Talk:History of Israel/Archive 1

message: Does MM have in mind the 1929 massacre of Jews by Arabs? Or Baruch Goldstein's 1994 attack in a mosque? Maybe she is confused. I believe, her, though, when she claims not to be pro-Palestinian. She is probably just anti-Israeli. 
Paul Klein
81.224.157.51 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled section

message: The two articles on the page need to be integrated; and we need to decide how history of Israel, Palestine, history of Levant and history of ancient Israel and Judah relate to each other. They all overlap, though they cover different material. (The first two concentrate more on the modern period, while the later two on the ancient; but even Palestine has some info on the ancient period as well.) Finally, I think people need to be careful, especially when discussing modern history, to try to avoid bias towards either side. I must admit I myself have probably been a bit biased towards the Palestinians, though maybe not as much as say Joseph Saad; some other editors (RK for instance) have a quite strong pro-Israel bias. We need to work hard to make sure the articles remain neutral in the current conflict, such that a supporter of either side could read them, and mostly agree with what is said within. Of course one result of this is we will spend much more time writing about what each side says happened, than what actually happened; but that is inevitable when the history is at the centre of so much dispute. -- Simon J Kissane
-----
This page seems a bit deficient on the actual creation of the state of Israel. I will try and flesh this out a bit because it is fairly important. sjc
:Very deficient. Compare it to the American Revolutionary War article which goes into detail about significant events and about organizations and leaders who also played a role after the revolution.
:There are events, organizations and leaders of comparable significance in the pre-1948 history and after but they are not mentioned here.
:I would encourage you to write this up, I think it could easily be well documented and would not be controversial.
-----
Eli Cohen should also be integrated.--Stoopideggs2 15:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two articles need integration

message: I remember being taught (a few years ago) that the land of israel was first promised to the Arabs for their support in the war by the British. Then it was also promised to Jews for their support. In the end, because of factors like Haulocost it was given to the latter group. This was part of the Ontario high school curriculum so i dont think its wrong but kind of general, perhaps someon can elaborate on this? 209.197.155.141 05:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See Hussein-McMahon Correspondence. Jayjg 14:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The British deal 

message: Just finished reading Szewach Weiss article (he is Israeli charge d'affair or whatever it is called officailly - in Poland) about role of Polish Jews in Israel. He mentioned that actually majority of ministers, major rabbis, many officers and generals were in fact Polish Jews and in first Kneset 61 from 120 deputees were Polish Jews. Also before i've read that in fact initial Isreali army was under great influence of Polish traditions: e.g. Menachem Begin was officer in Polish army, and because he doesn't wat to leave Polish army, he received special allowance to desert from Anders himself, and many Jews in first army were also either trained in pre-1939 army or were deserters from Anders's army, who didn't chase deserters when Polish army stationed in Isreal, except when British were pushing him (it's quite interesting BTW that both Russians and British who were pushing Anders to no accept Jews into army are painted as philo-semitic while he often is painted as anti-semite :)))) ).
But this does not suit well into that article, but i would like to include that SOMEWHERE. But where? Any suggestions?Szopen 07:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be interesting to know exactly which countries these Europeans and Americans were "refugees" from in 1946-47. 24.64.166.191 06:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish information

message: I can't find that estimate on other sites than sites like this one http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=11513. That site references two UN documents for the estimate:
* 2) Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No.11 (A\648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A\689, and A\689\Add.1, p. 5.
One of the documents can be found here:
* http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa?OpenDocument
The other cannot be found. Neither can I find the magic number 472,000 in that document. Does it matter? The document is from September 16, 1948 before armistice agreements was signed. It therefore wouldn't have been possible to accurately estimate the refugee flight since it wasn't over! The reference is fake. 
:The reference mentions 300,000 refugees several times. Jayjg 15:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: First. It mentions "more than 300,000" once. Second. Check the date. "16 September 1948". Third. I don't trust Mitchell Bard. Do you still think it is a credible source? Palestine-info 01:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I found at least two references in the article to 300,000 refugees.  The reference by Mitchell Bard is likely to a later document that 16 Sep 1948, and you can't assume it doesn't say that simply because you can't find the document on-line. Jayjg 14:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  472,000 

message: About 25% of the current article is pre-1948 and belongs elsewhere according to the first sentence: "This article discusses the history of the modern State of Israel, from its inception in 1948 to the present." Can I delete or move that stuff? Or delete the first sentence?
:I see somebody has deleted the first sentence. So this article is now abuut the "Jewish presence" in the region. The existance of other people is segregateted into other articles. "Israel" only exists when there is a "Jewish presence".
:But we are not allowed to call this "Racism". When I read the Jewish media they speak of the "Arab sector" or the "Druze sector", but never the "Jewish sector". Assimilation and intermarriage are considered problems. You would not want your daughter to marry one of THEM. Especially if THEM is Moslems, not so bad if they are white Christians.
An article on the United States would clearly have sections on the Colonial Period, Revolutionary War, etc. Consequently, article on Israel ought to have pre-State developments in it. 66.108.4.183 06:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably no point in saying this (since this is an old comment), but still: Of course the Israeli media doesn't speak of "the jewish sector". Jews comprise about 80% of the population. A large majority is not considered a "sector". Intermarriage is considered problematic, because these are two different people, culturally. Different religion, different customs, different language, the conflict between Israel and the arabs. okedem 19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off Topic 

message: The links to "pro-Israel sources" should be trimmed down, or balanced out with links to sites with an opposing point of view.  --Tothebarricades.tk 21:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about sources based on actual facts and research? 24.64.166.191 06:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The lack of sourcing and proper citation formatting is irritating and looks very amateur. Concluding every paragraph with "More information from a pro-Israel site " is not a solution at all, even if we tack on a link to a pro-Palestinian site after it. This is one of the articles that I would have thought would be in the best shape on all of Wikipedia, but it really needs a lot of work. Inoculatedcities 00:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pro-Israel sources" 

message: "The United Nations General Assembly (GA Resolution 181, November 29, 1947) proposed the partition of Palestine into two states, an Arab state and a Jewish state, with Jerusalem to be under United Nations administration (see map). Most Jews in Palestine accepted the proposal, while most of the Arabs in Palestine rejected it. Although the Arabs were not under any legal obligation to accept the plan (as General Assembly resolutions are not binding), it is often claimed that their main motivation in doing so was the total rejection of the idea of a Jewish state. The Arab nations in the UN proposed an alternative settlement in which there would be a federal Palestinian state with separate governments for Arab and Jewish countries, with a constitution based on that of the United States of America."
:This lengthy paragraph could be summarized by:
:The Palestinians did not want to live under a "Jewish State" where their homes and lands could be confiscated without compensation and given to the "Chosen People" for free. 24.64.166.191 07:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1948 

message: "The Arab nations in the UN proposed an alternative settlement in which there would be a federal Palestinian state with separate governments for Arab and Jewish countries, with a constitution based on that of the United States of America".
It's absolutely false. The Arabs demanded one country without any special standing for the Jewish minority. It is true that the minority in the UNSCOP committee supported that solution, including Iran, but not the Arab nations. 
SHASHAZ 14:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was basically correct; it was not referring to the UNSCOP plan but a last minute proposal just before the passage of GA 181.  I'll fix it later.John Z 02:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to give a credible source for such an argument. The arabs representatives in the UN didn't say anything like that according to the formal records SHASHAZ 21:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction 

message: Israel's relations with far east countries don't have so much of importance to be mentioned in that relatively short article. SHASHAZ 14:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel - Japan relations

message: There is no mention of the origin of Israel's non-Jewish citizens. The history of "Israel" is all about Jews, even though they were a tiny minority of the population over millennia. Zionists ignore or deny the existence of other peoples in the region. This article is definitely not "neutral". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.166.191 (talk • contribs) . 
: What do we do with trolls? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember that Wikipedia policy ask that you assume good faith. The mere fact that his post was unsigned and made highly controversial statements does not automatically make him a troll. He is more likely new to Wikipedia. --Cab88 11:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And for what it's worth, I agree. The article is extremely biased and reflects almost exclusively a pro-Israeli position. Want to talk trolling? Look at how many pro-Zionist ideologues routinely make grandiose, broad, unsourced, POV-pushing edits to the article.Inoculatedcities 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally Racist 

message: I am surprised that after all the discussion that I have read here there is not a references section in this article. Surely there are enough books on Israeli history to rely on? There are also a lot of statements that might be OK if they had sources but without sources they create a distinctly POV impression. Also, shouldn't the various stages in the run-up to the creation of the modern State of Israel be in a section of their own? The introduction is too long.Itsmejudith 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wot no references? 

message: No, not in the way that most people would expect. The bias is towards the conflicts between the Arab nations and Israel. There is too little and sometimes nothing about Israeli music, arts, literature, roads, pipelines, airports, seaports, education, health, work relations, strikes, labor unions, welfare, local government, stock exchange, industry, trade, energy and the like. gidonb 07:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is extremely biased

message: The word "achieved" is NPOV, and it fits with the rest of the sentence ("...after more than sixty years of efforts..."). There's no judgment in that word. I can just as correctly say "two years into the war, Germany achieved complete military dominance is Europe", while we can all agree Germany was evil. 
From Oxford's dictionary (see specifically 1b - "achieved notoriety"): "v.tr. 1 a reach or attain by effort (achieved victory). b acquire, gain, earn (achieved notoriety). 2 accomplish or carry out (a feat or task). 3 absol. be successful; attain a desired level of performance."
The word "declared" is, actually, misleading. Israel did not just declare independence - it actually got independence, in practice (which was, by the way, formally given by the international community, and Britain, per the 1947 UN vote, calling for the establishment of two states in Palestine). okedem 09:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Achieved" 

message: The article states "The Yom Kippur War began on October 6, 1973 (the Jewish Day of Atonement) when the Syrian and Egyptian armies launched a simultaneous attack on Israel and inflicted a short lived defeat on the temporarily unprepared Israeli Defence Force (IDF). "  I checked the main wikipedia article on the Yom Kippur War and there is no mention of a "short lived defeat". I would remove the "and inflicted a short lived defeat on the temporarily"  and add 's to Israel. If there are no objections I will make that edit. DanielZimmerman 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't use the word "defeat", but they sure caught the IDF by surprise. It really was unprepared, and that led to Arab Armies to some victories, with things looking grim for Israel. After a while things turned for the better (for Israel). okedem 19:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely, it was not prepared and they where caught by surprise. I was just shocked to see "defeat" in the article. I believe I will remove it. DanielZimmerman 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yom Kippur War section question.  

message: The economic history section appears to have been lifted, nearly word for word from <http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/halevi.israel> without an explanation that it is almost directly quoted. Although there is a link to the page at the bottom of the article, a clearer explanation of this material's source would be helpful. Carrots12 17:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would definitely appear that way.  I've removed the section for now.  If someone wants to rework it so it isn't a copyvio that would be fine.  My expertise here is nil (beyond being able to recognize text nearly lifted verbatim from the source).--Isotope23 17:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic history section 

message: Considering it is a direct text dump from History of Palestine and has nothing to do with the stated concept of the article (history of the modern state of Israel) I'd say our anonymous friend is trying to make a point... and even if they are not it is redundant and off-topic in this article.--Isotope23 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a discussion to have at the History of Palestine article.--Isotope23 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the State of Israel

message: Why is there no mention of this in the article? This deserves at the very least a link to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article.  -- This unsigned comment was added by an anonymous user at 192.52.218.34 on 07:39, 2007 May 24
I came to say the same thing.  It is absurd to the point of silliness to have a history of a nation with no mention of its "War of Independence."  That whole beginning of the "After World War II" section is pathetic.  To virtually ignore a nation's independence, the immense machinations leading up to that independence including the British blockade of immigration by Holocaust survivors, the British internment camps on Cyprus, details of the UN Partition Plan of 1947 (two sentences?!!) the waffling and changing of British plans for when and how they actually withdrew (NOT in compliance with the UN decision,) and the 16 months of violence (11/1948 - 3/1949, see 1948 Arab-Israeli War,) the first six years of the foundation of government bodies, political systems, etc., and then jump into a relatively minor political scandal, the "Lavon Affair", absolutely reeks of anti-Israel bias.
It is as if the "History of the the United States" were to have a section entitled "After the French and Indian War" which includes one line saying that on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed, which was immediately followed by "The Whiskey Rebellion".
I'm slapping a bias tag on this article, because this is just over the top. --Eliyahu S Talk 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1948 Arab-Israeli War? -- Adding <nowiki>{{Totally-disputed}}</nowiki> tag

message: This article looks like those horrible history texts of the US that are nothing but a list of wars in which the country was engaged.
What about the rest of the history of the modern state of Israel? Like elections and leaders, economic events, popular media...you know, everything you'd find in any decent history of any other country? Is there a separate article for it? I may have missed one, somewhere, but at a glance it looks like the first prime minister of Israel mentioned in that context is Menachem Begin in 1977. Not even the simple political history of the state is being covered in any kind of useful fashion, here. It's all about The Conflict. Surely that has its own article, and other historic events could a least be itemized, here. --Kaz 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about Non-Conflict History? 

message: Thanks for all the effort Gilabrand. I am trying to do a bit every day (without losing my job...). I am in contact iwth a guy at the Foreign Ministry about getting the Government Photo Office to license us to use some of their photos.  I will let you know if I make any progress.
 
Telaviv1 08:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks TelAviv1. Glad someone noticed. There is so much work to do on this page, it's kind of overwhelming. But I see you are plodding ahead - kol hakavod. I wouldn't want you to lose your job or anything, but we really need some solid academic sources. Alot of the prose here is overwrought and sensationalist (I noticed something about the Arabs holding up their bloodied handiwork, or something of that sort).--Gilabrand 19:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Rewrite