  I have not seen anyone on this page attacked as much as Tariq, and those attacks have come from every direction imaginable.
This perspective comes largely from the perspective of an outsider, and one who considers his own ideology best described as "humanitarian."  I sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, I will come right out and say it.  I also do not subscribe to the belief that Israel is inherently evil.  These human rights controversies could just as easily be brought up on a number of Middle-Eastern Arab countries, and if you take a quick look you will see that Saudi Arabia, rightly, has a section dedicated to human rights.  Iran had such a section, from what I remember, which was displaced as a result of constant edit warring.
TelAviv1 made what I believe to be an adequate suggestion.  Move the criticism from groups such as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem (an Israeli organization, let's remember) to Okedem's new conflict section.  As has rightly been acknowledged, the criticism of Israel's human rights record does not largely focus on Israel as a whole.  Though the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the status of Arab citizens within Israel, have been the subject of criticism, I think it is safe to say that most criticism of Israel in the international community stems from the Palestinian conflict. Rightly or wrongly, however, it is a major focus of international attention on Israel and deserves mention in the article.  At the same time, I agree that it should not envelope the entire article.  
I am an outsider.  I'm not even well-learned in the conflict, to be quite honest with you.  But I've hardly seen such hostility on Wikipedia.  I offer my thoughts as someone who is not Arab, who is not Jewish, who does not place the rights or wrongs of any one country above another.  This article has made enormous strides in the past few months.  I commend those of you, all of you, who have worked to move it forward.  Even through your confrontations, you have brought out important issues that have come closer and closer to resolution.  Those of you who truly seek to strike a balance, and have worked tirelessly to do so, know who you are and deserve to be commended above all else.  Regards, SpiderMMB 21:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some thoughts on the past few months' discussions

message: Is it just me or is there a problem with the templates at the bottom of the page? This has been like this for awhile for me, but I haven't bothered to fix it. I can only see one of the template groups and templates after that show up as mere links. However, oddly enough, when I go to section edit for the "External links" section, everything shows up fine. I'm using Mozilla Firefox... is this issue happening with everyone? -- tariqabjotu 21:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm having the same problem and I'm using IE7. I'm going to take a look at the code for the tables. --Jdcaust 16:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, it  looks fine now and I didn't change anything. --Jdcaust 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template issues? 

message: Wading through the debate, I just wanted to say congratulations to everyone who worked so hard here to make this article a good one.  It was just promoted to feature article on September 30.  I haven't really been around this article long, but I know a lot of blood, sweat, and tears have gone into it.  tariqabjotu, I know you in particular deserve some props for the work you did.  I know a lot of other people put in some hard work, too, including okedem, telaviv1, and Gilabrand. Good job to everyone, and keep working.  As long as time progresses, Wikipedia articles are never truly complete! --Jdcaust 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations! Featured Article