Talk:Israel/Archive 19

message: Why did the UN General Assembly have the authority to approve a partition plan without Arab approval?  Shouldn't this information be included? SGW 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishment of the State of Israel 

message: Can someone please delete the string of expletives at the beginning of "Historical Roots"?
67.107.136.70 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical roots 

message: I just want to Notice that the right Term is "The State of Israel", and not Israel as said in the title
Surely it should be The Illegal State of...3thought 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why in the world would it be called that? How can a state be illegal? According to whose laws? Schrodingers Mongoose 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is such a lovely example of the misinformation some people spread - as if there ever was a sovereign entity called "Palestine". okedem 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 3thought, why should your personal beliefs have any impact on an encyclopedia article? If you want to express your beliefs, start a blog. If you have something factual to add to this article, maybe you should say so. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: A small matter.  It states Israel is located in Western Asia, while all the surrounding neighbors are located as the Middle East, except Egypt in Northern Africa.  I'm not sure there are many "Western Asian" countries and I think this could be stated as to divert attention that it is located in the heart of the Middle East.  I'm a new user, could someone change this please?
*Maybe I'm not sure what you mean. The lede paragraph says, "(Israel) is a country in Western Asia on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bordered by Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, and Egypt in the south-west". All those countries are in the "Middle East", and also all but one are in Western Asia. Am I missing your point? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: The picture in the section entitled 'Religion in Israel' with the caption 'Young Haredi men on Purim in Jerusalem' is completely inappropriate. It is not at all representative of Haredi -- or even just religious-- society and is offensive. 
Unfortunately, I cannot remove this picture as I am a newly-registered user.  
An appropriate replacement would be something along the lines of a street scene depicting a broad cross-section of the Orthodox-Jewish community in Jerusalem.
--Eitz Chayim 04:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it offensive again, didn't understand (I'm not dismissing it, just asking). Cheers. Amoruso 11:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Picture in Religion Section 

message: Please vote 69.156.78.50 22:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_23#Category:Anti-Semitic_people Vote]

message: User:okedem, the lead is not a travel or ranking guide. If you have specific objections to the changes, please raise them. Instintive, blind reversions are unhelpful. El_C 21:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments below. I've been working on this article for a long time. Don't just come in and do whatever you feel like. There are reasons for the current status. okedem 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead paragraph

message: Could we stop this polemical and controversial comparative info in the lead please? Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy, so is Turkey, and both are located in the Middle East. Why are we espousing Zionist propaganda as though it is fact? Where is the source for this assertion? Why can't we simply note it is a liberal democracy and discuss its status vis-a-vis the region in detail in the body, noting the comparable systems in Turkey and Lebanon? Sorry if I sound frustrated but this has been a source of discussion for ages now (see archives) and there has never been consensus on the issue and yet the comparative formulation keeps getting reinserted in the lead despite repeated objections about its factuality. Thoughts? Feedback? Thanks. Tiamut
:I partially agree.
:The statement regarding the degree of Israel's democracy is based on the Freedom House report, and later in the article, it states such. I think that's fine. However, I agree that comparative info in the lead is out of place. The lead is supposed to be a primer for the article. Its status as the only Jewish state in the world is significant and worth putting in the lead. But saying that it's the only "liberal democracy" and "most industrialized nation" in the Middle East is out of place.
:As for your comparisons, Lebanon is supposed to be a democracy, but is severly unstable. Moreover, there are restrictions in the Lebanese government in regards to what religion specific leaders must be (e.g. the President must be Christian while the Prime Minister must be Sunni), which would disqualify it as a "liberal democracy". Additionally, the influence of Hezbolah and Syria on the Lebanese democracy reduces its democratic ranking. 
:Meanwhile, Turkey is not considered a part of the Middle East by the G8, which is where the term "Middle East" really comes from in modern times.
:All of that said, I still feel it's out of place in the lead (but not later in the article in the section about the government), and conflicts with WP:NPOV. I would propose changing the statement "Israel is the most industrially developed country in the Middle East and the region's only liberal democracy." to "Israel is an industrially developed country in the Middle East. It is a liberal democracy." in the lead, and leaving the part in the section about Government alone. If there are disagreements, please post them. Mjatucla 10:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOT AGAIN TIAMUT! Please edit responsibly. Please read what a liberal democracy is. Please note the difference between that and an electoral one. Lebanon has a parliament, but is NOT a parliamentary democracy. I have written so much about this and will not again. --Shamir1 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tiamut, your insistence that "Well I think that Lebanon and Turkey are..." is opinion. That is something for YOU to work out with Freedom House. And until the update their information, this is what we have. There is a difference between an electoral democracy and a liberal democracy. It is not up to you decide. We use the most reliable and worthy data that is collected internationally. --Shamir1 02:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Only Democracy? Not again. 

message: The only comprehensive and authoritative book in English on Israeli law is The Laws of the State of Israel.  See, A Guide to the Israeli Legal System .  These books are available at the Library of Congress. 
If you Zionists agree to FAIRLY edit this page, I'll gladly go to the Library of Congress (a few blocks from my home in Zionist Wahsington, DC) and provide you with the citation to each and every racist law that exists in the State of Israel.  And if you are really serious about this, I might even provide images of the actual pages from the law books as proof (because I'm sure you'll want to argue it otherwise).
Deal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.14.88 (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With that attitude, it seems you're only looking for a fight. If you can keep your slurs to yourself, maybe we could work together. okedem 10:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Correction: After seeing your actions in several articles, including this edit, it is clear you are not a helpful contributer. Go away. okedem 11:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Racist" is a slur, and implying Jewish ownership of media, or working behind the scenes in a sovereign nation's capitol, reeks of anti-Semitism. Please don't play dumb and please sign your comments. AshcroftIleum 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearly Wikipedia is "Owned" by Zionists 

message: Would it be fair to include the statement made on 9th December 2006 by incoming U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates claiming that Israel has nuclear weapons ? :
Incoming U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested at a Senate confirmation hearing that Israel had atomic weapons. Gates said Iran might want an atomic bomb because it is "surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf". (360aerial 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem pertinent to the nuclear capability section of the article. okedem 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 5.1 Nuclear capability 

message: Many of the statements in the Education statement were far from meeting the WP:NPOV standards set forth by Wikipedia. I editted the entire section to make it more NPOV.
Things like touting Israel as "most educated" and then providing a reference to a school life expectancy ranking is inaccurate, as there is more to being "most educated" than just the number of years a country's citizens attend school (countries that offer more free education to their citizens tend to have citizens who attend school longer, but that doesn't make them "more educated"). 
In addition, things like the number of people from Israel who attend Yale are verging on completely irrelevent. Attending Yale has as much to do with financial capability as it does with education. I left it in (albeit in a more NPOV form), but please refrain from editting that kind of information in as an attempt to characterize the population as "more educated" than the surrounding nations.
I realize Israel is a hard subject for people to remain NPOV on, but that's your responsibility when you edit Wikipedia. Please refrain from making point-of-view statements in this article. Mjatucla 02:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education Section Made NPOV 

message: Israel is a post Holocaust state, and we don't see it in the article!! John Hyams 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's mentioned here a few times  Amoruso 18:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the Holocaust mentioning?? 

message: The last paragraph in the Human Rights section is POV if it does not have a citation. ie: "Some international human rights organizations, most notably Human Rights Watch and the United Nations' ... anti-Israel bias ... Owain Jones 14:24, 15 December 2006
:The article to which the section links has citations for this. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Citation needed 

message: There's a big space that appears in the middle of HISTORY of Israel if you decide to hide the CONTENTS MENU. How can we fix that? I tried, but I couldn't do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceboy222 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats with the Big Space? 

message: There are NO embassies in Burma's new capital, many countries like India explained they won't move their embassies there , and Burma itself told the embassies that they SHOULDN'T move and : ".....foreign and UN embassies have been told there are currently no plans for them to follow. "If you need to communicate on urgent matters, you can send a fax to Pyinmana," the foreign ministry said in its statement on Monday". (!) so what's going on here ? Amoruso 02:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the world is a little crazy. not that anyone cares what the UN thinks (apparantly), but it recognizes Yangon as the capital. I cant even find Naypyidaw on the UN map of Burma. quite funny reallyGoalie1998 03:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Burmese government is encouraging foreign missions (embassies) to move to Naypyidaw (spelt Nay Pyi Taw officially), but few have bought into that plan. The U.S. embassy, for instance, has plans on building a new embassy in Yangon (Rangoon), and most have no plans to move. --Hintha 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Btw, what's the capital of [[Burma]]?

message: It says Isreal is 3rd in the world in % of people with university degrees, after the US as numbere 1?!?  Where are you getting this information?  Most western European countries havea higher percentage than the US does...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.170.136 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong info 

message: Egypt's postwar peace moves brought back the Sinai (the Camp David accords), and the removal of Egypt from the Arab-Israeli conflict changed the balance irrevocably. Then in 1982 Israel attacked Lebanon: pushing through Palestine Liberation Organization forces with ease, the Israelis soon engaged the Syrians there, crushing their air defenses with methods anticipating the "information warfare" or "military-technical revolution" demonstrated in the Gulf War a decade later. Ironically, for all their military success against Arab armies, in the late 1980s the Israelis found themselves at a loss when confronted with the spontaneous uprising of Palestinian civilians known as the Intifada. In the wake of the Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, these events, combined with grudging Arab recognition of Israel's lasting presence, sparked new developments in the peace process. The signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993 inaugurated a new era of relations between Israelis and Palestinians, followed in 1994 by the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty. Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese continue, holding out the prospect that the age of the Arab-Israeli Wars may finally be over.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1980s

message: The current map shows Kosovo as being an independent country. Can someone please change this as Kosovo is a region of Serbia. Also the West Bank and Gaza Strip should be coloured a pale shade of red as they are a semi part of Israel. Somethingoranother 07:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Between "may become" and "is" there is a huge difference.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 12:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map Shows Kosovo As An Independent Country

message: http://youtube.com/watch?v=gNd9odDD-cw
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eOygGByj4OE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DTVazzSz8_k
You forgot to say that Israel recieves 8-10 milion dolars every single day!
Let's see how objective wikipedia is, and will this be added to Israel's hystory! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elektrofloyd (talk • contribs) 08:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little documentary about Israel 

message: I deleted a paragraph in the opening of the article; this was promptly re-inserted by another user.  The text is: "Israel is a democratic republic with universal suffrage that operates under the parliamentary system. According to the international data reported by Freedom House, the degree of political rights and civil liberties in Israel makes it the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, consisting of a multi-party system and separation of powers" 
I believe I had good reasons for removing it:
(1) The very same text - verbatim - is repeated later in the article.  This is reason enough for deleting it from the opening.  Without citing chapter and verse of Wikipedia policies, obviously a well-written article cannot be repetitious.
(2) A conclusionary statement about civil liberties is ipso facto a value-judgment.    This is obviously going to be endlessly controversial whatever the country involved (see point (3) below).  It is churlish to place this kind of comment right up there in the introduction.  Common/significant views about political rights are much better dealt with (less tersely) under the Government heading. I myself do not seek to contest the view that Israel has a high degree of political freedom, so if you disagree with me, deal with the point I make about the reasonableness of reporting this sort of evaluation in the opening of *any* country article.
(3) Where the very same text appears in the Government section, it is immediately followed by a contrary viewpoint, which the author(s) of this section thought was equally significant: "Conversely, the research group Minorities at Risk (MAR) characterizes Israel's system ..."  This gives a nice indication of how controversial the Freedom House opinion is, or at least appears to be to other Wikipedians.  Indeed, I'd like to ask: does the person who reverted my deletion of the same text from the opening think that its stupid to allign the Freedom House statement with opposing viewpoints (maybe because the Freedom House statement is 'incontrovertible', or whatever), and if so why did he/she not remove the 'Minorities at Risk' comment from the Government section?
(4) The text is a quote from Freedom House, which is widely regarded as a US-lead, organisation operating to promote a particular policy programme.  The Times (hardly a fringe opinion) has described it as an "outpost of American soft power": .  Unlike, say, the Human Development Index there is hardly any global consensus support for its reports.  Giving its views such decisive prominence - treating them as the bottom-line on the country's political status by placing them in the opening - seems unencyclopaedic.  
I suggest that unless consensus forms against me on this, I should remove the offending text from the introduction.  There's presumably no objection to the same text being under the Government section (as it currently is - as well).
--Danward 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom House comment in introduction 

message: "Jerusalem was planned to be an international region administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status."
planned by who? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.72.16 (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the UN. It probably should say something like "According to the 1947 UN Partition plan, Jerusalem...". okedem 04:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to Jerusalem was to be designated as...; seems to flow well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  passive voice 

message: The section on Israel's culture currently begins "The culture of Israel is inseparable from long history of Judaism and Jewish history which preceded it." Given that 20% of the population is arabic (ie Muslim och Christian) this seems an incorrect statement to make. In fact, nowhere does the section on culture mention the arabic population of the country. I think the text should me ammended to better portray this. Regards Osli73 01:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The culture of Israeli-Arabs definitely should be mentioned. I'd love for someone who knows the subject to write about it. I, unfortunately, don't know anything about it. The quote you wrote isn't a problem, in my view - given Israel's nature and purpose as a Jewish state. Israeli culture is indeed "inseparable from long history of Judaism". okedem 22:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel's culture - only Jewish? 

message: I see there's a cleanup tag regarding article length but I didn't find discussion about it here.  It seems like the history section is already divided into numerous separate articles, so there shouldn't be so much overview content here.  Let's have a discussion or remove that too-long tag, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we remove it. The article isn't exceptionally long, and shortening it further would not do the readers justice. okedem 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: BS"D
Should we archive this page at this point??
--Shaul avrom 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archieve 

message: I think it would be best to semi-protect the article. It's under constant attack, and needs some protection. okedem 18:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protect 

message: Which other nation has been established at the expense of over a million displaced inhabitants who had been residents for over a thousand years? And still enjoys the diplomatic and moral legimitacy from most of the developed countries? Talking in a stictly logical sense, I can't think of any other than Israel. Any replies heartily welcomeSiad 11:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The very existence of Israel is itself a blatant violation of human rights