Talk:Israel/Archive 12

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: 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 

message: Although discussion was ongoing, it seemed to me that it mostly consisted of pointless and mostly obnoxious arguments from partisans on both sides, rather than an actual attempt to improve the article.  I thought it would be best to archive this stuff.  If people want to actually propose changes to the article, they should propose specific changes, and not vague discussions of whether the article is POV or not.  And, to both sides, nationalist point scoring doesn't do any good for anybody. john k 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unarchived article as Smitty Magee has posted direct information on improving the article. Also it is YOUR POV that the talk page is "mostly pointless and obnoxious"--Oiboy77 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no rule that archiving of a page needs to be NPOV. I'm not even sure what that means. The page was too long, anyway, and needed to be archived. I'm rearchiving. Anyone who wants to read stuff can read it in the archive. If somebody wants to repost something, they can do it. But the page was way too long. john k 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Why are some contributors scared to state the undeniable facts? Israel does hold thousands of arabs in prisons, including women and children. Israel has also killed at least 100 lebanese civilians in the first 5 days of its attack. And Israeli soldiers killed a family of 8 palestinians including their children on a beach in gaza in early June.
What suggestions do you have for improving the article? That's all that this talk page is for, thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we add this information to the article. It does mention Palestininians as terrorists, so why not mention Palestinians in another light.--Oiboy77 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: July 17

message: I have made the following factual ammendments to the opening paragraph.
"The State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info); Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل‎, Dawlat Isrā'īl) is actually a part of Palestine which was occupied and taken over by the Jews after WW2 with help from the British Army. Now a country in Western Asia on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It is a parliamentary democracy and the world's only Jewish state. A state of unease exists between it and the rest of the Middle East which is predominantly Muslim and largely opposed to Israel's invasion and occupation of Palestine." User: universetoday
:The amendments in question are not factual in the least. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 07:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Karimarie What facts in the revision are you disputing? I have ciations for all!--Oiboy77 07:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The part " is actually a part of Palestine which was occupied and taken over by the Jews after WW2 with help from the British Army" clearly.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How about the one where Palestinians are not considered full citizens? Or the part where Israel is actually a part of Palestine? Put forth your citations. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I stand corrected. I agree that the edits made were not NPOV. In the interest of MAKING this article as NPOV as possible, I withdraw my last statement. I hope all of you look at this with an unbias perspective. I added an article on Human Rights Abuse (with citations) It does not "demonize" either party. It simple recites the facts.--Oiboy77 08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is the word "is."  Not only is Israel no longer part of Palestine, Palestine no longer exists as such.  It is fair to say that Israel is on land taken from Palestine, but you may as well say that it's in the Ottoman Empire.  Twin Bird 16:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfair Deletions

message: What's the reference in the first sentence:
usurper government ?
:It was an act of vandalism by an anonymous IP, and has been reverted. - MSTCrow 05:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been removed.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: usurper government ?

message: I wrote a laundry list of everything that is wrong with this article, yet some editors are insisting that no specific points have been made.  I can copy and paste the entire thing if your memory span is really that short, but I prefer that we continue the discussion, rather than pretend that there is no real debate.  Finally, the poll has not yet expired, so let users vote if they are so inclined.Smitty Mcgee 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Smitty, you're going to get yourself in trouble if you keep this up. - MSTCrow 14:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make your point if you have one.  That would be more productive than a vague threat.Smitty Mcgee 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Smitty, as you are aware, original research and analysis is verboten on Wikipedia.  If you can find supporting sources for your allegations from crdible sources that are not pro-terrorist, Islamist, or anti-Semitic, they will be considered. - MSTCrow 23:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't you just claim that any source that supports Smitty's position is either pro-terrorist or anti-Semitic? That's your whole game.  The idea that basic ideas like "lots of people, including most leading human rights groups, have argued that Israel commits human rights violations in the Occupied Territories," and "a lot of people, including most Arabs, disagree with the idea that the Arabs were the aggressors in 1948" is ridiculous. john k 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ...

message: A user named Avi has told me that I edited this article in a bad manner, because of my "opinion" that the land acquisition by jews in Palestine was not legaly sound. Well, if opinions are not wellcome, why the word legitimate (evaluating these acquisitions)was there? Legitimacy is not an objective fact is it? Because there are laws made by americans to prevent this! Could France or Germany authorize such a procedure?Of course not! Well in Palestine all this was possible: foreigners authorized jewish organizations to buy as much land as they wanted and gave them a "legitimate" state afterwards... Ottoman and British laws granted this procedure! which kind of legitimacy is that? The dictatorship legitimacy it seems! Amazing that legitimacy is a neutral standpoint and questioning it is not! Looks like the New York Times treatment of the conflict!Kusnetsov 18:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I am glad to see you registered a userid :) Thank you. -- Avi 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see, the word "legitimate" was removed, and rightly so. However, the comparison you're making here is invalid. The USA is a sovergeign state. Palestine was not. It switched hands for millenia, but the last time it was actually an independent state was at the time of the kindgom of Judea (you can also count The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, I guess). okedem 18:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are wrong. The Arabs were there. See Peel Commission and note the map: had they accepted that 1937 partition, a Palestinian Arab state would be 69 years today and much bigger territorially (and countless lives could be saved). Their leaders refused to even negotiate and consistently chose violence. I equally respect all the nations, and that means that each should take responsibility for the decisions of their own leaders and not blame others. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: While this is true, it was not the responsibility of the Zionist congress to serve the needs of the Arab population in their choices regarding the Peel Comission. That was the job of the leaders of the potential Arab state, and they made a choice that led to a loss of that particular chance for a Palestinian Arab state. In most negotiations, the leaders of either party will look out for the needs of their party, as opposed to the needs of all involved. Therefore, all leaders are responsible for their actions. --Fairygothmommy 02:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WHAT IS AN OPINION ANYWAY?

message: Dear Avi, you surprised me (in a positive way) by agreeing that legitimacy could be deleted of the previous version. I don't intend to keep editing this page forever. Some guy named Daniel wrote some warnings that my editing was vandalism. I don't think so. I created a userid and have tried to discuss my editing. I know that a supporter of Israel can't be convinced of almost anything because of the injustices the jews have suffered by millennia and because of the overwhelming psychological impact of the holocaust. Considering these things it's easy to see why brilliant jews miss the point (oftenly in good faith, I think)even when israeli policies are clearly unfair and abusive like in the case of the West Bank settlements. I'd like to be clear that I don't think the jews don't have the right to live in their former ancient homeland. I only think that the way this modern version of Israel was built was not fair to the arabs and that they have the right to fight against the occupation of Gaza and Cisjordania. When the UN gave the jews 56% of the area it was not fair, but I think the arabs will have to live with that. But that is enough, and enough is enough. I think the occupation must end and that the settlements in Gaza and Cisjordania must be totally removed. Only after that Israel can complain about terrorism. As I see it, until these withdrawals are not accomplished there is no terrorism, but resistence. I'm sorry if it seems offensive, but invaders are invaders, not "victims of extremism". The jews should keep their 56%, not take the displaced arabs back to this area (fair or not...lets live with this too), but should give the West Bank back to the arabs, give Golan back to the syrians and pay some compensation and only then complain about "terrorism".Kusnetsov 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote bellow, I agree with the need to end the occupation of Judea and Samaria. A large part of the Israeli public sees that. It's extremely unfortunate that the palestinians in the Gaza strip continue their attacks (with Qasam rockets) even after all of the settlement there were dismantled, and the Israel army pulled out. If they would have ceased their attacks right after the Hitnatkut, it would have been a greaet incentive for Israel to execute more withdrawl plans, dismantling more settlements in the West Bank, and eventually leaving it all together. Basically - the palestinians are hurting their own cause, and that's a shame. okedem 12:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that was okedem. I had a one-sentence response :) Indentations are useful. -- Avi 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AVRAHAM: A LEGITIMATE SURPRISE

message: Vote to Add  tag to Israel ( will expire July 22nd @ 17:00 (UTC) ) - and is now closed, with the result being a majority that is opposed to adding the tags.
 VOTING IS CLOSED 
* 14 SUPPORT
* 17 OPPOSE
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support The article is sympathetic to the Zionist cause, overlooking the plight of the Palestinian people.Smitty Mcgee 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Answer Yes, but an article on Israel which fails to mention the Palestinians apart from associations with terrorism cannot claim to be neutral.Smitty Mcgee 16:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This discussion is about the POV tag and NOT a unbalanced tag. 3 Revert rule applies to you too.
*Oppose another attempt to delegitimize Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Question/Comment How does adding a  delegitamize a whole country? A little extreme I think.--Oiboy77 18:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't vote twice.Smitty Mcgee 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are you voting twice?--Oiboy77 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: More importantly, how do you know that they are? In cases like this it is IMO better to implement HebWiki rules that anyone will less than 100 edits cannot vote. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  #1 this is not HebWiki, #2 If you can prove people are sockpuppeting you feel free to do so;  if not stop discrediting users without factual proof.--Oiboy77 18:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I voted once in each poll.  First in the poll that was archived, then in this current poll.  If you'll notice, there are a lot of people "voting twice" in the poll. - MSTCrow 22:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Find Consensus  TO ADD POV TAGS ON [[Israel]] PAGE 

message: I strongly suspect many of the support votes are sockpuppets.  They are from either anonymous IP addresses or completely new users, and are within posted within short periods of time in clusters.  Users who have just created accounts are not going to zero in on a poll on a single page on Wikipedia and start voting on things.  They wouldn't know how or why yet. - MSTCrow 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, how do you know that they are? In cases like this it is IMO better to implement HebWiki rules that anyone will less than 100 edits cannot vote. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  #1 this is not HebWiki, #2 If you can prove people are sockpuppeting you feel free to do so;  if not stop discrediting users without factual proof.--Oiboy77 18:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I voted once in each poll.  First in the poll that was archived, then in this current poll.  If you'll notice, there are a lot of people "voting twice" in the poll. - MSTCrow 22:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments