Talk:Israel/Archive 22

message: IMF increases Israel's per capita GDP to $31,767
The International Monetary Fund has raised Israel's per capita gross domestic product in purchasing power parity terms, placing the country at number 18 in the world up from the 21 spot previously. 
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188197182339&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.255.68 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a forecast. Let's wait until 2007 is over before we add it as a fact...--Doron 08:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: update needed for israeli GDP

message: I have issues with the second paragraph of the intro:
Israel declared its independence in 1948 after the United Nations approved the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, in November 1947. Israel was admitted as a UN member in 1949. Since Independence, Israel has been at war with many of its neighbours, and many of its borders are disputed.
It's an awfully short paragraph and misleadingly implies that the U.N. Partition Plan's Jewish state is today's Israel. So... I propose something between this paragraph and the lengthy paragraph that previously resided in its place:
Israel (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל, Yisra'el), officially the State of Israel (Hebrew: , Medinat Yisra'el; , Dawlat Isrā'īl), is a country in Asia located on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It has borders with Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, and Egypt on the southwest, and contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area. Also adjacent are the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are partially administrated by the Palestinian National Authority.
The modern state of Israel has its roots in the land of Israel, which has been central to Judaism for four thousand years and, more recently, significant to other Abrahamic religions. In 1948, after the United Nations approved the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, Israel declared its independence. The new country's victory in the subsequent Arab-Israeli War expanded the borders of the Jewish state beyond those conceived by the UN Partition Plan. Since then, Israel has been in conflict with many of the neighboring Arab countries, with confrontations including the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Nevertheless, peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and numerous other conferences and agreements, have attempted to bring peace to Israel and the region.
Today, the population of Israel is about 7.1 million, with a large Jewish majority. While Israel is home to both Jews and Arabs, as well as a large number of Christian and other minority groups, it is the world's only Jewish state.  Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and largest city.Jerusalem is the capital city and seat of government of Israel: it is home to the President's residence, government offices, supreme court, and parliament. The Jerusalem Law states that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" although the Palestinian Authority sees East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian State and the United Nations and most countries do not accept the Jerusalem Law, arguing that Jerusalem's final status must await future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Most countries maintain their embassies in other cities such as Tel Aviv, Ramat-Gan, and Herzliya(see the CIA Factbook and Map of Israel) See Positions on Jerusalem for more information. Due to its broad array of political rights and civil liberties, Israel is considered the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. Despite Israel's political problems and the vast sums it spends on military defense, Israel is an active competitor in the global market and is considered the most progressive in the region in terms of freedom of the press, business regulations, economic competition, and overall human development. 
-- tariqabjotu 21:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the former wording implies that Israel started those conflicts any more or less than the latter sentence. I would not have an issue with your wording but for the fact that "Israel" is used twice instead of just once. -- tariqabjotu 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro, again 

message: please correct
Please cite sources and explain why they are more accurate than existing sources. Schrodingers Mongoose 23:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was specific enough; the CIA World Factbook says $26,800. The Economy section has the correct statistic, but the infobox is outdated. I'll fix it. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP per capita is $26,800 and not $26,200. 

message: I find one aspect of the second paragraph to be problematic: "The new country's victory in the subsequent Arab-Israeli War expanded the borders of the Jewish state beyond those conceived by the UN Partition Plan." It omits the cause of Israel's border expansion, leaving open to interpretation whether Israel provoked such expansion. Considering that critics of Israel frequently use the argument that Israel is an "expansionist" state, it may be appropriate to include the context for such border expansion. Is there a NPOV way of saying that upon its creation, Israel was subsequently attacked by five neighboring countries. This is significant historically, and it is appropriate because in many way that first war defined the most basic foundations of Israel. Monitorer 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think it should be plenty NPOV to say it just as you have. "Upon its creation, Israel was attacked by five neighboring countries, acting in violation of the UN Partition Plan. The subsequent Arab-Israeli War ended with expanded borders for the Jewish state, beyond those originally conceived of by the Plan." Or something to that effect. LordAmeth 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except then, you might also have to mention that Jewish militias went outside the borders of the partition plan allocated to them by the UN before the Arab armies entered the scenario. Perhaps better to leave it simple? Tiamat 00:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of what you're referring to Tiamut. Can you provide a reliable source? To my knowledge - and this seems to be historical consensus - Israel's attackers were unprovoked at the moment the State was created. Now if you're referring to militias prior to Israel's creation, that is not within the context of this article. I am referring to strictly to the "expansionist" implications in that sentence. If we are to address that point only, these militias you talk about are irrelevent. Monitorer 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Since we're on the subject I should point out that Israel was not "created" in 1948, it merely declared itself an independent state. The state, such as it was, already existed. I am going to take up LordAmeth's suggestion and change the textTelaviv1 10:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? Would you like to clarify that? The state was created on May 14th, 1948. Before that, the area was governed by the UK. okedem 12:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: From the Economy section: "The United States is the source of half of the government's external debt as it provides the nation with US$5.5 billion annually." Also, criticism of the country is also mentioned under the Government and politics section (in the fourth paragraph). You can also draw your own conclusions – positive or negative – about Israel from the History section. -- tariqabjotu 01:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Introduction 

message: (````) issue: State of Israel's borders are demaracted in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries. Whereas, UNGA 181 is a UN Charter Chapter VII resolution  of which UN Charter Purposes and Principles, specifically Article 2., "4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political indepedence of nay state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."; Said Article 2., [ph]4., is the foundation of UNSC 242, another Chapter VII resolution. 
Therefore, the issue of 1947 was that the Arab states could NOT invaldiate international law of UN Charter's , a multi-lateral international instrument of agreement, Chapter VII Resolute Law. UNSC 242 reaffirms that same interanational law position for that 1967 conflict of which State of Israel cannot invalidate international law of UNGA 181, nor UNSC 72, 1949 Armistice Agreements; And that UN Charter's Chapter VII UNSC 242 reaffirms the staticity of borders which are defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries.
Said two states borders of Israel and Palestine, nor accompanying sovereignty for said demarcated territory have never been in contention; nor are the borders fluid of boundaries; in fact are static as defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boudnaries.  
What has been fluid are battle lines in a War of continuum: Sovereignty of UNGA 181 State of Palestine is held in Trust by UN organization itself, UN Charter Article 81, and in accordance with Article 77.,ph's a. & d. of UNGA 181 foundation; of UN International Trusteeship System of Article 80 purposes and principles; regardless that UN has been a most negligent Trustee.  (````) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiloah (talk • contribs) 23:21, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 
:You lost me. -- tariqabjotu 03:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of Israel borders. 

message: Upon further study of the article, I came across a disturbing passage: "During the course of the hostilities, 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, fled from Israel."
I have listened to much debate regarding what percentage of Palestinians fled and what percentage were forcibly expelled, but never, from even the most extreme historians, have I heard the claim that every single one of the 711,000 Palestinians chose to leave of their own accord. 
I propose that the sentence be changed as follows: "During the course of the hostilities, 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, fled or were forcibly expelled from Israel."
The Wikipedia article Palestinian Exodus lists four theories regarding the causes of the exodus.  This article mentions but one.  Far from accurate, and lacking any sort of internal consistency, this article much be edited to reflect differing views on the matter.Smitty Mcgee 22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but never, from even the most extreme historians, have I heard the claim that every single one of the 711,000 Palestinians chose to leave of their own accord. Okay... and? This article does not say that either. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The current wording does not suggest all the Palestinians left on their own accord (as with "consent" or "agreement"). "Flee" does not just mean "leaving" on one's own accord, but instead means "to run away, as from danger or pursuers; take flight". Even if the Israelis (hypothetically) threatened the Palestinians or burned down their homes to make them leave, the Palestinians would still be fleeing "from danger" or at the very least a perceived danger. The Israelis would have to pretty much be trucking them out for it not to be fleeing (and even then, there would be fleeing involved). You must note that we have an article entitled 1948 Palestinian exodus (not exactly a "trucked from their homes" word) and that in the intro of that article, one sees "The 1948 Palestinian exodus... refers to the refugee flight of Palestinian Arabs" (flight being one of the definitions of and a word similar to flee). I'm not trying to say Wikipedia is the tell-all of facts, but it might be a good measure of what has been accepted here as decent wording for describing certain events. Flee appears to work fine here. -- tariqabjotu 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, you will notice that I cited the very same article you did: Palestinian Exodus.  The following is a quote from the introduction of the article:
"The initial exodus ... of Palestinian refugees is a contentious topic...".  For this reason, it seems, the article deems it necessary to list four distinct theories regarding the causes of the exodus.  You are correct that the Palestinian Exodus article uses the term "flight".  However, in this article, no explanatory measure is taken, as in the cited article.  To use the term "fled" without an accompanying explanation is as neutral as using the term "expelled".  Both are necessary to ensure accuracy as well as fairness.Smitty Mcgee 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to disagree here. The other end of the spectrum from "expelled" would be something like "left" or "departed", which would imply a lack of duress. "Fled" does a decent job of striking a balance between the perspectives that conflict so badly on this issue. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, can you, when you get the chance, fix this? -- tariqabjotu 06:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinian Exodus

message: I'm probably going to get flamed for suggesting this but ...
Given the fact that the debates surrounding Israel's formation, borders, and even its existence are so central to a large part of world politics it seems that an explicit section on these controversies is worthwhile. These issues are touched on in some of the text but it is sort of "buried" in there. It seems that, awkward as all this may be, it is such an important aspect of the subject that it bears bringing out as its own subtopic, at least briefly.
--Mcorazao 03:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that since these controversies are so central to the fact of Israel's existence (its creation, its borders, etc), they are therefore already discussed in quite some detail in just about every section of every article on Israel-related topics across the 'pedia. There are already a number of separate articles on various individual aspects of the controversy (see 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Palestinian refugee, Arab-Israeli conflict, Palestinian Exodus, etc etc etc), as well as, most likely articles even more specifically devoted to describing the historiography of the controversies. As a result, I do not think we need an explicit section in this here article. LordAmeth 07:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to say that I feel like there should be a section here about the Palestinians/the territories. This isn't some passing military occupation. It's been happening for 40 years, more than 2/3 of the country's existence, and has had a profound impact on the country. I hope that such a section can be written with NPOV in mind, and be reasonably concise. Can it be done? okedem 09:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think these issues are already covered adequately in the article and especially in the other articles about the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict, history of Israel, etc.   6SJ7 00:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I also don't believe we need a separate section. If people want to know more about the conflict(s), they can look at the appropriate article(s). -- tariqabjotu 06:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Can a few people take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Israel (near the bottom) and address some of the points regarding requests for references? I didn't add a couple of statements noted in the FAC so I don't know where the relevant information came from. In fact, I looked for sources for two of the requests prior to the FAC and came up empty. -- tariqabjotu 21:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References needed