Talk:Israel/Archive 14

message: This section needs citations and some clarification.  The paragraph discusses countries that do not allow people in due to evidence of visiting Israel on their passport and the lists are of countries that do not accept actual Israeli passports. There should also be a section describing the checkpoints. Through their own inhabitants are not allowed to pass. 
69.76.20.62 05:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel Passport 

message: This line is the most biased "According to Israel, the UN, EU, Kuwait[11], G8 and the USA, the soldiers were captured in the Israeli town of Zar’it". So what's the standpoint of the other side?? The described events on whats happening recently in Lebanon is totaly biased. There is no indication that Israel was and is STILL occuping a small part of Lebanon. According to Hezbollah, they saw the soliders on their occupied land and simply defending themselves. Clearly both sides have to be presented. Also there is no mentioning that over 50% of the Lebanese causuilties are CHILDREN and almost ALL of them are civilians, whilst most of the Israreli causilties are soldies. Smells biased biased biased to me.
:I agree with you. Although I oppose any violence, lets remember, that in actual fact, the Hizbollah bombs are falling into Palestinian occupied territory, not Israel.
umm...are you out of your mind? or just don't actually pay attention to the news? last time i checked, haifa is in israel-proper, not in any occupied territories Italic textin actual factItalic text. and while most of the lebanese casualties ARE civilians, it's because hezbollah uses civilians as meat shields, and is careful to parade dead babies in front of ap reporters. so quit talking about things you know nothing about. Parsecboy 16:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Events Totaly Biased 

message: I think a more detailed history on how real Jews was and is oppsosing the state of Israel. According to the Bible, the exile can not end until the Messiah comes. And only then can a true peaceful Israel exist. Traditionally the vast majority of Jewsih scholars strongly opposed the ideas by the secular Theodor Herzl. Further they argue zionism is one of the worst enemy of Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.228.145 (talk • contribs) 
:Wha!?! How do you figure? Axeman89 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Jews 

message: Many Rumors are increasingly running that present Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert might have complotted with other extremists to poison ex-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in coma since for being considered to soft on Palestinians after giving them back land that was taken from them earlier to built Jewish settlements
There are specifica Wikepedia rules that all facts must be verifiable.  Rumors are not verifiable and should not be in any article.  This type of suggestion sounds more like typical anti semitic demonization  Michaelh613 21:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumors Of Ariel Sharon Poisoning Attempt

message: But never say you have my permission to attack LEBANON
:In any case, anonymous user, Wikipedia is no place to discuss your personal ideals. Ariedartin JECJY 15:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You posted publicly, which is an implicit request for comments.  If you don't want people posting their opinions on your opinion, then keep your opinion to yourself.--Izaakb 18:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert as much as you want 

message: This is ridiculous. Nobody can make a good argument on this page anymore because stuff is all over the place. I say it's high time we clean slate it and start over... Alcarcalimo2364 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, you're wrong. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Unsupported assertions are neither an argument nor a proof. Jayjg (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: More unsupported assertions, mixed with emotional scare-words like "censorship". Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are the unsupported assertions being made? That the article "describes Israel from the stance of its supporters"? john k 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one of the main ones. "Countless NGOs" is hyperbole, and misleading. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, lots of NGOs have criticized Israel's human rights record.  Although, one should note, most human rights NGOs criticize everyone's human rights record (except, apparently, Iceland). john k 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That, in fact, is what is misleading; NGOs criticize everyone (though they do seem to have a ###### for Israel, shared by the U.N., and prompted by a number of unfortunate and unsavory factors). Jayjg (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one could disagree about the motivations (for the NGOs, at least).  Human rights organizations function by shaming countries into doing a better job.  Israel, as a democracy, seems like it should be a more effective target for shaming than, say, the Sudan, or Myanmar.  What does Kim Jong Il care about what HRW says about his regime?  Monitoring a country like North Korea is, of course, useful, but it's understandable why less effort would be put into it - because there's not much an NGO can accomplish there. It seems fairly understandable that a democracy with some serious human rights problems, like Israel, would be potentially a more desirable target of action than a brutal, insular dictatorship that doesn't give a damn what human rights NGOs say about them. john k 22:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Main details about the country should be here. But specific controversies, not necessarily. You may want to check how this is addressed on other countries' articles. Treating this article different from any other country would not be wise. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I also remind you of what Wikipedis is not? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep throwing that at me?  I don't even know what you're specifically referring to.  And we would not be treating Israel differently from the article on every other country to have a section on human rights - there are such sections at People's Republic of China, North Korea, and Cuba, for instance.  Are we only allowed to have such sections in articles on communist countries?  And while North Korea is probably uniquely bad, I think it could easily be argued that wikipedia is showing bias against the PRC and Cuba by having such sections in their articles, but not in articles about, say, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Uzbekistan, and so forth...surely Sudan's human rights violations are considerably worse than Cuba's? Are you arguing that we remove the human rights sections from the PRC, PDRK, and Cuba articles? john k 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to imagine why someone would think that the Human Rights situation in Israel is in any way comparable to that in China, North Korea or Cuba - at least, why someone who was at all familiar with these countries would suggest that.  Spain would be a better comparator.  Or the United States. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to knock over that straw man.  That's not what I was saying.  I don't think that having a section on human rights in a country is, in and of itself, an indictment of that country's human rights record.  I think it would be acceptable to add a well-researched and NPOV human rights section to any country article.  I don't think that this needs to be done in some sort of hierarchical order of worst to best.  You however, seem to think that we cannot have a human rights section on a country until all countries with worse human rights records have such articles.  This is not only rather silly, but also is directly at odds with the current wikipedia situation, in which Cuba and China have sections for pretty workaday political oppression, while a country with an ongoing genocide (Sudan, again) does not have a section on human rights at all.  Why is it unacceptable to have a section on human rights in Israel because there aren't such sections about Australia and Indonesia, but it is acceptable to have a section on human rights in Cuba even though there aren't such sections about Sudan or Myanmar? Why does the issue of whether this article is NPOV have to be tied up with a comparison to 190 other articles? john k 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the problem; other countries could get normal articles, but when it's about Israel people want to create one-sided fiascos like this:  Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  A balanced discussion of the true state of Human rights in Israel should be welcome by all Wikipedia editors for the good of the project.  The intent of the above is to propagandize and attack. Elizmr 23:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't seem terribly fair to attack an article for being POV when it is first created.  This is what the wikipedia process is about - working on the article back and forth until a good article is created.  It would seem to me that it would be more constructive to try to improve our coverage of these things, and make sure they stay NPOV, than to use it as an example of why our normal rules should be abandoned when it comes to Israel.  Basically, my issue is this - there seems to be a mindset that because there's a lot of anti-Israel editors who are stupid and incompetent, and who create articles or sections that suck, that means that we have to develop this whole set of far more stringent rules when dealing with issues of Israel.  I don't think that's right.  I think we should use the same rules.  The fact that people create ###### articles can be perfectly well dealt with using the ordinary rules of wikipedia, and the article you point to has been the subject of considerable debate over the course of the day, with a lot of changes (not sure how good all of it is).  I understand the concern that anti-semitic (or, at least, anti-Israel) garbage can get into wikipedia, but the way to deal with that is not to set some kind of good will test, where I have to prove that I don't have any ulterior motives by writing an article on human rights in Switzerland or what not before I gain the right to deal with Israel, as SV apparently suggested earlier.  The whole point of wikipedia is that it shouldn't matter if we have ulterior motives.  So long as we take care to verify our information with reliable sources, to avoid original research, and to insure that all points of view are represented in a way to give each its due weight, it shouldn't matter that editors have POVs - editors are supposed to have POVs.  And sure, Middle East topics attract more than their fair share of bad editors, but we can't condemn something on the basis that it would be done badly.  Certainly that's not how wikipedia works for any other topic. john k 23:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, that would be my suggestion as well, although I'd say "a short paragraph" rather than "a sentence or two."  I didn't mean to suggest I favored anything else. I will say that that article is pretty #### right now, and it may take a while before it's in a state to be summarized. john k 02:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we can take a break from this, wait until that article is stable and then summarize here. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: J Kenney--I see what you are saying in the long quote above, but actually according to Jimmy Wales it is every editor's duty to maintain balance at all times.  See my user page for his discussion on this.  OK?  Elizmr 14:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, every editor should strive to achieve NPOV.  But every editor also has their own biases which color their view of what wikipedia is.  There is not and has never been an injunction that one has to be unbiased to edit wikipedia - the very idea is, at any rate, absurd.  Everyone is biased in one way or another.  Notice that Jimbo says that it is incumbent on all of us to try to achieve balance in our writing.  That is to say, we should try to overcome our biases and be fair-minded when trying to write for wikipedia.  We should not come to wikipedia with the purpose of writing one-sided polemics, even if we feel like the people we disagree with are doing this.  But what SlimVirgin seems to be demanding is that, on Israeli/Palestinian topics, at least, one has to prove beforehand that one has no  "bias" against Israel before one can contribute.  I know perfectly well that, at least compared to the Zionists who seem to populate wikipedia articles on this subject, I have a "bias" against Israel (I don't think I'm reflectively anti-Israel in any way, but i find the Israeli government's actions to be frequently repugnant, and I think the origins of the State of Israel are morally questionable at best).  But I don't think those views, even if they can be characterized as "anti-Israel" (which I think is an unfair characterization, at any rate), should in any way disqualify me from editing and discussing articles on the subject, any more than being sympathetic to Israel disqualifies one.  What is required is an ability to be open to opposing points of view, and to be fair minded in trying to insure that NPOV is met.  This is the point of Jimbo's comment that  neutrality is not "best achieved by warring camps."  The point isn't that people can't have opinions, it's that people shouldn't be writing in bad faith in a way to purposefully promote their POV. john k 15:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, John, This is Wikipedia,  where a Nazi can edit the article on The holocaust, and an christian fundamentalist can edit the article on Islamism. But that would only be possible, if we discuss the article a not not the subject, or our ideas on the subject, keep our cool, and make extraordinary efforts not to use these talk pages as a battelground of ideas. For example, your comments above about your views are absolutely unnecessary. I do not care a about your views. All  I care is: can you edit this article and add value? So far I have see a lot of smoke, but not fire. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only mentioned my own views as an example, because SlimVirgin seems to feel that people need to prove that they don't have "bias against Israel" before they can edit this and related pages.  As to editing this article, as I think we both agree, there's not much to be done here at the moment.   If you'd like at my comments at Talk:human rights in Israel, I think you'll find that I've been trying to moderate positions on both sides, and that I don't agree with the "propaganda of one side will be balanced out by propaganda from the other side" perspective.  My most recent comments here have been in response to the rather bizarre idea that SV has expressed that one has to prove one's good faith by writing sections on human rights in Australia before one has earned the right to advocate for a section on human rights in Israel here.  As I think I've stated before, I'm not terribly interested in writing articles about human rights (although now that I've gotten myself into the Israel mess, I feel some responsibility to make an effort to see that it doesn't end up a complete POV disaster), but I find most of the general arguments against such a section to be dubious, and I have ever right to point this out in talk if I want to.  As to my personal views, I was merely stating them for the purpose of explaining my biases, which can, I think, be useful, in that it reveals where everyone's coming from.  I'm glad that you don't care about my views.  I don't particularly care about your views, either.  At the same time, it's always useful to know where somebody is coming from, as it helps you judge what they are saying.  In particular, it keeps you on the look out for statements against interest, which can be useful in judging whether somebody is being fair-minded.  But, anyway, as usual, I find this exhausting and deeply dissatisfying.  I don't want to have to write long essays in defense of general wikipedia principles, but articles on this particular subject seem to be so full of strange attitudes towards things like NPOV and original research that I tend to spend much more time than I'd like doing this kind of thing.  Anyway, I'm done with this.  This is tiring and all it seems to result in is SlimVirgin accusing me of being an anti-semite (or something...) and you repeatedly telling me to look at "What wikipedia is not".  I'm going to keep looking at the human rights article, in hopes that a little sage guidance from me will help move things in the right direction, but ovverall I find the whole thing exhausting.  john k 16:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at WP:NOT from time to time, is a good thing, and I do that myself to remind me that this is an encyclopedia and not a place for advocacy journalism, a battleground of ideas and a myriad of other things. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Congratulations, that is as irrelevant as it is false and disgusting. Do you have anything of value to add or just vicious Jew-hatred? You need to read a history book or two....it was not the Jews who attempted to eradicate their neighbours in a 1948 war of aggression. The tolerance you insist the Jews of the 40s should have shown to their peaceful Arab friends would have resulted in a Holocuast-proportion bloodbath. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You call that vicious Jew hatred? I saw nothing in those comments which is anti-semitic, although it's clearly fundamentally anti-zionist.  The statement has nothing to do with improving the article, and as such isn't a useful contribution to this talk page, but neither is your comment.  And perhaps you should read a history book as well, instead of just the Israeli propaganda version of its history. john k 13:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "A European minority entrenched and armed to the tooth, indoctrinated with notions of religo-racial superiority..." <-- Jew-hatred and disgusting racist rhetoric. As for your "Israeli propaganda" comment, which part did you mean? The part where Israel's neighbours tried to eradicate it (and its people) in 1948? I don't need propaganda of any kind to tell me that this is simply factual. Sorry for shooting my mouth off though...I know it isn't helpful but lines like the one I just quoted are pretty upsetting. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up this talk page!

message: Given all the above, it seems pretty clear why this is needed. The article on Palestinian refugees (a link from this page) has it loud and clear at the top, as do many other links from this page. It seems self-evident then that this page should too. For example, this page claims that the Palestinian "fled" in 1948 rather than were forced out. Some people may agree with this and some people may not, but it is obviously a statement whose factual accuracy is not accepted by everyone. In fact, these "factual accuracy" tags should also be semi-protected from vadalism (in this case, vandalism is removing them) simonhartigan 12:45, 30 July 2006 (EST)
:Agreed--Oiboy77 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this seems sensible.  john k 14:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Accuracy and Neutrality Tag Added

message: Humus Sapiens deleted the ONLY sentence in this section that hinted at any criticism... which was: "These viewpoints are contested for various reasons by the U.S. Department of State, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The World Bank, The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee."   It had EIGHT sources for the one sentence.
Mischaracterization of Dept. of State
In its place, he put:  According to 2005 US Department of State report on Israel, "The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas..." [22] If you go to the source, the complete sentence is: " however, there were problems in some areas, including the following: 
*serious abuses by some members of the security forces against Palestinian detainees 
*Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers 
*resulted in the death of 29 civilians and an IDF soldier within Israel 
*poor conditions in some detention and interrogation facilities 
*improper application of security internment procedures (see annex) 
*institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens 
*discrimination in personal and civil status matters against non-Orthodox Jews 
*societal violence and discrimination against women 
*trafficking in and abuse of women and foreign workers 
*de facto discrimination against persons with disabilities 
*government corruption 
"
We can start listing specific areas of criticism, as this edit completely mischaracterizes the reality of the situation -- but I thought we wanted to keep this brief here?  Or the fact that since your outdated source was created, Israel has been placed on a special Human Rights watchlist by the Dept. of State?
Freedom House
He also added: "In 2005, the Freedom House rated political rights in Israel as "1" (1 representing the most free and 7 the least free rating), civil liberties as "2" and gave it the freedom rating of "Free". [23]"  -- We already documented on the Human_rights_in_Israel page that this report considered Israel and its "occupied territories" separately.   Again, if this is considered then the rating is "6, 5, Not Free."   
Please stop this blatant POV pushing.  It is outrageous to delete the single critical Human Rights sentence and then include two mischaracterizions.   What you edited to is not reflected by the citations either here or on the Human Rights in Israel article.  
Sarastro777 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this list I think I've finally figured out why I'm just not happy with this whole section. Listing all the human rights abuses that go on in Israel and in the Palestinian territories (not counting those perpetrated by the Palestinians themselves) makes Israel look pretty bad. But the problem is you could make a list like this for any country on the planet and make them look bad...most a lot worse than Israel. I'm not disputing that Israel does bad things when it comes to adhering to a universal code of human rights. I'm saying that any list like the one above is naturally and automatically prejudicial. It would only be fair to include such material if a massive amount of context could be established, and I'm not sure we have that kind of space in this article, or if any of us have the ability to do it in a fair and unbiased manner. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is problematic.  Problems like "de facto discrimination against the disabled," and "government corruption" in particular, seem not terribly important.  I think if we have a section, it should touch on major issues - Palestinian terrorist violence, Israeli army violence in the territories, destruction of homes, settlement expansion and the wall, perhaps discrimination against the Palestinian population in Israel proper.  Before getting into this stuff, we could also mention that Israel is a liberal democracy, with civil rights and liberties, and such being generally observed within Israel itself, and such like, to mitigate the bad.  It should not be in the form of a bulleted list, but of text, and should link to the main article which, at some point, would hopefully be an actual good summary, rather than the mess it is now. john k 11:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand where you're coming from but I remain concerned. Again I think it comes back to context. Take, just for example, the west bank barrier. It would be easy to simply list the ways this imposes hardship on the wesk bank population and has been condemned by external organizations. However, there are extremely compelling arguments for the barrier....not the least of which is that it has been demonstrably effective in thwarting suicide bombers from crossing into Israel to target and kill civilians. In general, whenever an Israeli abuse against the Palestinians is cited, I find myself asking what any other democratic state would do in the face of murderous acts against its civilians (or its soldiers for that matter). There is a growing movement in the US southwest, for exmaple, to build a similar barrier to stem the tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico. What would America's reaction be if those Mexicans were blowing themselves up in restaurants and churches in Phoenix? How would any of us react? Context is tough. Schrodingers Mongoose 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue people tend to have with the wall is not the existence of the wall per se, but the way it is built not on the Green Line, but in such a way as to include as many settlements as humanly possible, and thus not only protects the settlements, which are illegal under international law, but makes life very difficult for the Palestinians whose freedom of movement is greatly impeded.  There wouldn't be nearly this level of protest against the wall if it had been built along the Green line, or even with moderate adjustments from the Green Line.  I'd oppose my country building a wall along the border with Mexico, but let's note that a full analogy would involve the American government occupying northern Mexico and using its occupation to subsidize the construction of illegal American settlements in northern Mexico on land owned by Mexicans, all while disenfranchising the Mexican population and not giving them American citizenship (stuff which happened in the Palestinian Territories before there was any serious  indigenous terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza).  I don't think that the discussion here needs to go into much detail with justifications.  The history section discusses the history.  I'm happy to mention Palestinian terror attacks as part of a discussion of human rights.  I kind of see where you're coming from that any discussion is going to be short on context, and thus problematic, but I think that there's plenty of context on the conflict in the article as a whole, and hopefully there will be an entire article on human rights which can give context. john k 14:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights Criticisms

message: Do the actual stats(population, area... etc)include the WB/Gaza?
:No, they don't. The figure for area does includes East Jerusalem and the Golan, as they were annexed by Israel (see the "Geography" section). okedem 06:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - the population figure does include Israeli settlers living in the West bank, as they are Israeli citizens. okedem 06:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: I personally feel the history section has been laid out incorrectly and with not enough emphasis on Israel's modern history (ie. 1970--->), which it seems is what everyone argues about and is constantly a source of interest and discussion. There is too much emphasis on the all of the events leading up the creation of a Jewish state, the immigration, underground groups, indepedance and so on and so on. I personally think all of this is far outweighing current or recent political and social developements that are occuring in Israel, that are far more relevant to today's world politics. 
I mean I see a brief outline of Israel in the Lebanese Civil War, a few quote's about Peres' leadership, one mention of the Al-Aqsa Intifada then one, two, skip a few and where upto 2006. All of the recent political and social events that happened in the last 20 years involving Israel are having severe rammifications and consequences in Middle Eastern and world politics than anything 60 years ago.
Not to say we shouldn't focus on Israel's creation, which is obviously why we have such a delicate and tense political atmosphere in the Middle East now, but we need definately more mention of recent events which is what people are hearing and seeing in the media and unfolding the future of relations and politics in the Middle East and so on.
Personally I haven't got the time to rewrite this article, but if a knowledgable, good natured person could include some more recent history, I think the article would be more informative.
--211.26.45.85 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote about this months ago. It seems that everyone has something to say on the subj. not realizing that this is only a summary. I won't be surprised if soon this section will be longer than the article it supposed to summarize. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section disproportionate..... 

message: The Jews will rush to delete this edit soon enough
http://newsbusters.org/node/5043
*That's spelled Jooz. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, get it right...if you're going to accuse Jews of international conspiracies, make sure to toss in something about Jooz owning the banks and hollywood too. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Mel Gibson (and his bartender) had this subject all taken care of for the week.  6SJ7 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is such a great example of what's said in the below website 

message: The following sentence from the Israel article should be changed as follows, "The land of Israel holds a special place in Jewish religious obligations, encompassing Judaism's most important sites — including the remains of the First and Second Temples of the Jewish King, Solomon." should become: The land of Israel holds a special place in Jewish religious obligations, encompassing Judaism's most important sites — including the remains of the First Temple built by the Jewish King Solomon, inaugurated in 1026 BC, and the Second Temple built by Zerubbabel in 515 BC.
70.58.181.240 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP user is correct, Zrubavel was responsible for building the second temple. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 03:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - read about the Second Temple, and Herod's Temple. okedem 07:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Zerubabbel built the second Temple.  But the remains of the second temple might not be remains of the temple built by Zerubabbel, but of its rebuilding by Herod.  Herod, unpopular as he may be, was a Temple builder as much as the other two. john k 18:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed it should be.  All I was saying was a) we should use the date for Solomon attested by modern scholarship; and b) we should mention Herod as well as Zerubbabel as builders of the second temple. john k 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical accuracy error 

message: I'm too scared of screwing it up, deleting something, and having Oiboy77 launch 23 judicial proceedings against me. But it's gotten a wee bit big, yes? Schrodingers Mongoose 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: archived. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the love of God/Gods/Earth Mother/Whatever, somebody please archive this page 

message: "The State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, one day before the expiry of the Palestine Mandate." 
I'm reading this becasue of current events because I don't know much about the subject. However, as I read this, it is unclear who proclaimed the State of Israel. Perhaps someone in the "know" could clarify this with "was proclaimed by XXX on May ... blah, blah, blah". I'm guessing the UN but I would like it specified for the sake of clarity.
84.112.104.223 09:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not the UN. It was proclaimed by "The People's Directorate" (literal translation from hebrew, I don't know its actual name in english), the leaders of the Jewish prensence in Israel, and read by David Ben Gurion. The UN decided, on November 29th, 1947, that the British mandate in Israel should end, and that two states, a Jewish one, and an Arab one, should be established in Palestine (see 1947 UN Partition Plan). okedem 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and Vaad Leumi.  This main article on Israel necessarily treats the subject in a "summary" style, and omits this detail.  I suppose it could be added in, but then the question would be what other details also would be appropriate, and then the article starts to get very long.  That is why there are separate articles and cross-references.  6SJ7 15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you put this comment where you had intended?  It does not seem to fit the rest of this little section, which so far has been a completely appropriate discussion for contributors to an encyclopedia, about whether a particular fact is stated, where it is stated and where it should be stated.  There has been no "debate" and in any event, Wikipedia is not a forum for debate or discussion, except regarding the contents of the articles.  6SJ7 15:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proclamation of the state of Israel

message: The infobox cites Jeruselem as the Capital of Israel. As this "fact" is disputed by most of the world I suggest we change it to Tel Aviv and add a reference to Jeruselem as the proclaimed capital on the bottom of the page. It is wierd that you have to scroll to the bottom to read that its disputed.--Oiboy77 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Capital" in normal parlance (with a few exceptions), means "city where a country's government is located."  In a few cases, a country has officially designated another city as their capital, even though the government is located somewhere else (e.g. the Netherlands, or Ivory Coast).  It would be absurd to say that Tel Aviv is the capital, because it conforms to neither definition - the government is not located there, and it is not declared by the Israelis to be their capital.  Listing Jerusalem, with a footnote to explain why much of the world does not accept this designation, is the only reasonable way to do this. john k 18:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, saying Tel Aviv is the capital is absurd. It never was Israel's capital de jure, only de facto, for a year. The Knesset was there 1949, when Jerusalem was secured by the IDF. That's basically it. The only city Israel has ever designated as capital is Jerusalem. okedem 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Problems

message: Someone has edited the info box to place the office of Prime Minster above that of President, with the edit summary stating that the PM is of "higher authority" than the President in Israel.  I don't think this is a burning issue and I will not change it, but I think as a matter of "protocol" a head of state (the president, Katsav) should be listed above the head of government (the PM, Olmert.)  While it is certainly true that the PM has more "power" than the president, who has almost none, it is really not correct to say that the PM is a higher "authority".  In parliamentary systems, a separate "head of state" is required, and in the modern world the head of state is almost always a figurehead (such as the Queen of the UK and all the European monarchs, and the presidents of such countries as Germany, Italy and Israel), but in at least the symbolic sense, the head of state is "higher" on the list.    6SJ7 02:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prime Minister/President

message: Considering how controversial the entire subject is, I feel this article, and the associated talk page, is remarkably insightful and while NPOV is perhaps not fully achieved in all sections, at least there is a healthy balance of POVs, which is perhaps the next best thing.
The strength of the Wikipedia project rests ultimately in the conviction of the majority of users that there is such a thing as objective truth, and their commitment to its discovery and publication, however difficult the task.
To me, it seems almost axiomatic that Israel is guilty of signficant human rights violations and "gets away with murder" in the eyes of the Western media, of which Wikipedia is ultimately a part.  Else how could such a State be carved out of nothing in the space of 50 years?  Given the indisputably contentious position of Israel in the world today, it can hardly be anti-Semitic to at least draw attention to the debate surrounding Israel's  legitimacy and its foreign policy.  If we don't do this, we will only detract from the usefulness of our resource. Ribbit 10:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some cause for cheer, and reflection 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.See footnote
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL. 
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.See footnote
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.See footnote
* article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
*Please provide citations for all of the s.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bwhack 05:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have the right order for interwiki ad hand! Should I put it in?--Stone 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: I think more detailed history on how real Jews was and is oppsoing the state of Israel. Accoring to the Bible, the exile can not end until the Messiah comes. And only then can a true peaceful Israel exist. Traditionally the vast majority of Jewsih scholars strongly opposed the ideas by the secular Theodor Herzl. Further they argue zionism is one of the worst enemy of Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.228.145 (talk • contribs) 
:I am one of those Jews who believe that the State of 'Israel' is the most horrible disaster that has ever happened. G-d should speedily cancel the existence of the Zionist state. This must be done through peaceful means only, and it cannot be done by the Arabs, unfortunately - since they would kill all Jews in the Holy Land.
:Now let's get to the point. Yes, I agree with you. Such a section should be added. You are probably referring to Neturei Karta, which is quite famous and hated amongst nearly all parts of the Jewish community. A better group to write about are the slightly less extreme Hassidim of the movements Satmar, Toldos Aharon and Dushinsky. Take a look at JewsAgainstZionism to read more about what real Judaism says about Zionism. Neturei Karta is not the right one to ask or to write about; they have only a few hundred members, even though they claim they have thousands. Satmar alone has more than 100.000 members; they are a much better subject. I will get to work on this soon. --Daniel575 09:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a nice and neutral section on Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish opposition to Zionism. (I myself am somewhat affiliated with the Dushinsky Hassidic movement - see here.) Hope you like it. --Daniel575 09:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That content belongs to Anti-Zionism if anywhere. _This_ particular article is about the State of Israel. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It belongs here, since it is a fundamental part of the history of the Zionist state. It is very important to note the difference between Haredi Judaism and Zionism. I do not see why such a section should hurt anybody. Please do not remove it again. If necessary, we will hold a vote on it. --Daniel575 10:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know some editors try to turn every article they touch into a clone of Anti-Zionism. WP is not a blog and not a battleground. _This_ encyclopedic article is about the State of Israel. With all due respect, please express your or Mr. Teutelbaum's feelings someplace else. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This "Mr" happens to be a "RABBI" and his name is Rav Teitelbaum. I would rather propose that you remove the views of Theodor Herzl y"sh (may his name and memory be wiped out) from the article. Good, we will make a vote on this. --Daniel575 11:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about Israel, not Zionism. In the Zionism article there's a whole section about anti-zionists, which are a small fraction of the Jewish population worldwide. This deserves, at most, a sentence in the Zionism section in the Israel article. BTW, I wonder - do the anti-zionist Jews refuse to accept the Israeli government's financial support? okedem 11:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, they refuse financial support from the government. They do not accept anything from the Bituach Leumi and do not accept state funding for their schools. So the lies circulating that these people would be hating the state yet profiting from it are just that: lies. These people don't vote in the elections either. --Daniel575 11:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax, I was just asking. Anyway, they still benefit from its existence (infrastructure, security, health, etc). okedem 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry, I didn't accuse you of lying. It's just something you commonly read, a common accusation - which is false. And yes, they do benefit from the infrastructure and security services. Health is a different issue, there are separate arrangements for that. I am slightly more moderate myself- I do use regular Israeli health services (kupat cholim Maccabi, should it interest you), I have a pretty positive view of the police in general and I don't run around screaming Israel should be destroyed, like some Neturei Karta freaks do. Just that it would have been better initially if this state would not have been founded, and if there were a peaceful way of doing so, we should immediately dismantle the state and we will let the UN take over here. That's what Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum said. --Daniel575 15:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "If there were a peaceful way of doing so", a lot of things would be different and Israel and its environs would not be a battlegound on Wikipedia, or in real life either.  But it doesn't look like there is.  Anyway, this is sort of becoming a debate forum rather than a talk page for an article, so let me say, my answer to your question below is "no", it doesn't belong here.  I don't really like these instant polls so I haven't "voted" though I may do so later.  6SJ7 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If there was a peaceful way to live, Zionism wouldn't really exist. Israel was founded because wherever they went, Jews encounted violence and hatred. Israel was founded so Jews could be safe and free, and so nothing the Pogroms or the Holocaust could ever happen again. okedem 16:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Real Jews (Haredi anti-Zionism)

message: Vote expires on Friday, 18th August 2006 at 14:00 Israeli time.
**SUPPORT
#--Daniel575 11:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: Does a section on Haredi Jewish opposition to the State of Israel belong on this page?