Talk:Israel/Archive 16

message: Israel's Central Beauro for Statistics estimates Israel's Population at 7,057,600 as of July 31, 2006. This gives a pop. density of about 319/km^2
88.152.185.140 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a section is created on this subject I suggest you also add a link here: Immigration#Immigration by countries and territories.--Saintlink 08:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: The article mentions that the cease-fire was broken by both sides. I was not aware of any breaches of the cease-fire made by Lebanon. Unless you can cite such a statement with actual evidence or news reports I think it should be deleted.
There were and are violations of the cease fire-by the Hezbollah, which continues to receive arms shipments through the land borders with Syria. In addition, The UN resolution and international law clearly states that there can only be one armed force in Lebanon, the Lebanese army, and so, as long as the Hezbollah refuses to lay down their arms and turn in their rocket stockpiles (which they proudly announced to have been largely undamaged by the Israeli attacks) to Lebanese authorities, they are violating the cease fire. 
"[UN Cease Fire resolution 1701] Emphasises the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon; "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/4785963.stm
http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=48524&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=86315&d=10&m=9&y=2006
::The fact that Hezbollah has not yet complied with Resolution 1701 does not mean that Hezbollah has breached the cease-fire. Even if you think the two actions are the same, I find it quite hypocritical to say that Hezbollah is breaching the cease-fire when Israel executed commando missions in Lebanon and continually violated Lebanese air space (not to mention occupied Lebanese territory), and yet no one could say that Israel had breached the cease-fire. Need I also remind you that Israel didn't comply with Resolution 425 until 22 years later? 
::One other point is that you really can't prove that Syria has supplied Hezbollah with arms after the cease-fire came into effect. In fact, until very recently Lebanon has been under blockade, one meant to prevent arms from reaching Hezbollah. If arms were still being smuggled in, then what's the point of letting the country suffer the damaging effects of a futile blockade (after all, we have all seen how much Israel has been concerned with Lebanon's well-being as they so often stated). My point is, the claim that Hezbollah has been receiving arms from Syria after the cease-fire is unsupported, and therefore you can't just say that Hezbollah breached the cease-fire. Israel on the other hand openly admitted to every breach it had made. LestatdeLioncourt 13:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This guy's right.  Israel should stop being so darn honest.  It isn't working out very well for them. --bladebot 09:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict 

message: if you disagree with any, revert :) . Amoruso 13:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert which Oiboy77 has twice done: here reverted by me and here reverted by Ynhockey. Oiboy's edits, which include deleting the entire 'Sports' section and 11 pictures, are plain vandalism. I request an administrator to look into this. Deleting 11 pictures and a whole section of text without any consensus and without any motivation, and doing it again when it is reverted, is plain vandalism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oiboy77 is a vandal with multiple bans on his record for exactly this kind of behaviour. When pressed on it he will claim a massive Zionist conspiracy, then vandalize again and get blocked again. Just keep reverting him. Schrodingers Mongoose 21:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I request the first administrator who sees this to step in and block him again, preferably for a (much) longer time. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: adding lots of pics

message: The recent edit by Amoruso adding "like Mount Hermon" may not make any statement that is literally in correct, but it tends to imply, to most readers, that Mount Hermon is in Israel and therefore I resisted it. Unfortunately I cannot continue to do this without provoking edit wars and violation WP:3RR so I guess that, at least for now, it will have to stay. Viewfinder 15:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The disputed status of the Golan heights is mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraphs, so in context I don't think it particularly bolsters the Israeli claim.  Perhps rather than simply removing it, you could supply an alternative example, within the pre-1967 borders?  David Underdown 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything would be preferable, as would nothing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Viewfinder, I really do think that wikipedia policy doesn't deal with WP:POV political edits. Golan is in Israel because Israel is there - whether it's illegal or not is not relevant for statin the fact. I showed you the western sahara example and others - it's the facts on the ground that are relevant, because wikipedia is an encyclopedia by regular users who want to know where everything is and who have enough article and section liberties to make the difference between U.N positions and geographical facts, and so on. Amoruso 19:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems the international community and Wikipedia is doing exactly that with regards to the occupation and unilaterl annexation of Tibet by China. Why should it be any different here? Isarig 16:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really do not see what Israel's political system has to do with the countries in which Mount Hermon is placed. Maps published by sources regarded as verifiable show that Israel's internationally recognised borders enclose no part of Mount Hermon, as shown on the map shown on Golan Heights. If country A occupies territory within country B, that territory remains in country B until international law, as interpreted by international institutions and shown on international maps, not country A's POV "scholars", decrees otherwise, despite the presence of country A. The fact that Israel occupies part of the mountain and imposed its own national POV by unilateral annexation does not alter that, nor is it altered by the fact that this article is watched by a team of nationalist POV editors who make its information impossible to correct. Viewfinder 11:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with this opinion like I've said before. international law can be used by both sides and one can't say that territory is not recognised by international law, but only by the U.N for example in non binding resolutions. Btw, Your last sentence is incivil and I ask you not to resort to such statements but stick to the point. Facts are what Wikipedia should try to attend to and the territory is in the hands of Israel therefore it should be considered in Israel as a matter of fact. The map assertion is wrong. For example, the National Geographic maps show the Golan to be in Israel.   (thank-you Shilonite for info). Perhaps maps should be changed to wikipedia for better accuracy without showing the armistice line simply. Amoruso 12:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that's certianly not true. Have a look at this  - showing Tibet  outside the borders of China, with different shading that's very similar to the way the Golan is shown on many maps. Isarig 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I did not mean to say that you were lying, only to show that the statement "all international maps ... show Tibet to be within the borders of China." Is not true. You were not aware of the maps that do not show this, and I have remedied that. As to the color  of the shading, you are reading way too much into it. The CNN map shows that Tibet is not of the same status as the rest of CHina. There are many maps that use the same shading for teh Golan, or indicate it in the same color as Israel. In addition to the map Amoruso has shown you, you can look at these : Isarig 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that's precisely my point: even though Israel does not claim the WB, and even though the internatioanl community certianly does not recognize such a claim, th eWB is shown in th eexcat same color as Israel - which proves my point that you are reading too much into the colors. Teh 2nd link shows the Golan hieghts shaded in the excat same way as the Tibet region is shaded - with diagonal lines  - while the background color is the same as Israel's (or Syria).  Isarig 19:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography, climate and [[Mount Hermon]] 

message: This section is unbelievably biased. There's no mention of any human rights abuses against  Jews. What about the Tehran youth? The radiaition experiments on Morroccan children? What about Ammona? (video) HOw about the raid on Toldos Aaron in 1981, the raid on Meah SHarim in 1983, the French Hill Massacre, the 2005 Passover Raid against Satmer (there's video), the beatings of Jews protesting graves being uprooted where they used tazers on the protestors faces while they sat.(also video) The article is so biased it belongs in a Hassborah site not in an encyclopedia. 88.154.158.42 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide information about these claims, from reliable sources, it can be added to the article. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and is never complete or perfect. okedem 19:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Abuses Against Jews 

message: i think this should be included in the article, strictly facts...and let others think for themselves on their POV. remember just facts no POV, so none of "Israel needs this" or "its not as much if you compare it to other countries" or even "this is to much to be giving a single country." but you guys already know this, heres some info, and you may be able to find better.                   http://www.washington-report.org/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm       1 problem with this, the articles at the bottom are pretty much POV, but i advise you read them because many of them are interesting.  Mac33c 22:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US aid to Israel 

message: Article currently says: "... Israel offered — in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel — to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel the full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions, but many refused."  This should probably be moved to the section above ("Establishment of the State").
:This is ingenuous - "full and equal citizenship" does not mean equal rights to land use and water resources in Israel. We are misleading the reader if we do not say this. Fourtildas 04:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can argue about why they left, but there is no doubt about what is preventing them from returning - armed force and the threat of violence. Does anyone dispute this? Fourtildas 04:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, but Israel is under no obligation to allow them to do so. More Jews fleed the Arab states and settled in Israel, and the mutual migration should have been finalised just like happened with similar conflicts. Anyway, many accounts show that the Palestinians were encouraged to stay by the Jews and encouraged to leave by the Arab states. It's not surprising considering the parties involved. Amoruso 08:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration 

message: "American and European popular television shows are commonly presented."
There's something wrong with this sentence, particularly the placement of "popular."  I think, given that it occurs after a statement about the languages spoken in Israel, it should read "in their original language with subtitles," but this is just a guess.  Anyone wish to confirm?  Blondlieut 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, but I have no idea. (I don't watch television because of religious reasons.) In Holland it is like that, and I believe that it is a great tool for improving a whole nation's language skills - this is why so many Dutchmen speak English. Compare the Dutch to the French regarding their English language skills, and you'll see what I mean. Anyway, maybe Amoruso or okedem can clarify. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Unlike several european countries (i.e. Germany or France), movies (in TV and cinema) and TV programs in Israel are never dubbed, except when they're intended for small children, who cannot yet read. The programs are just aired with subtitles. I'm not sure why it is, maybe because it's too expensive to dub everything for such a small market, but I'm glad that's the way it is... okedem 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes the quality very bad. It just sounds so horribly fake. Always. It always sounds extremely fake. The voices and the images just don't go together; the voices and the looks of the people don't combine. I think it's not so much a choice because of financial reasons. More probably because of 1) sound quality and 2) a conscious choice by the government regulatory organs of having your people learn English. Every country should switch to subtitles. But well, who am I. And this is off-topic. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Television

message: Mongoose: I'm
Not sure why you removed the "(disputed)" tag, because it clearly is accuirate and relevant. The 'discussion' is tedious/confused/ever changing. The only thing that never changes is that it is 'disputed'.
Could you please put it back?
Thanks --Johnbibby 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing disputed here. The capital of a country is the city of which the country calls it its capital, and where usually (with exception of for example The Netherlands) the government is located. Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital and the government is located there. Thus, it is Israel's capital. Quit the whining and start making constructive edits. FYI, I don't care whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital or not. See this, and also this, by this person. This is my view. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Learn how to use Wiki formatting by not putting your signature like that. It is confusing. Next, you are simply vandalizing here. There is no dispute that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. No such dispute exists. It is similar to disputing whether London is the capital of the UK or that Moscow is the capital of Russia. The mere thought is ridiculous. I can say whatever I want, but as long as the White House, the Capitol, Pentagon etc are located in Washington and the Kremlin in Moscow, Washington and Moscow are the capitals of respectively the USA and Russia. Nothing changes that. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This topic has been discussed to death, and there's no point in returning to it unless some new arguements can be brought forth. The discussions can be found in the archives of this page. okedem 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out when I reverted this, there is no need to put "disputed" beside the name. The footnote suffices to make note of international concerns regarding Jerusalem's status, while leaving it clear that Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel, no matter who may dispute it. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel/Jerusalem

message: The Lehi "even attempted to work with the Nazis to secure European Jewry's emigration to Israel"?  Since these contacts tooks place in 1940/41, presumably this should read "European Jewry's emigration to Palestine" --Rrburke 14:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, either Palestine, or Eretz Israel, but definately not Israel. okedem 15:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Israel#Jewish_Underground_groups|Jewish Underground groups]] 

message: Indigenous is now a dab page.  If an admin or someone can fix the link, that would be great.  Xtifr tälk 02:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  indigenous = dab