Talk:Israel/Archive 6

message: I think that writing that parts of the Arab population "fled" is plenty neutral, in that it doesn't make any assumptions why they did so.  Writing that they were "forced out by the Jews" is patently false.
And it is a matter of fact that various offers for settling the problem were offered, but rejected.  It may be that these offers were unacceptable, but that would be another issue.
:"Propaganda" is the appropriate title for the Zionist apologia offered above. Palestinians were forced out of their homes by widespread well-documented Jewish terrorism before, during and after the creation of the Jewish state on their land. To Zionist liars, Jews can only be presented as victims. They can never admit that Jews are perpetrators of their crimes against humanity.  -- User:STP
::STP, you are going to be very busy in the wikisphere if you persist with this.  "Forced out by Jews" is falsehood; offers of repatriation are probably debatable.--Leifern 15:00, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
:::Is that some kind of lame anonymous threat? The creation of the Jewish state forced out non-Jews. Your blanket denial of recorded history and whitewashing Jew crimes are the falsehoods. Read this and tell me what is false about the Palestinians being forced out of their homes by Jewish terrorists.   -- User:STP
My .02, Your post seems to have it backwards. Every Jew was killed or expelled from every single area that came under Arab control in 1948. Arabs then systematically destroyed every Jewish holy site they could and began destroying cemetaries. They also illegally banned Jews access from the Western Wall, the only Jewish holy site they couldn't destroy in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, the creation of Israel did not "force out" Non-Jews. In fact, Israel invited Non-Jews to stay in Israel. This is well documented. And many Arabs remained. This is why there about a Million Arab-Israeli citizens in Israel today. 
::::No threat - I'm just saying that an insistence on putting in a biased account of history will keep you very busy.  There's the contention that the earth is round; that gravity exists; etc.  As far as Deir Yassin is concerned, it always surprises me how consistent the accounts are across the Deir Yassin organization and Irgun.  It was a pitched battle, in which atrocities took place.  The link you refer to is no less propaganda than any other source you could find. --Leifern 15:00, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
::::User:STP has in fact been cited for vandalism by User:ElTyrant, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Current alerts#April 4  and is suspected by both User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg of being a sock puppet of  banned User:Alberuni see User talk:STP  and Mossad "Project"? No, it was Mossad terrorism . UserSTP is also guilty of using anti-Semitic slurs, such as: "traitor Jews can't be trusted"  ; "Judaism is a cult but Jewish cultists, of course, deny it" and added the blood libel: ":Ethnocentric Jews killed Jesus 2000 years ago and in the past century they have killed thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians and other innocent victims in their quest to maintain their racist state." , and again repeated it "The Jews killed Jesus, among many others"  ! So who is this guy to "complain" when he should be booted off Wikipedia ASAP. IZAK 12:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel formally offered to repatriate 100,000 refugees as part of "a general plan for resettlement of refugees which would be established by a special organ to be created for the purpose by the United Nations." Obviously an offer to repatriate 100,000 refugees is offering "something to settle the problem".  And Israel did not state that that the refugees would "not be allowed to return to their homes", but rather that the refugees would be "settled in areas where they would not come in contact with possible enemies of Israel" which did not preclude their returning to their homes. Jayjg (talk) 15:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Propaganda" 

message: Does this article need to have links to blogs in it?  How do we decide, if so, or do we let anyone who wants advertise their blog here? Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that an article about Israel should have blogs as references. There is enough controversy without pointing to someone's little take on it. A link to a blog would only be appropriate if the writer of the blog was the subject of the article (and thus be eligible for an article), ot that the blog was first-hand documentation of the article subject. Let's remove these blogs. Gareth Hughes 19:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but maybe we should wait a little bit for other opinions. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't see a reason why any should stay, regardless of their having been there for months.  We don't usually allow links to blogs in other articles, except on the rare occasions when the article is actually about a blog.  There are literally a million blogs out there, and they are essentially just the electronic diaries of anonymous individuals.  There are too many links at the bottom of this article as it is, and Wikipedia is not the place to advertise them in order to generate traffic; I'd like to hear a strong argument why blogs in general, and these particular ones in particular, should be kept. Jayjg (talk) 16:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. People looking for blogs on israel can simply google them. Luis rib 17:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs? 

message: User:Satiany wanted discussion, so we can start with:
Many Jewish religious authorities, such as rabbi Mordechai Eliahu (former chief of the Sephardic rabbis), called for the extermination of Arabs and Palestinians, saying they "must be wiped out" and called extermination a "duty".
Many say they must be wiped out? Many called extermination a duty? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly object to attempts of turning every article related to the Jews and Israel into another clone of Arab-Israeli conflict: we already have plenty of those. The article on Israel should be about a country, not very much different from Liberia or Jordan. Of course, we should mention the conflict briefly and provide wikilinks, but this is not the article about its intricacies. The text inserted is a one-sided attempt to describe Jewish Israelis as the two-legged beasts bent on extermination. What about Israeli Arabs' Involvement in Terrorism? What about powerful Israeli peace camp? Where is its Arab counterpart? What about Arafat's "the womb of the Arab woman is our best weapon"? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab-Jewish Relations in Israel 

message: See --Gjyaj 13:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That has Canada and they United States in it as well; are they both part of Europe too? Jayjg (talk) 13:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the U.N. Israel is included in many European regional groups because the Middle Eastern regional groups won't let it in.  In any event, it is in the Middle East, Asia, not in Europe; membership in various U.N. committees doesn't change basic geography. I quote from MSN Encarta's opening paragraph on Israel "Israel (country), country in southwestern Asia, ..."  Jayjg (talk) 13:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: True, the latter much to Israel's discredit.  However, I don't think that changes basic geography. Jayjg (talk) 14:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel is part of Europe 

message: I added nice JTA article on young palestinian's gays (and possibly lesbians but the article doesn't mention it) fleeing the PA for Tel Aviv, to escape persecution back home. Perhaps somone could write a nice paragraph on it?
Can you find my this article? --jonasaurus 17:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this belongs here; this is an article about Israel. I have seen some of the reports you mention, but they are misleading in that they reveal stories of only a few gay Palestinians who left, mostly to be with Israeli partners. The reality is that there is a sizable gay population inside the occupied territories, and while they live in a conservative society compared to Israel, are usually able to live their lives in a general "don't ask, don't tell" environment. Ramallite (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know you've been here in Palestine! Where did you find examples of common rape and incest? Were a lot of people you talked to here really that sexually repressed? And why on earth would you use links to Saudi Arabia or Egypt to back up your claims? Do you have any reports out of Finland to cement your claims further? And by the way, if your claim about honor killings were true, there would never be a "don't ask" part of it. 
Listen, I don't mean to be obnoxious, but clearly you have no idea what you're talking about and your claims are really offensive in nature and maliciously based on shoddy misconceptions you have. Please do some proper research before posting offensive opinions. Homosexuals do not have it as easy in conservative societies as they do in less-conservative ones, but to start going off about "common rape and incest" is just plain libel. Ramallite (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's pretty common, but rarely if ever talked about. Again the honor killings and deep sense of shame keep this sort of thing under the surface. So most women would never admit to being raped since they would be killed so to preserve "family honor". Just cause people refuse to talk about it, doesn't mean it's not a big problem in palestinian society. Klonimus 02:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, what is your source that it is "pretty common", your own opinion or well-researched material? Let me tell you some facts. First, there are a number of centers throughout Palestine to deal with psychological abuse, including post-traumatic stress disorder from Israeli shellings and such, but they do see a number of cases of spousal or family abuse (I know because I happen to have friends who work at such centers). Second, there are radio talk-shows where unanimous people can call in and discuss such issues as their own homosexuality. Third, there are a number of out-of-the-closet folks here who are well-known. Fourth, our daily newspapers frequently run ads from women's abuse centers for abused women to call and get help and protection should they need it (but you need to be able to read Arabic to see that). This "family honor" and "honor killing" you mention, although it does exist, is no where near the levels you claim (and definitely not at the levels found in places like Jordan or elsewhere). So your claim that "it's common" is completely unsubstantiated unless you back it up with reliable sources, and your claim that "it is not talked about" is obviously complete rubbish. I am not going to keep arguing with you about things you clearly know nothing about, save for making vile assumptions, but if you feel the need to continue this conversation you can post a comment on my own talk page because this is completely out of place on this page. Ramallite (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Rights, 

message: I have noticed that there have been several changes made by an anonymous user within the space of every few minutes in the gay rights section. Do you think that this could be a suspicious act? Or did someone else already notice this?- B-101 00:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RC 

message: I changed the level and title of the "Establishment of the State" section, because this seems a continuation of the historic review AND the title did not reflect all of the content. This applies also to some of "Basis for the Arab-Israeli conflict" and "Wars" which, by my opinion, should be rearranged in a manner that differentiates between the foreign relations and territorial claims of Israel and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (the latter I suggest under history). I am willing to continue this effort, but first would like to see the reactions to my first edit and to this suggestion. The content of the article seems much better than its organization. Best, gidonb 02:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: I think it should be noted what the Isrealis and Zionists accomplished against great odds. I hear non-stop talk of how the Zionists moved in and took over, but the truth is when they first starting coming between 1880 and 1905 no one cared. The Arabs were happy to sell them the worthless swamp lands and barren wastelands. Due to determination and hardwork, it was the Zionists that transformed Israel from a desert to a lush farming community. When the second wave of Zionists came, after World War 1 and while they could during World War 2, they brought with them technology and the Arts. Many were scientists, musicians and doctors. This also brought medical care and agriculture to the Arabs of Palestine. Finally it was the involvement of the West (i.e. the British) and neigboring Arab countries that caused relations between the Zionists and Arabs to disintegrate. To this day it is still a big cause of problems in Israel.
:"When the second wave of Zionists came, after World War 1 and while they could during World War 2, they brought with them technology and the Arts. Many were scientists, musicians and doctors."
:So why was there a conflict with the natives? The European immigrants to America also brought "technology and the Arts" but they destroyed the economic base of the natives, resulting in conflict and leading to ethnic cleansing of the natives. This article conspicuously avoids any discussion of what these Jewish immigrants did for a living (were they all Irgun and Stern Gang terrorists bankrolled by the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund?) and their economic impact on the natives. The Zionists did not go to Palestine to improve the lives of the natives - suggest this to West Bank or Gaza settlers today and they will laugh in your face. The settlers have the same racist attitude towards the natives as the American settlers had to the "savage Indians", for all the same reasons: the natives stood in the way of lucrative exploitation of the land by the European invaders.
:That may be your opinion, but it has no place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles should be written from no particular point of view.--Doron 07:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia tells us about the Irgun and Stern Gang but there is nothing about transforming "Israel from a desert to a lush farming community" or bringing "medical care and agriculture to the Arabs". Read the article - it is a story "of how the Zionists moved in and took over". If there is more to it than that, someone should write it.24.64.166.191 06:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or from multiple points of view, but certainly not from just one point of view. Jayjg (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Zionism" 

message: Why isn't there an Israeli flag displayed on the page?  Rmisiak 15:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli flag 

message: It seems we made a mistake, the Holy Land is actually under water off the coast of what is called Israel today. We apologize to the Palestinian people, we will begin building an underwater dome to occupy our new land, please don't bomb it. 65.97.17.149 21:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops 

message: Can someone else take a look at this issue.  Some guy has been adding his personal site to various Israel related topics under 3 different IP's. He even send me a personal mail, which state in the signature that he is a pro photographer and that this is his site after I pulled the link before. His last post was under 62.219.129.189. The photos are actually pretty good, but he's seems to think its his right to put the link here regardless, rather than link it in context. He should be loading stuff into wikimedia commons if he wants to contribute. Can someone else have a look and give some feedback. Jgritz 30 June 2005 08:05 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your work.  It's a commercial site, you can order prints there. He can load his photographs into Wikimedia commons, but he can't insert the link. Jayjg (talk) 30 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)
:Agree. Though it must be said the current state of the external links section does suggest it might be an appropriate link; could someone involved with this article do a little cleanup there? --W(t) 30 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)
::I cleaned up the links on one article today, I'm exhausted. How about you? ;-) Jayjg (talk) 30 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)
:::One? Amateur :-P. I've added it to the queue, I'm going to be out for the weekend but I'll give it a shot after that. --W(t) 30 June 2005 21:27 (UTC)
:::: I would personally prefer way less links - e.g. 2 or 3. Wikipedia in general seems to be having an overload of anonymous users starting off by adding (x) number of links to an article, rather than contributing to the text. In a perfect world I'd say one for the government gateway, and maybe the main government department. Having a link to the business sections of a newspaper doesn't really give me a lot I can't get elsewhere, either do photo sites and the individual articles usually have sufficient images to show me what I'm reading about. Jgritz 2 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)
:::::As someone who spent a lot of effort cleaning up the links here several months ago, I wonder what your objections to the current links are - this is the article for an entire country, after all, and the number and organization of the links do not seem inappropriate.  Maybe we can eliminate a government link or two, but I don't think 2 or 3 links make any sense at all.  These links were not anonymous, and I do think they add to the article in providing future reading, especially given that the article itself is often messy. --Goodoldpolonius2 4 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)
: Can someone explain exactly what the objection to this link is?  The site has a commercial aspect but so do many external links in Wikipedia.  The other side of the coin is that a large number of excellent web-quality photos of Israel can be viewed there for free.  Isn't that the sort of thing that extrenal links are for?  --Zero 2 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)
:: The guys a professional photographer, putting a link to his own site which sells his photos. He's made no other contributions to wikipedia apart from this link designed to promote himself. He has also posted and personally emailed me some borderline abusive sutff.  Also, he's reverted back this link about 15 times now under 4 different IPs and a login, which to me proves he's got his own agenda, and not doing this for the good of this site. Jgritz 2 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)
:: Now the anonymous user is abusing me - see here. Any ideas on how to handle this? What he's doing is very much against the spirit of wikipedia. Jgritz 2 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)
:::In addition to a belligerent user, it's obvious from the messages left on your talk page that we are dealing with a language barrier. The guy said that he's an Israeli Jew. Any fluent speakers of Hebrew in the house? He needs to know that a) what he's doing is against the rules and b) that he's welcome to upload his photos to Commons if he doesn't mind licensing them with one of the allowable licenses there. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 2, 2005 18:01 (UTC)
Jayjg My site about beauty of my country. and me it is not important that you write, it not the personnel it author's site and if you do not know and cannot photograph and you have an envy in this occasion or you do not like my works it is your personal problem, I shall add it here 1.000.000 times. And you to me in it not a handicap. And still not I it here the first have added it, I trace all references to my site on the Internet. You not being the Israeli have no right to clean this link, I do not pursue commercial objectives!!! Azzov et ha atar sheli, ki ata mafrija le medina sheli, me phinat taayarut, en po od tmunot shel wildlife ve teva !
*I don't know how you can claim "not pursue commerical objectives" when there's a big Order Prints button on your website. That's commercial activity. (BTW, though, the few photos I've looked at are fantastic.) Continuing this revert war is not a good idea, as it will only get you blocked. I'd love to see your work end up in Wikipedia in some fashion, but this is not the best way to go about it. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 05:59 (UTC)
::Let me give it a shot although it's difficult to do Hebrew on my Macintosh so I'll use latin characters - I'll remain anonymous to prevent spamming.
::Adoni, Shalom. Ha-ivrit sheli lo kol kach tov aval ani mekaveh she' ata meyvin oti. Ha-anashim po omrim l'kha she' asur b'Wikipedia lyihye "commercial sites" badafim ha-eleh. Ha website shelcha hu "commercial site" ki yachol le-hakol lihazmin tmunot li-kniyot - ve zeh asur. Hakol heskim she' ha-tmunot shelkha yafot be-emet, aval lo yihye l'kha hizdamnut likhtov ha-website shelkha po, ha akharim azuvim oto - od pa'am, ki commercial sites asurim po. Efshar le-cha lichtov ha website shelcha ba daf hazeh: lakhetz po. Bevakasha likro et ha sim-lev be-ivrit. Toda, ve-shalom.
::Translation: Sir, hello. My Hebrew is not that good but I hope you can still understand me. The people here are telling you that it is forbidden on wikipedia to publish commercial sites on these pages. Your website is a commerical site because it is possible to order and buy pictures from it, which is forbidden. All agree that your pictures are beautiful, but you won't have the opportunity to publish that site here, it will be removed, again, because it's forbidden. It is possible to publish your site on Wikipedia commons (gave link), but please read the directions in Hebrew. Thanks and Shalom
Ha ivrit shelha beseder gamurt :) tire ani lo moher printim, ve enli shum baaya lyaasir et ze behlyal ( order prints ) ve ani gam noten le anashim lishtamesh im ha tmunot bli kesef, ata ehol lihapes be kol ha internet ve lirot she ze kaha, ahshav ha ziyud sheli ole arbe meot kesef ve ha matara sheli laasot sefer shel " Ziporey Israel " ve " Wildlife of Israel " tire ani roe statistika ve taaminli mi kan kimat ve lo baim anashim, ha maatara sheli ze she le arzenu ha kdosha, yaavou tayarim, ve ani pashut lo MEVIN, eh anashim she hem behlyal lo Israelim osim po tikunim, ve mosirim link le atar, ahshav ani yagidleha od mashu ve ani zodek be 100 % im ani sholeeh le kol atar she esh po bakasha liknot tmuna full faim be email, em yaanu li ve yagudu mehir ze baduk, kol site hu COMERSHINAL be phina ha zot ulyal lo be kol site rashum ( order prints ) aval ze uvda, ve dereh ha gav ani lo marviyah mi ze behlyal !!! kol ( order prints ) ze le rizinut be livad ani moher tmunot dereh sahnuyot ve lo dereh atar !!!
ve ani yasim oto od 10.000 pam im hie zoreh, ani behlyal yaase skript ve hu yaase et ze bemkomi im ha bahur ha ze yamshih lyaasot et ha dvarim ha raim ha elyu !!!
BEVAKASHA tiru et ze ze gam COMERSHINAL !@! http://www.emporis.com/en/ab/se/ra/pt/us/
hevre kol site be internet eshlo eyze shu matara !!! em gam mohrim ve od be arbe meod kesef !!! 
look at this site is from the Photo http://www.emporis.com/en/ab/se/ra/pt/us/ his to comershinal !!! and you see now wath you not good MAN ! ?
all Photo Gallery is Comershinal, ALLLL, if you don't know this chekit !!!
if you see a picture and wont a print of his you can bay it in Hi Res if you have a Order Print or not, becoz it is ART !  if you can see me in internet free images the or bad qualiti or bad pictures.
be kuzur hevre en galleriyot she hem lo comershinal, kol ha hevrot kmo Yahoo, Yandex, lo roim be atar sheli komershinal ve eyze dahuk ehad po ken roee et ze maazben !
How can a wildlife photograhper be so aggressive???
* You put your own link. I have my own Israel photos but I don't link to them on the main article - I upload them, so they are freely available for everyone via Wikimedia Commons.
* You have a copyright notice on your page, which means they are not free. Maybe if you put a creative commons license this link would be more appropriate.
* You sell these photos. Wikipedia is non commercial.
* You are always doing this as an anonymous user, and have never contributed anything but this photo link. Get involved with the hebrew edition of wikipedia  and contribute to Wikimedia Commons, before you start shouting about your god given right to change stuff here against the wishes of experienced contributors.
* Don't bring issues of nationality into the ability to edit a page. 
* Finally - your photos are excellent. No one disputes that. The removal of this link is not an attack on your photos or their quality.
Jgritz 4 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)
I not aggresiv i'm not love your manipulyazions ! you very bad person.
look here, 
http://www.fatbirder.com/links_geo/middle_east/israel.html
http://birdskyr.to.kg/rjanki/avdotka.htm
http://www.apus.ru/site.xp/049056056052124.html
http://www.povodok.ru/encyclopedia/photo_animal/photo_bird/art4677.html
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gervaisb/Biogeography/Student%20Papers/2004/Bezdicek/Webpage%20115/BIOGEOGRAPHY%20WEB%202.htm
and is note all
and if you wont to help me macke this copyright for free use for scine and reserch, i still make the permishen web page
look here : http://www.wildlife-photo.org/copyright.htm
: Start uploading some of your images then. Jgritz 4 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)
Thanks I am glad that you like my photos, but all my site which finally there will be in English Russian and a Hebrew I do to me my friends help not much with it but basically all is done by me, at me it is not so good with English.
I will be now borrowed by creation of the robot which to insert here a link as soon as it from it will disappear here and all only for that to take away from you on more time. Time you think that you the cleverest and the rights.  
Also I shall do that that I shall want instead of that that you want. 
*If I'm understanding the above correctly, you are going to use a bot to reinsert a link in the page whenever it is removed. This is a very bad idea. Your bot's IP address, as well as the IP address you use to post, can be permanently banned from Wikipedia. I urge you to work with us to get some of your photos added to Wikipedia. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 18:24 (UTC)
no i can work with PROXY and any one can't bloced.
" nire mi yoter yahzik maamaz " :):):) be azlaha LEHA MOTEK!
מר אונישצ'נקו היקר, ישנה הסכמה כללית שהקישור לאתר שלך אינו מתאים, מכיוון שזהו אתר מסחרי שמאפשר ללקוחות לקנות הדפסות. ויקיפדיה אינה מיועדת לקישורים לאתרים מסחריים, ולכן הקישור שלך הוסר. הנימוקים להסרתו ניתנו על-ידי עורכים ותיקים ומוסמכים של ויקיפדיה. הוספה חוזרת ונשנית של הקישור מזיקה לויקיפדיה, אם אתה מעוניין בכנות לתרום, אתה יכול לשים עותקים של תמונותיך באתר ויקיפדיה, אשמח להסביר לך איך, אני יכול לפנות אליך טלפונית.
--Doron 7 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)
Doron haayakar ha atar sheli lo mishari nikuda !!! , im tistakel le atarih aherim tov gam timza she ha matara shelahem ze limkor mashu. mi ze ani yasim kan kizur le atar sheli ve ze nikuda. ani yahol laahlif IP o livakesh et ze mi haverim sheli mi rahavey ha ulyam ki ani zodek be mashe ani omer. im ata roze lidaber nismah lidaber itha dereh icq 219998736kol tov leha.
During a friendly phone conversation with the owner of the site, he has pointed out that there are other links to "photo" sites, which are in fact commercial (a real-estate website and a tour website). I have removed them.--Doron 13:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://www.wildlife-photo.org 

message: Innocent QUESTION:
Why is the 1949 cease-fire line widely regarded as the REAL border between Israel and the neighboring countries (Jordan, WB, GS, etc...) instead of 1967's or even the one that the UN proposed in 1947?
What is so unique about that one?
Trying my best to be objective (please bear with me since being Jewish and a tad ignorant about this particular subject make this difficult) it seems to be that the 1949 line is as arbitrary as the 1967 or 1947...
Is this because 1967's is too pro-israeli and 1947 was flat-out rejected by the Arab League?
I dunno, I'd appreciate the answer either here or in my talk page if this is not the right place.
Thanks for the patience.
--Sebastian Kessel 21:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the "1967 line" usually refers to the pre-war line, which makes it pretty much the same as the "1949 line". I suppose by "1967 line" you are referring to the post-war line. So per your question, none of these lines is officially regarded as a border, not even by Israel. The 1949 line (or more precisely the 1950 line, as there were minor adjustments in the Gaza Strip boundary early that year) is an armistice line. Over the 1947 line it has the advantage that it was agreed upon by both sides. Israeli sovereignty is widely accepted within the 1949 line (even by the PLO, some claim). Israeli law applies within this line, although Israel has extended its law to East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as well (which are not widely recognized as parts of Israel). So strictly speaking, the 1949 line is an armistice line, and it is also widely accepted as the boundary of Israel, both internationally and according to Israeli law (with the exception of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights).--Doron 06:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, what I didn't realize before is the 1949 line was agreed upon the sides. That makes it valid in the eyes of the world, I guess. After spending some time in Israel, and not justifying a lot of excesses by Tzahal, I understand their unease with returning the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. --Sebastian Kessel 15:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood - the 1949 line was agreed upon as an armistice line, and so was the post-1967-war line and unlike the 1947 line. The difference between the post-war line and the pre-war line is that Israel does not consider the territories captured in the war as its sovereign territory (with the exception above).--Doron 16:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh, gotcha. Do you believe that if Israel had annexed those territories after 1967 this problems wouldn't be happening in this scale? Having said that, I totally sympathize with the Palestinian demands for independence, as a Jew, I know all too well what that feels like. The suicide attack route wasn't the most intelligent, though. I just hope that all this can be resolved without further bloodshed and with solutions acceptable both to the palestinians and the israelis.  --Sebastian Kessel 17:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Who knows? But then, had Israel annexed those territories, she would either cease to be a democracy, or cease to be a Jewish state, which most Israelis would passionately object to. Israel has been trying to have her cake and eat it by settling these territories without the consequences of annexing them, making things ever so complicated. But that's just my personal point of view, which is really not so important to Wikipedia :]  --Doron 22:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You made your point and drove it home.... Well put. :) And, as you say, we should finish it here since it's not exactly wikipedia material. :) --Sebastian Kessel 03:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1949 vs 1967 demarcation line 

message: Hear me out.  I'm a life time atheist and could care less if someone is a christian, jew, buddhist etc.  America is supposedly Israels greatest ally, even though that nation was formed by the U.N..
I don't keep up with Israel and the jews much because I simply don't care about their little nation in the middle east.  I wonder why we give them aid 57 years later.  What about the controversy of 'giving' displaced jews Palestine?  Palestinians wrote the League of Nations to call for an independent Palestine two decades before the state of Israel was formed and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced from the new nation.  Israel has nuclear weapons and it's been speculated that they have chemical and biological weapons as well.  Why do they need these weapons if U.S. forces are trying to make sure that nuclear proliferation does not occur in the greater middle east.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Why the double standard?  If no other nation in the middle east acquires nuclear weapons, that would make Israel the biggest threat of a nuclear attack.  If they are so peaceful, why have nukes, let alone chemical or biological agents? Wijiwang 08:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles you're looking for are Arab-Israeli conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you are looking for a soapbox (it seems so), may I suggest you take it to some blog, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. HTH. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wijiwang, I believe Israel has nukes to protect itself in the case of an attack, US military is not perfect and not always will be there to jump "to the rescue" (see Scud Attacks in Gulf War I). On the other hand, the US also has all those weapons as well, wouldn't that make THEM the biggest threat of a nuclear attack? Don't forget that the US has used them already. --Sebastian Kessel 15:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey, aren't you the guy who insists that there is some controversy about whether or not The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a hoax?  Jayjg (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a controversy page for Israel? 

message: The footnote was reverted to its original version, due to controversy & contradictions in the latest changes.
The "changed" footnote is: (controvorsial changes enhanced)
1 Jerusalem is Israel's officially designated capital, and the location of its presidential residence, most government offices and the Knesset, Israel's Parliament. In 1980, the Israeli Knesset confirmed Jerusalem's status as the nation's "eternal and indivisible capital" by passing the Basic Law: Jerusalem — Capital of Israel.  However, many countries object to this designation, and consider the status of Jerusalem as an unresolved issue due to its designation as a corpus separatum in the 1947 UN Partition Plan, not settled by Israel's 1967 capture of  East Jerusalem and the city's subsequent reunification. Believing that the final status of Jerusalem can only be determined in future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, they instead locate their embassies in other major cities like Tel Aviv, Ramat-Gan, Herzliya, etc..
Moreover, some of the dissenting countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, due to what they perceive as illegal Israeli action in designating the city to be its capital in the first place (1950), as well as Israel's capture of the eastern half from Jordan, in 1967. These states instead recognize Tel Aviv, the temporary capital for a time in 1948, when Jerusalem was under Arab siege, as the continuous legitimate capital, and as a result keep their embassies there. Other entities maintain that Jerusalem must be internationalized as originally envisioned by the United Nations General Assembly. See the article on Jerusalem for more.
Mentioning that "Many countries object " - is a try to distinct the case to "black/white" sides. This happened a few times before and was extensively discussed before reaching the original version. Using dissent suggests that there are many countries that would have recognized Jerusalem as the capital, but are not doing so to prevent political sensitivities. (recognizing one side, even though the side has legitimation to do so). Such political sensitivities would not exist after an Israeli-palestinian final settlement, after-which every-country will show its real position. Anyway, it is certainly not connected with the corpus seperatum. This footnote encapsulates all countries that does not fully recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel, without getting to the many levels of semi-recognition. (this was much discussed already ..). So, it does include the corpus seperatum approach, but the phrasing puts the corpus seperatum issue as the main cause.. 
So instead of handling all the sub-levels, the footnote handles 2 general approaches: the first one of those who semi-recognize Jerusalem (some of these countries actually held embassies in Jerusalem up until the formal reunification of the city - this part was also removed!), the second approach is mentioned in the second paragraph, about the countries who does not acceppt designating Jerusalem as a capital. In most cases, this was because those countries supported the UN vision of corpus seperatum at the time (a vision that the UN itself left, after most if not all countries left it), or that these countries had another country in mind of which Jerusalem could be capital of. The corpus seperatum issue is mentioned in the final sentence of the footnote, which makes it unnecessary to put anywhere in the "dissent" section. (and certainly not as the main cause for the first general approach!)
- --VICTOR 21:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital Footnote 

message: As the section is written right now, it appears that the only thing that happened in the Land of Israel since the 7th century revolves around Jews, although during this period they were a minority. I am no scholar of this subject, but I'm sure more can be written about this period, except for Jewish persecution.--Doron 08:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right!  --Zero 11:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree as well, however I think that Jewish history in pre-Israel Palestine is an important part of    the history of the modern day Israel as a Jewish state, in terms of demographics and also the socio-political dymanics between the different inhabitants of that area, especially pertaining to the  evolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.--Hello world 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caliphate, Crusades, and the Ottoman Empire 

message: * Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Israeli_terrorism Make sure your voice is heard. Klonimus 02:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Israeli terrorism]] up for VfD. 

message: This sentence: This was notable, as Ben-Gurion showed a willingness to essentially accept about 1/3 of the land that would ultimately be won by Israel in the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War. has been deleted as "bias" and then restored claiming a reversion of vandalism. But I think the sentence actually is POV. The implication is clear (and, incidentally, I agree with it to some degree) -- that the Palestinians would have been wiser to accept the Peel plan. At the very least, "this was notable" has to go (actually, the phrase should be extirpated from the entire Wikipedia, but that's another issue). The "1/3 of the land" mention, if it's needed at all (I think it might be, but I'm not sure) could better be folded into the preceding sentence.
:The article is about Israel, not about Ben-Gurion, so Ben-Gurion's opinion is not so important really! What should be written is something like "... was rejected by the Palestinian Arab leadership; although it was a matter of stong dispute among the Zionist leadership, it was finally rejected by them as well"; the following sentence ("This was notable... ") should naturally be deleted.--Doron 20:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Gurion comment 

message: I was a bit shocked when I read the introduction of the article, because the only dates in there are "Israel was the birthplace of Judaism in the 10th century BCE or earlier and of Christianity at the beginning of the 1st century CE."
For such a young state, the creation date is an essential fact. I know few people are that ignorant, but if someone who knew nothing about israel at all came in and read the intro, they'd come out believing that this has been a jewish state since the 10th century BC without interruption! We must include the funding of the Israel state in the introduction, that's clear to me. Any suggestions as fo the wording?Jules LT 23:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, something is necessary, I propose "established in 1948" right after "parliamentary democracy."  It's always good to look things like this over, sometimes not only unintentional omissions but things which read literally are crazy stay in articles for years, because everyone editing unconsciously misreads it because they know too much already. --John Z 00:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly misleading introduction (for dummies) 

message: Justification of figure 20-25,000:  There were 15,000 Jewish Ottoman citizens (census).  The non-citizens were not enumerated, but 12 years later (when there were more immigrant Jews by everyone's reckoning) the total number of resident non-citizens was determined to be about 8,000.  Not all of them were Jews (many Greeks, Armenians, etc).  Generously allowing 5,000 non-citizen Jews for 1881 we get 20,000.  The higher value 25,000 is the Zionist figure published by Arthur Ruppin.  Details in McCarthy, The population of Palestine. --Zero 10:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1881 population