Talk:Israel/Archive 11

message: I've created a "Arab-Israeli conflict" template, I'd like to add it to this article if that's alright with everyone.
It can be seen under Template:Arab-Israeli Conflict.
--Soviet Canuckistan 20:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this is appropriate. -- tasc wordsdeeds 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 213.42.2.21 17:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: I didn't feel it appropriate to discuss a current/ongoing event in the form of the current dispute in Gaza. There are no facts and no results. Someone should instead add a piece about the Hamas elections and its overall effect instead of a skirmish. If this becomes a full-scale war, this part going on right now is still just a sentence in the history of the event about how it begins.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  72.81.192.159  (talk • contribs) 00:34, July 5, 2006  (UTC)
:I agree, and for the same reason. Anyway, isn't there Operation Summer Rains? -- Avi 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last 2000s Paragraph removed 

message: I suggest the addition of a paragraph in relation to foreign aid and Israel. Covering both what Israel gives to other nations and what it recieves. Any thoughts?
--Oiboy77 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable source for such information, it would be legitimate information to add to the article.  Hopefully such information would be broken down into different categories, such as outright grants, loans, loan guarantees and the like.  Often one sees huge lump-sum figures thrown around for foreign aid (in general, not just for Israel), but if they include such things as the amount of guaranteed loans which are in fact paid off by the borrowing nation, they vastly overstate the amount of "aid."  Another category of aid, which may not show up in official statistics, would be purchases of goods at vastly inflated prices; I do not know whether this happens much any more, but the Soviet Union used to throw a lot of money around this way, to nations such as Cuba, without calling it "foreign aid."  It also would be interesting to see comparative information both for Israel and other nations, particularly its immediate neighbors.  6SJ7 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course non-Zionist means stormfront.org and David Duke.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please refrain from posting white power websites on the discussion page. It is both an insult to peoples intellect and may be construed as a personal attack. You seem to be convoluting the fact that Zionism and Judaism are two seperate things.--Oiboy77 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You would not happen to have the source for that in the Laws of the State of Israel, would you? -- Avi 21:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear - that "law" does not exist. It's just anti-Israel propaganda. okedem 17:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It was a rhetorical question; which you obliged me by not answering. -- Avi 22:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, the US military aid to Israel is not cash money, but money to be used specifically for purchases from American weapons factories. This arrangement lets the US help (basically subsidize) it's own industry, while helping Israel. Also, since the IDF is considered a powerful army, if the IDF purchases some new weapon from the US, it increases the chances of other nations buying it. Basically, it's a marketing/subsidizing/aid thing. okedem 17:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign Aid

message: This article violates Wikipedia's NPOV clause. It is written from a Zionist viewpoint and neutral viewpoints are frequently edited out/reverted back to pro-Zionist propoganda.
-- The preceding unsigned commented was made at 22:15, 7 July 2006 by Oiboy77
:Can you cite any specific examples where the article is biased? Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 22:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof please. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which war? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you cite any example of the silencing of Israeli media? The media constantly reports critical of the goverment, and I've never seen it ignore a story reported on international media because it's critical toward Israel. Where is the silencing? okedem 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not the article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't see anything wrong, except that certain editors push their unsourced POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As Smitty Magee said just because something is "sourced" doesn't mean it is unbiased or neutral. I vote to put the tags back. Please do not BAN me for editing in a tag as others here think this article in not neutral too.--Oiboy77 03:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make your case. Cite examples within the article that would indicate that it is biased. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 05:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you cite the claim that Israel is "silencing their media"? I'm curious as to if the reason you think the article is biased as, as of yet, you haven't made any claims other than the vague statement of it being biased. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 05:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I understand that the site is protected from edit. It happened between two edits that I was doing. I feel responsible and wanted to ask about the matter. I feel that the Religion page is ok and wanted to know when protection was coming off.RoddyYoung 09:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something tells me that 3000 years of religious conflict has something to do with it... Not you. --217.65.158.118 09:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 5766 years (Hebrew: Hatashsav, an alfanumeric for 5,766). --65.96.79.16 01:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: protected wiki site

message: Isreal has both a head of government and a head of state.  Wouldn't that make it a semi-presidential system?  It does show Israel as a Semi-presdiential system on that map on the semi-presidential system.--Scott3 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just spend a few minutes squinting at the map at Semi-presidential system, and after figuring out how to get the largest version of the map, I believe you are mistaken.  At maximum size, Israel is clearly in orange (meaning a parliamentary system).  At smaller sizes, Israel seems to be two tiny orange dots with a yellow dot, which I think is supposed to be the West Bank (let's not get into that issue) and then a yellow dot above it, which I think is supposed to be Lebanon.  Anyway, Israel is correctly portrayed as a parliamentary system, as it also is on the map at Parliamentary system.  Israel does have a parliamentary, not a semi-presidential system.  If you look at the definition at Semi-presidential system you will see that the president in such a system is not a "ceremonial figurehead."  The president of Israel is just that, a ceremonial figurehead.  As for having a separate head of state and head of government, as far as I know, all parliamentary countries do.  While the best-known heads of state in parliamentary systems are monarchs, a number of nations have parliamentary systems with figurehead presidents, including Germany, Italy, India, Turkey -- and Israel.  6SJ7 01:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yea, Israel is a pretty normal run-of-the-mill parlimentary government, the only thing that sets them apart from some of the larger countries like Germany, is the fact that they are small enough to only have one district, probably most other parlimentary governments would do the same if they were the size of Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel may be unique, or close to it, in not having districts.  I looked at a couple of other really small parliamentary countries, Grenada and Saint Kitts and Nevis and, while their lower houses of parliament are very small (15 and 11 members respectively), all members are elected from single-member constituencies.  In my state we have local school boards that are larger than the St. Kitts House, and even more amusingly, St. Kitts has a three (3) member Senate!  (I love this stuff.)  At its foundation, Israel made what I think is a very wise decision, that it only needed one house of parliament, and that in a country so small, and with no previous governmental history to dictate division into districts, there was no need for districts.  6SJ7 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that districts exists so that there is proportional representation for all parts of the country, I guess that Israel decided their population was homogenous enough that it was unnecessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Israel's population is extremely heterogenous. Diving the country to districts would cause minorities to not be represented. Additionaly, districts would make little sense, as Israel is a very small country, and all areas of it have the same interests. okedem 08:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite aware of the subtleties of Israeli society, no need to be pedantic- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk
A few points here (and isn't it refreshing to have a debate on this page that isn't about the Israel/Palestine stuff?)  First, Scott seems to misunderstand what a semi-presidential system is, as opposed to a parliamentary system.  Both a semi-presidential and a parliamentary system have separate heads of state and heads of government.  The distinguishing issue is how powerful the president is.  In semi-presidential systems like France or Russia, although any government that is formed must have the support of a majority in Parliament, the president nevertheless has substantial power in his own right.  In such countries, it is the President (Chirac, Putin) and not the Prime Minister (Villepin, some Russian dude whose name I don't know) who is considered the "leader" of the country in things like international summits.  Israel is a parliamentary system, like Italy.
As to districts or not, many of the smallest countries are former British colonies, and as such have adopted the UK tradition of the single member constituency.  In PR countries, the number of districts does tend to be related to the size of the country, although I'm not sure of the details. And one could easily imagine an Israeli PR system divided into districts along the lines of the districts in which the country itself is divided.  The idea that all areas of a small country have the same interests is ridiculous.  Different areas always have somewhat different interests, it's just a way of the world.  To refer back to Saint Kitts and Nevis, the people of Nevis and the people of Saint Kitts don't particularly like each other, and have different interests. john k 11:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should leave scott alone, he asked a simple questions that happened to be wrong, and we have just written like 3 pages about why he is so far off, I think it is pretty unnecessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, yes - I didn't read carefully and failed to realize that 6SJY had already basically said this. john k 23:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry about it.  I liked everone explantion about Semi-presidential system:)--Scott3 00:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Semi-presidential system]]? 

message: Can anyone provide maps of this region prior to the establishment of the country, maps showing Jewish immigration and settlement patterns prior to the establishment of the country, and maps of the changing borders after the country was established?  Thanks! --TimeDog 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Maps, Please 

message: Not sure if it is part of an edit war or not but the current pop density ranking in the info box is 18th, when it should be 40th, see List_of_countries_by_population_density.  Something to fix when the article is unprotected.  --Ben Houston 16:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop Density Rank in Info Box is Wrong

message: Israel is not a country (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/14/113819/889) --Jabba27 17:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DailyKos is notoriously anti-Semitic.  No dice. - MSTCrow 02:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hatred ofthe Jews has taken many forms throughout history. Anti-Judaism, Anti-Semitism and now Anti-Zionism. They're all the same thing, though. Just because people who hate keep shifting their reasoning and their arguments with the changing times does not make the hatred any less relevant. Legtitimate criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitic. Believing the nonsense that is put out by some people who hate the Jews (ie blood libel, that the Israelis mass-murder the Palestinians, etc.) is. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 13:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean the Gaza beach blast? It's unlikely that the IDF was responsible, but if they were, it was a mistake. You're falsely implying that the Israelis want to hurt or, worse, enjoy hurting Palestinian civilians which is complete and utter nonsense. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It may not have a specific written constitution, but then neither does the United Kingdom. By any objective definition, Israel is a country. The DailyKos poster is an idiot. — Impi 13:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I take that back, what I thought to be a constitution was the declaration if independence, though Israel still have rule and laws the same way any other country has. Anyways, who actually says that every country must have a constitution? even a dictionary definition is more like a description rather than a difinition.--Nefzen 13:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sheer nonsense. The most commonly used rules of statehood are those of the Montevideo Convention of 1933, which states: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Clearly, Israel has a permanent population, it has a defined territory (the Green Line is not disputed as the basis of Israel's sovereignty), it has a government (note, no mention at all of a Constitution) and it has the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Most importantly, Israel is recognised as a legitimate state by the vast majority of the world's countries, thus meeting the final hurdle for statehood. By any objective definition, Israel is a legitimate state and country. All that talk about the Old Kingdoms, heritage and national history is irrelevant in this context. — Impi 14:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Archeology of the area indicates that the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah did, in fact, exist. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In International Law, the only definition that matters is that of a state. A state refers to a  defined territory that is independent, with a government, a population and sovereignty over these (to borrow from Wikipedia's own definition) whereas a country refers only to a geographical area. While in 99% of cases, country and state mean the same thing, it is possible for a country to be non-independent and non-sovereign, for example Wales and Scotland. In Israel's case, Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights are disputed territories, but that doesn't affect Israel's core border (and thus defined territory) which is internationally recognised as being within the '67 Green Line. If, in some future peace deal, Israel acquires 5% of the West Bank, then its defined territory will be considered under international law to have been expanded, not created. Please note, that the existence of disputed borders does not mean one's territory is considered undefined, therefore just because Pakistan and India are disputing the Kashmir border does not mean that either country is not considered a state. Without a doubt, Israel is both a country and a state. — Impi 15:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The word country does NOT involve that, and you are evidently confused about the definition. Take a look at Wikipedia's page on Country and the Wiktionary definition to see what I mean. No country or state requires any sort of national heritage or shared history in order to exist. This is not about disagreement, this is about right or wrong, and on this you're clearly wrong. — Impi 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, this is becoming tiresome. Your quote says absolutely nothing about "heritage and history", nor does it contradict my assertion that the word refers properly (not casually) to a geographical territory. If you continue to be unable to justify your assertion, I would suggest you do the honourable thing and give it up. — Impi 17:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Casually. Casually! Properly, it is a geographical entity, and has nothing to do with ethnic identities or heritage. People misuse words in a casual context all the time, for example most people casually refer to Iran as an Arab country when it's actually Persian. What matters is not casual (and often wrong) usage, but proper usage, and the proper usage for the word "country" most certainly involves neither heritage nor history. Now kindly stop wasting my time with your pointless and erroneous arguments. — Impi 18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, all of the previous claims about heritage and culture (or lank thereof) can be just as easily applied to the USA. okedem 18:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It was called Israel during the United Monarchy period of Jewish history and after the restoration of sovereingty by the Maccabees. When Rome conquered Israel, they renamed it Judea. The name "Palestine" did not come into use until after the failed Bar Kokhba Rebellion of Judea against Rome. Rome wished to break the Jewish spirit as permanently as possible (as this was the second time the Jews revolted). One of the things they chose to do was rename Israel "Palestine" after the Philistines who had made a kingdom in the area of Gaza. The Land of Israel was not called Palestine until 132 CE. The Land of Israel was named "Israel" about 1100 years before "Palestine" came into use. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 213.42.2.10 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a Country ? 

message: As there is no prospect of Zionists allowing this article to comply with the neutral point of view policy it should have a permanent POV tag. Olborne 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't smear Zionism.  Yes, people who are anti-Semitic will never allow Israel to be written about honestly.  - MSTCrow 02:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's incredibly funny. 68.0.185.95 10:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This should have a permanent POV tag

message: Anyone know a town called Beit Dagan? I find it on yahoo and goggle but not here.  Joe  I 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's under the list of towns in Center District (Israel). You could create its article. --Schzmo 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have taken the liberty of creating the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thnx :)  Joe  I 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BEIT DAGAN

message: Please add Israel's coordinate 33°21'54"N,35°5'57" in the header. In general I think that every aricle concerning a place located on earth should have  CoorHeader added to it.
--Man are from earth, women are from earth, deal with it! 15:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates header