Talk:Israel/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about Israel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Is there nothing else besides war between neighboring states in the past 50 years? I am sure that Israeli history would be more interesting than simply a bomb here and an attack there.

How can Israel be called a democracy when the Israeli government itself states that Israel is a Jewish state for the Jewish people. Israel's ambassador to the UN repeated the same sentiments recently in an interview. Furthermore, there are countless laws in place favoring Jews over other members of society (e.g. Christians and Muslims).

Israel can't be described as a democracy for several reasons: Any Jew in any country can move to Israel and immediately receive citizenship and financial subsidies. Christians and Muslims can't do so despite having family and relatives in Israel proper. I have heard the argument that since there are Arab MPs in the Knesset it is a slam dunk case. Well, that's not good enough. That does not constitute a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. Unless of course, some would like to argue that Israel IS a democracy when compared to other states in the Middle East. Well, if that’s the case, then I must warn you that Iran and Pakistan are competing for that title.

Israel's purpose, to serve as a home for the Jewish people, is not a odds with its democratic nature. All citizens can vote, their votes are all worth the same. Israel holds regular, fair, elections, and is controlled by the elected government. It has separation of powers, protects the rights and liberties of its people, including the rights of minorities. It answers every criteria for liberal democracy, so that's what it is.

"countless laws"? Really? Why don't you try counting them, for me?

A country has a right to determine who gets citizenship, and is not under any obligation to grant citizenship to anyone. Many countries grant citizenship preferably to people of the same national decent. I'm talking about western democracies like Germany, France and Finland. You can read about it in Right of return. okedem 14:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

First poster (the anonymous one) is discussing not the article but his personal partisan opinion. If the United Nations and the great majority of other nations -- especially those in the West -- regard Israel as a "democracy," then it's a democracy. --Michael K. Smith 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Israeli government is (for the most part)isn't jewish, and it isn't a Jewish State for Jews in Eretz Yisroel as they advertise, but rather just A state for Jews in Eretz Yisroel. The only difference between USA and The Modern Heretical State of Israel is (beside size, location and language) is that one is a Parliamentary democracy, and the other is a direct democracy. Thats my two cents. --Shuliavrumi 22:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- The classification of a country as a democracy is primarily related to the rights and freedoms of the people who inhabit it, and does not describe its immigration policy. Israel's immigration policy may be to your liking or it may not, but no matter what your opinion might be on that subject, it doesn't change the nature of Israel as the only free democratic society in the Middle East (...and yes, for those who legally live within its borders).

Most of the world's major free democracies reserve the right to choose those who will be permitted to immigrate into its borders. For example, the United States, Britain, Ireland, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan, (to mention just a few examples) have some of the most restrictive and selective immigration policies that favor some groups of people over others. This is also true of Israel.

- Ehad Ha'am, May 28, 2007

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Okedem, I'll list SOME of them for you.

Note that the following information is from a book by Professor David Kretchmer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The book is titled: “The Legal Status of Israeli Arabs”.

Israel’s declaration of independence states that Israel was created as a home for the Jewish people, first and foremost. The declaration puts emphasis on the Jewish identity rather than the political structure of a democracy. From that period onwards, Israel’s laws have relied heavily on this declaration. In article 7A of the Israeli statute law it states that the Knesset prohibits the participation in the elections to the Knesset any party that “Rejects Israel as a state for the Jewish people” or those that “Reject the democratic nature of the state.”

In 1980 the Israeli Supreme Court passed a law stating that in the event that an Israeli court was unable to reach a decision based on legal precedence or comparison they should refer to the heritage of the nation of Israel (i.e. Jewish history)

Another law, which dates back to 1980, restricts legal marriages to Jews only. In other words, a Jewish man or woman can not marry a non-Jew and enjoy the recognition of the state as a legal and valid marriage.

The state flag of Israel has its basis in a 1948 law that borrows its design from the “Talit” bearing the Star of David. The same applies to the Menorah which is a religious Jewish symbol used as the state’s seal. The same goes for the national anthem, "Hatikvah”.

State owned lands can not be sold to non-Jews. 19% of state owned land is managed and administered by the National Jewish Fund whose mission statement includes a clause prohibiting the sale of land to non-Jews.

The following is merely a sample of discrimination relating to land distribution and ownership:

During the 50s and the 60s, lands owned by non-Jews where confiscated to build what later became “Natsrat Elite” (Upper Nazareth) and “Karmiel”. Non-Jews (Arabs) where prohibited from purchasing houses in these two cities. In 1976 alone, the Israeli government confiscated 1500 acres of Non-Jewish owned land to “Develop the Galilee”.

In 1969 and 1977 two state laws where passed in regards to searches and civilian aviation under which security officials can search anyone they please if they are regarded as a threat to national security. And, in fact, based on documented cases Israeli Arabs (i.e. Non-Jews) are stopped and searched prior to boarding an airplane while their Jewish counterparts are not subject to the same scrutiny. In essence, Non-Jews are treated as a national security threat.

Jewish schools run by the government (i.e. public schools) are granted higher budgets than those in non-Jewish towns and cities. In addition, every school in the non-Jewish sector has to get approval from the Ministry of Education prior to employing a non-Jew as a teacher. Non-Jewish teachers are subject to a “security clearance”, that is to say that if they are politically active that they will not be granted permission to teach. -- Anonymous 00:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• None of which indicates Israel is not a democracy, so move right along. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. "Israel’s declaration of independence..." - Yes, and that stems from the country being "a Jewish, Democratic state". Quite obvious, nothing special here.
2. "In 1980 the Israeli Supreme Court..." - If you can't make a decision on legal ground, might as well turn to Jewish law and heritage. There's a wealth of information there, giving a lot of food for thought. Mind you, that Jewish law doesn't have any power here, the law just directs the judges to take a look at Jewish heritage. They can look - and ignore it, go read some philosophy book and decide based on that. It's purely a symbolic gesture.
3. "Another law, ...restricts legal marriages" - No, not really. You misunderstand the book, or the book is badly written (or translated). Israel doesn't have an institution of civil marriage. That is, only religious marriage is legally valid, but those can be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Druze, or any other. Thus, people of different religions do face some difficulty in marriage, but that goes for all of them, like a Muslim trying to marry a Christian. Note, that Israel has Common-law marriage, which grants pretty much the same rights as marriage, and applies to everyone (including gay couples, by the way).
4. "The state flag of Israel..." - Yea, well, the flag of all Scandinavian nations has a large cross in it - an obvious Chrisitian symbol. Are they, too, not democracies? Does the presence of said cross discriminate against people of other religions?
5. "State owned lands can not be sold to non-Jews" - Again, you're wrong. State owned lands can be sold to anyone. There is some difficulty with land owned by the JNF, as that was a private organization, collecting money from world Jewry to purchase lands for Jews. There's a supreme court ruling to stop that practice anyway.
6. Security - Since Israel is under serious terrorist threats and attacks, some measures were needed. Are those measures being abused by some? Maybe. Is that governmental discrimination - not at all.
7. Airplanes - the security staff make their own calls, and sometimes they're wrong. But bear this in mind - no Jews go on planes and abduct them or blow them up. Some Muslims do. So where is the greater threat? okedem 09:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Gordon, please refrain from being hostile. If the topic makes you uncomfortable or you don't like the facts as they are, you're more than welcome to not participate in the discussion. Don't you find it strange that the only person who has been civil so far is the person who is at least TRYING to put forth an argument, I'm talking about Okedem. You on the other hand...well...I'll leave it at that.

Okedem,

By definition, a democracy should treat all its citizens equally and be a government by the people. Can you say the same about Israel?

1. "Go read some philosophy book". I don't appreciate the condescending tone.

2. "No, not really. You misunderstand the book, or the book is badly written (or translated)".

Actually, that's hardly the case. The book is written by a well respected professor of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The book is written in Hebrew, my native language. I don't think I misunderstood it. Can you cite a source that backs up your argument? Why is it when a baby is born to a Jewish mother he is immediately registered in the Ministry of Interior as a Jew? When a baby is born to a Christian or Muslim mother, they usually ask the mother as to the baby’s religion.

3. "Security - Since Israel is under serious terrorist threats and attacks, some measures were needed. Are those measures being abused by some? Maybe. Is that governmental discrimination - not at all."

Those measures are a POLICY that no one within the government is willing to address or discuss. There are documented cases of non-Jews facing discrimination at airports. It's a pattern and a trend that indicates a policy. Besides, airport security is made up of government employees, are they not? The Shin Bet agents who supervise these employees are government employees, are they not?

4. "Airplanes - the security staff make their own calls, and sometimes they're wrong.”

The security staff is sometimes wrong? Must you downplay these discriminatory practices? (See #3)

"But bear this in mind - no Jews go on planes and abduct them or blow them up. Some Muslims do."

So you're saying that it's ok for Israel to profile non-Jews simply because of the political situation? We're discussing a principle here, the principle of democracy and equality, not "well, considering the political climate we live in.....". You can't have your cake and eat it. Israel can either be a democracy, or not.

Also, you said, "some Muslims do". What about those cases of Christian Arabs facing the same discrimination as their Muslim counterparts? I would say the discrimination is against non-Jews, not just those who "pose a threat", as Israeli government pundits would put it.

6. You did not respond to the "teachers and budgets" part in my previous post. -- Anonymous

According to Judaism a member of the Jewish nationality is one converted to Judaism or who's mother belongs to the Jewish nationality. It's a one sided thing, and neither the mother nor father or child have any say in this. other religions laws have no bearing in Judaism and therefor it is necessary to ask for administrative purposes only. -Shyisc 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The state of Israel was in a state of war since before it came into existence, and still is. The nationality of it's enemies is Arab and it has a large hostile Arab population within it. These enemies seek nothing less than the destruction of the state of Israel and killing all Jews. The state of war has never stopped, cease-fire after all is only a pause in the war, not an end to it, and the war is still going on in the terror front. Mind you, terror has also been deployed against the state of Israel since before it came into existence and was used against it ever since. -Shyisc 15:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I wasn't being condescending, I was saying the judges can "Go read some philosophy book" and decide based on that, they don't have to consider the Jewish laws.

2. Your original claim is false. You said "Another law, which dates back to 1980, restricts legal marriages to Jews only." - That's completely false, and you should know that. Muslims can marry, Christians can marry, Druze can marry. If you mean that inter-religious marriage is a problem, that's true, but it's a problem for everyone here, not just Arabs. But, since international marriage is recognized, and there's the common-law marriage thing, it's not too bad. About asking the mother - whatever. Why is that even important? So they ask the mother, she can say whatever she wants. That sound like discrimination against Jews, if anything.

3,4. I'm willing to live with the profiling, as thanks to it no Israeli airplanes get kidnapped, blown up, or flown into sky scrappers. I don't like it, but I do think there's a good reason for it. There are abuses in some cases, but they're not government policy, just bad decisions (yes, government employees can make bad calls).

6. I don't respond to claims I know too little about.

Let's make one thing clear here - I'm responding to your claims because I think false information needs to be corrected (you still haven't shown the "countless laws in place favoring Jews"). Even if all your claims were true, Israel would still be a democracy. okedem 09:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

as you may know, Judaism has 613 laws for members of the Jewish nationality and 7 laws for members of all other nations. among the 7 laws for gentiles (is that the correct term? I heard it in a charlie chaplin movie "the greate dictator" and it's the shortest I've heard so far so I use it) is a law saying "don't commit adultery, which in our case refers to marriage. I don't know what are the conditions for a gentile marriage to have legal standing, but if whatever ceremony that takes place answers those criteria then it is recognized by Judaism as legal marriage. the state of Israel, being a Jewish state, should recognize all marriages that are recognized by Judaism and non else. these marriages could include marriages in other religions, so long as they match the criteria. whether or not the state of Israel follows Jewish criteria is another question, since apparently it recognizes marriages that violate it, both for Jews and Gentiles. however, we are talking here about recognition. a marriage that isn't recognized is treated as one that doesn't exist. for people who prefer marriage according to their religion over marriage according to state law, what does it matter if their religious marriage is recognized? they can always marry again according to state law for state recognition. -Shyisc 16:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well getting tired of writing in the section about nuclear weps I put on the talkpage I think it would be some use to show how much of a 'liberal democracy' and how much 'human development' has taken place in Israel by referring to the case of Mordechai Vanunu, of course Okedem from what I can tell your Israeli (just a guess) so youll probably view him as some type of spy or traitor, and then reply to this in a thoroughly patronising manor explaining how this happens in places such as the UK and America and so its perfectly kosher. Well ive got two preliminary awnsers to these arguments even before I start saying what im going to say. Number one: if it happens in the west it dosent mean its without contraversy, we have disputes over how to treat spies and the like (though excluding America's Guatanamo bay we have no where near as bad a record as Sin Bet or Mossad, and I come from the UK so for me at least guatanamo doesn't count). Im not particularily anti-Israel, just pro-human rights and I believe both the west and israel have violated human rights, although in the west it is generally less accepted by the public because of the less aparant nationlism, and so these issues are confronted, although in this article they are not generally mentioned at all. Now onto the real argument taking the treatment of Mordechai Vanunu who was recently released from life imprisonment and has had varying difficulty functioning politically in Israel (both before the imprisonment and after). Now you may say that Israel could legally abduct Mordechai from another country because he was a whistleblower, but technically they have no legal right to do so. This is because international law generally over-runs national law, and despite Israel not signing the nuclear proliferation treaty (which incidentally on the case of human development ALL the Arab nations have signed) even in secret they have no right to abduct a citizen from another country, which they have done. The fact that Mordechai released an Israeli secret places him squarely illegal in Israel, though the fact Israel was technically illegally producing nuclear weapons is by far the worse crime internationally and in fact the legality of holding Mordechai may well be void internationally because instead of commiting a crime he was actually denouncing a crime. ]

His treatment, as far as Europe, and many other bodies, including to varying degrees the UN (not least because it breaks several UN human rights laws) are concerned is unacceptable and illegal. In fact it is the kind of thing a 'liberal' democracy should not be capable of, and I can give you several human rights violations if you wish them and quote many a thing Vanunu has said and many journalists, and even Israeli Mossad agents have said regarding him. For more information check the wikipedia article on him, and this should negate the whole notion of human development and 'liberal democracy' in israel. If you want me to argue my point further with more information I shall but to be honest the article on him says it all. Oh and yes of course regarding the lack of prejudice aagainst minorities this is something (I mentioned below as well) which may pose intrest to you, stated by a Mossad agent why they didnt kill Vanunu (mossad effectively being under direct control of the government) 'Jews dont kill other Jews'.

• Please note that The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish law states (it's hard to translate exactly, but I'll try): "whoever rises to kill you, rise earlier than him to kill him". the Jewish law of self defense doesn't allow us to defend ourselves, it obligates us to defend ourselves. nuclear weapons are indeed an important & powerful means of self defense and avoiding developing them, or giving them up, is a crime. might I remind you that Jewish law is the foundation & source for western civilization and obviously should take precedence over man made law when they conflict in an irresolvable manner and if Jewish law forbids to yield to man made law over that point under those circumstances. in any case, thats how it is for us.

as for the treatment of Vanunu, that may very well be wrong, but I'm not familiar with Jewish law on this matter. I would like to add also the beating up of right wing protesters who were trying to prevent the crime of expelling Jews from the Jewish homeland. all in all, I think the problem isn't lack of democracy but a lack of respect to human rights, even though those rights are (so far as I know) legally binding through an elementary law ("temporary" replacement to a constitution, at least according to the supreme court). -Shyisc 16:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to direct someone else to a series of maps depicting Israel's changing borders -- either claimed or actually enforced -- and found nothing here, really, except by wading through the WikiAtlas collection. I'm taking about 1948 vs. 1967 vs. 1995, etc. I don't know whether it should be part of the main Israel article or a separate article linked to this one, but I'm willing to bet someone has the necessary information or visuals at their fingertips. (Hint, hint, . . .) --Michael K. Smith 16:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

almost all "borders" are realy cease-fire lines, and I do not think they have any legal bearings. according to international law (this is what I heard, and it makes sense), if a state (Egypt & Jordan here) illegally takes hold of land (Judea, Samaria & Gaza) and then loses that land to another state (Israel) in a war of aggression (Egypt & Jordan attacked Israel) the the defending state (Israel) is now the legal holder of that land (Judea, Samaria & Gaza). according to Jewish law all of the land of Israel belongs to the children of Israel. Any part of it, including what we hold, is ours legally. however, other nations may come to hold parts of our land illegally, in which case we are allowed to refrain from taking it back. How is this relevant to maps? simple: the maps must depict the cease-fir lines, and mutual non-aggression (peace) lines, but the internal division of areas held by the state of Israel (Arab autonomy, Jordanian law, date of acquisition, etc)is irrelevant and should not be depicted, unless the map is supposed to be about the internal structure. -Shyisc 17:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a huge amount of Knowledge of Jewish religious history, or motives for Zionism and general return to Israel, but I think it would be good if this article explained in greater detail religious motives (if there are any) for return to Israel. Disagree with me if you feel this is sufficiently explained. I however think this should be put in a NPOV way which in my opinion considerable amounts of the article are not placed in. This would be either by showing both points of view for and against technical religious reasons for Israel. E.g. one point of view maybe that the Jewish people were displaced centuaries ago by the babalonians and that they have rights to the country, and the other point of view would be along the lines of that in Jewish texts the babalonian invasion was a punishment by G-d for disobeying Israel, and that the return to Israel would happen only with the coming of the messiah. Or possibly a secular or atheist point of view which states that Zionism is out of place in todays society. Or simply just by giving a general overview with neither point of view, which explains basic refrences to Israel in Hebrew scripts. If you feel the article explaisn this enough then disagree with me, or that the Jewish migration to Israel was non-religious and simply to avoid persecution, however since many politicians in Israel follow a religious line (for publicity reasons or otherwise) I personally belive the religious reasons shoudl be explained.-S.M

I think that what you are looking for is in the articles on Zionism and Religious Zionism. As the first of these articles makes clear, there are both religious and non-relgious foundations for Zionism. 6SJ7 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

all forms of Zionism are derived from the Jewish law to live in, Develop & have sovereignty over the land of Israel. for example: secular Zionism follows this directive because Jews are a nationality and Israel our homeland, and this is what nations do with their homeland. the religious Zionism that believes in waiting for messiah probably developed that belief out of despair from all the failed attempts to fully obey that law and developed their ideology as an excuse to avoid making further attempts. -Shyisc 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of the first part of this sentence:

Though its exact borders remain undefined [1] it is located between Lebanon to the north, Syria and Jordan to the east, and Egypt to the south-west.^[1]Tiamut 14:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple. Israel isn't just "located" between these countries. It borders them. The existence of border disputes doesn't change that. A border isn't just one defined by a peace treaty, or whatever, it's the limit between two countries. Right now, you pass from Israeli jurisdiction to Syrian jurisdiction on the Golan Heights - so that's the border.

The borders with Egypt and Jordan are agreed borders, determined by the peace treaties.

Lebanon - Israel has withdrawn to the international border, recognized by the UN. Even if changes are made to the border (like in Har Dov - Shebaa Farms), the sentence "Israel borders Lebanon to the north" would still be just as true.

Syria - Again, even if the Golan is returned to Syria, the sentence "Israel borders Syria to the east" would be just as true.

"Palestine" - No such state currently exists, so no such borders. Should it be established, we can update the article. A border, mind you, is with a sovereign body, not with "territories" (besides, if it borders "Palestine", where the occupation?). okedem 17:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, since your arguments are just as valid (or invalid) both ways, why aren't you changing the wording on the Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt articles? okedem 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The major difference Okedem is that Syria is not engaged in a military occupation of land that the international community says it should not be sitting on. You cannot ignore that the West Bank lies between Jordan and Israel and that its status is not finalized. Nor can you ignore that Gaza lies between Israel and Egypt and that its status is also unclear. I think the formulation I have proposed is very fair. It is backed by a reliable source and I am willing to provide more. I find it odd that even the most basic statements of fact cannot be introduced into the Israel article without being deleted, even when reliably sourced and relevant to the topic at hand. It's as though this page operates under a different set of Wiki policies altogether. It's very very saddening. Tiamut 07:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your claims are just false. A border is not just an internationally recognized one, but a de facto one, and the borders listed are the de-facto borders of Israel. Even if you wanted to list the international border Syria, the wording "Israel borders Syria to the east would by just as true. And what's your problem with the Lebanese border? It has nothing to do with the Palestinians, and it IS an internationally recognized border.

There is no such country as "Palestine", so there could no border. It's really just as simple. Right now, Israel is the sovereign in the territories, not anyone else. You can't border non-sovereign military-occupied territories. If and when their status changes, I'll be more than happy to reflect that change here. Until then...

Your source doesn't even matter here - we're not disputing the facts, but the phrasing.

"Different rules"? You are the one applying different rules here. If the borders aren't defined, you should be changing the formulation on the articles I listed, but you're not. okedem 08:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize this topic is a sensitive one for you, but you should be able to put aside your nationalistic sentiments and focus on the facts. And if I haven't added this information to the Syria and Lebanon articles yet, its because I haven't yet looked at them. I am a member of the Palestine and Israel Wikiprojects not those of Syria and Lebanon. Here are more reliable sources discussing the ambiguity in Israel's border situation:

1) Ehud Olmert began building a coalition after winning Israel's election on promises to declare a final border for Israel even as the militant group Hamas assumed control of the Palestinian government

2) The second phase of the plan, which was formally accepted by both Israelis and Palestinians, calls for a declaration of an independent state even before final borders are agreed upon between both sides

3) Olmert will ask for U.S. endorsement of the plan that now defines him as a leader, a plan under which Israel would withdraw unilaterally from the heart of the West Bank to a line approximating the security barrier it has been building, and declare that to be the country's final border

4) ...in a country where politics revolve over terror attacks and undefined borders

5) Israel enjoys all aspects of jurisdiction in these areas and is, thus, fully responsible as the occupying power. The spatial definition of all these areas remains ambiguous

So as you can see, the issue of Israel's borders and the ambiguity surrounding where exactly they lay is an important and relevant issue. I believe my edit alludes to this without getting heavily into the specifics, which are better discussed in the body. However, for the introduction to imply that there are borders, when in fact, Israel has never declared its borders, is totally misleading and unencyclopedic to boot. Tiamut 10:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, quit it with "nationalistic sentiments", or "sensitive topic". I'm talking facts here.

Even your links talk about "final borders", meaning there are current borders - which is what we talk about. When they change - we'll talk about that. Again I state, Israel's borders with Egypt and Jordan are finalized, by agreement. Israel has withdrawn in 2000 to what the UN recognizes as its border with Lebanon. So those borders are recognized. There is no ambiguity where the border lies in the Golan - Israel controls the Golan now. Syria wants Israel to withdraw to the international border, from the current border (which is the armistice line).

There are no other states involved, so now other borders. Simple. You can't have a border with a non-sovereign entity.

You're trying apply different criteria to Israel, from any other country. Go look at other country articles, countries with border disputes, like India and Pakistan, and you'll see they all use the same phrasing - border, not "located". okedem 10:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So, where are the current borders Okedem? If you are so sure that they do indeed exist, you should have no problem providing a reliable source that states where they lie exactly. Further, you are ingnoring that at least one of the five sources uses the term "undefined" borders which means there are no currently defined borders, which support the phrasing of my edit which said: Though its exact borders remain undefined [2] it is located between Lebanon to the north, Syria and Jordan to the east, and Egypt to the south-west.^[2] This is a factual statement. What you are offering is in return is WP:OR analysis. Tiamut 11:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the five sources you brought? So, that gives my view a majority, using your sources. Thanks.

You seem to refuse to reply to what I said about Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.

And Let me ask you this - how do you define a border? okedem 12:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you read Okedem? Nowhere in the articles I cited does it say that Israel's current borders are defined. That's what you need to support your claim that Israel does indeed have defined borders which is what you formulation implies ("It borders Lebanon here and Syria there, etc., etc.) You are purposely misleading the reader by ignoring the evidence in front of your eyes. The other sources I gave you state clearly that there are no "final borders". If the borders are not final, then they are not currently defined. Two of the sources explicitly support the idea that they fully undefined, one actually using that exact term and the other the more diplomatic "spatially ambiguous" (i.e. undefined). Further, since you seem to be having difficulty understanding, there are these sources:

Israel is the only country in the world with undeclared borders.

Israel is the only country in the world that has never declared or demarcated its borders.

These actually up the ante a bit, moving past undefined to undeclared altogether. Now, I expect that there will be a note reflecting this reality in the introduction. After all, the intro currently claims its the only country in the Middle East that is democracy, why not state the other fact about Israel in relation to other countries. It is the only one never to declare or demarcate its borders. i.e. they remain undefined. I think my edit was very diplomatic actually considering what the situation actually is. Tiamut 13:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As okedem said before, it is you Tiamut who seems to be focusing on political and nationalistic statements instead of focusing on facts. The fact is, Israel borders Syria to the northeast. It does not matter whether the border is not defined, or even whether it's having or not having the Golan Heights on the Israeli side. Even if you go by the internationally recognized border, which has Golan in Syrial, Israel still borders it to the northeast. Same with all other cases except Gaza and the West Bank. You could say that Israel borders the Gaza strip if you stretch the meaning of border to include non-sovereign territories, but Israel definitely does not border the West Bank, because at least part of it is under Israeli sovereignty, under the Oslo agreements, so you have no point there. 'Status to be determined' does not mean it's suddenly another country's territory. Parts of the West Bank belong to the Palestinian Authority, this is a fact, but I don't think writing 'Palestinian Authority-controlled territories are spread out in enclaves within the West Bank' is relevant here. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Tiamut. You just keep evading.

First off, talking about "final borders" means there are currently borders, but they're not final - that's why we add the word "final", to differentiate between the current borders and the final ones. I know where the border is - it's where there's a nice fence, and soldiers telling me to go away, before I enter Syria and get shot. Is it the final border, or the legal border, or the legitimate border, or the "right" border? Maybe not, but it's reality.

Second, Israel's borders with Jordan and Egypt are final and defined - why do you keep avoiding that? There's a peace treaty, it's final, it's not gonna change.

Third, there a UN recognized international border with Lebanon - if it's good enough for the UN, should be good enough for you.

Fourth, Syria - regardless of which border we want to accept, the current one, the international line, the 1967 line, or something else, the sentence "Israel borders Syria on the east" remains fully true, as it doesn't specify exactly where the border is.

Fifth, now, it's true that Israel didn't define what it wants its borders to be, but that's irrelevant. We write about reality, not some political vision, or some doubtful future. By the way, Syria and Lebanon never bothered demarcating the border between them - how about that?

Sixth, what are these sites you linked? They seem completely non-notable.

Seventh, the PA is not sovereign. Israel is the sovereign in the territories, as the military occupier, under international codes relating to occupied territories. The PA is an administrative body, not a sovereign one, which has been given some responsibilities and powers in some regions. The sovereignty over the area remains Israeli.

And I ask you again - what is your definition of border? okedem 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's review once again:

• The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs:Israel enjoys all aspects of jurisdiction in these areas and is, thus, fully responsible as the occupying power. The spatial definition of all these areas remains ambiguous.

• James Petras, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, from his book, The Power of Israel in the United States:Israel is the only country in the world with undeclared borders.

• M. Shahid Alam, professor of economics at Northeastern University, Boston, author of the book, Poverty from the Wealth of Nations: Israel is the only country in the world that has never declared or demarcated its borders.

• Salon.com: ...in a country where politics revolve over terror attacks and undefined borders ...

and something new to consider, since you claim these are somehow unreliable sources:

• Professor Yaron Ezrahi of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who says that: a central problem is the undefined borders between the Israeli state and the Arab state. "No historians or religious leaders could agree what precisely were the borders of Israel ... Israel became a borderless entity" ... "In a normal country, the army is responsible for the security of external enemies and the police is supposed to deal with internal conflicts ... but in Israel, we don't know exactly what is internal and what is external, and it's a very unhealthy situation."

Now how would you like to add this information to the article. Do you prefer my formulation? Though its exact borders remain undefined, [3] it is located between Lebanon to the north, Syria and Jordan to the east, and Egypt to the south-west.^[3]

or do you have another formulation in mind? And Okedem, if you don't know what a border is, how can you possibly claim know that Israel's are defined? Tiamut 15:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, as long as you don't address okedem's and my concerns as we have addressed yours, there isn't much space for additional argument. Also, please stop quoting reliable sources out of their area of expertise, as you did with James Petras, who is an expert on Latin America, not Israel. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I'm sick of this. I explained my view, in depth, point by point. You refuse to respond to even one of my sentences. You evade every single thing I say, and twist my words to suite your purpose. What's the point? Is there a problem with Israel's borders? Sure. But does that prevent us from stating that "It borders Lebanon on the north, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Egypt on the south-west."? No, because those statements are all true. Unless you bother responding to my earlier points, I don't see the point of this. okedem 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we need a RfC then. I have provided you with a number of reliable sources that state that Israel's borders are undefined and undeclared. You have failed to provide even one that says that they are defined and where they are located. I don't think the six words that I want to add to the introduction ("Though its borders remain undefined") are so offensive that they warrant such resistance, particularly in the face of anywhere between 5 to 10 reliable sources stating that this is the case. You do not seem to want to abide by WP:NPOV which states that all significant viewpoints must be represented. You have not even offered a compromise formulation or made a gesture to incorporate this information into the body of the article. I'd say that the view of those cited here that Israel's borders are undefined or undeclared is significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Perhaps others will agree, perhaps not. We'll just have to wait and find out. Tiamut 16:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Tiamut, what we need is for you to bother addressing the points I've raised, instead of going on and on about "undefined", as if no one said anything. You keep ignoring what we say, and that's simply unacceptable. okedem 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I think I have responded to most of the points you have raised. Perhaps I'm missing something though. In any case, it can't hurt to ask others what they think. Tiamut 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given a list of points. You haven't addressed any of them. I gave it again. You ignored it again. okedem 17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I could say exactly the same thing, but I don't think this kind of tit-for-tat is going to help us break this deadlock. Why don't we just step back for a minute and let others comment since we don't seem to making any headway on our own? Tiamut 17:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia and don't have my own account yet, but I agree with both the points put forward above me, Israel, from whatever point of view of looking at it, (and I am definetly no pro-Israel type) borders the countries Okedem put forward, even if the terriotory which is not considered legal is removed from the equation.There is no point in disagreeing with this because the only way to change what countries Israel borders would be to create some new ones (out of the occupied terriotories) or to move Israel. On the other hand Tiamut adresses a valid issue, it is not really acceptable just to write as though the borders are defined, universally accepted, and non fluctuating. The truth is, being represented by the U.N. most countries disagree with the borders currently set by Israel, although Okedem what you say about bodering Syria, Lebanon etc is all true, what YOU seem to evade is the question of the actuall positioning oof the borders, whether Israel borders Syria closer to, or further away from Israel proper. The truth is these borders are undefined, and the way the article is written it seems these are universally accepted and permanent borders, and that the borders of the occupied areas are the borders of Israel. This may or may not be on purpose, but nevertheless I think it is important that something like Tiamut's sentence is put in to show, at least, Israel's true borders are disputed and not accepted by some, weather they are rightly disputed is a matter of opinion but it is not a matter of opinion that they ARE disputed, and by standing in the way of using that simple sentence Okedem you seem to be deliberately obstructive, but maybe you are not.

Basically in a summary what I'm saying is Okedem writes the truth, though not the whole truth, and by not writing all points of view it ould give someone who knows nothing about these borders misleading information about Israel and its legality of borders in international law. Obviously this is an exagerration and the occupied territories themselves are not considered countires (though their ownership is disputed) but on a bigger scale it my be a bit like saying Russia is to the east of America India is to the West, therefore implying to some degree America directly borders Russia and India without any counter argument. I dont think there should be any problem with adding a bit more information in, even Okedem if you don;t believe it is neccessary it cannot do any harm to the article.

Many countries have border disputes, yet they are not mentioned in the lead. The point of that sentence is not to discuss the exact legal status of Israel's borders, but just to say which countries it borders, which it currently accomplishes quite well. Going into every little detail would be too much for the lead.

I'm not evading "the question of the actual positioning of the borders" - I've stated it several times - no matter what we treat as the border with Syria - the current one, the international one, or the 1967 line - the sentence "border Syria to the east" is just as true.

Saying Israel's borders are disputed, or undefined, would be misleading. As demonstrated on this page, most of Israel's borders (Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon) are defined and internationally recognized.

So, what do we have now? The territories. A problematic issue, as borders are with countries, not with territories. I've already said I wouldn't mind saying "Israel controls parts of the West Bank" (or something like that) in the lead, right after the border sentence, but I won't agree to a phrasing that makes Israel's borders seem completely amorphous and undefined, because that's simply untrue. I also won't agree to the "located between..." phrasing, which is just terrible, and seems to be unprecedented on wiki articles. okedem 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm yes your right, many countries do have border disputed, though generally not to the extent of Israel's which have been the direct or indirect of several wars in Israel's history, and even if there are countires with border problems that rival Israel's (whether correctly or incorrectly) they are not to the same extent in the media spotlight. To ignore the fact that outside Israel many countries are at least unclear over Israel's current borders (in terms of distance from Israel proper) is slightly misleading as it might imply that the territotories Israel presides over are part of one country, or at best little more than certain provinces. I understand that you do not wish to get dragged into these issues of Israel vs. world opinion., good or bad, but the borders are disputed. As I mentioned before the wording you used if completly correct, Israel does border those countries where you say it does, but more information on the borders of Israel is probably required, even if it is just half a sentence. The turth of the matter is Israel borders the counties where you say it does (the west, the east etc) but it is unclear Italic texthowItalic text it borders these countries, this may raise uneccesary questions, but I think maybe adding something like. Israel borders

... etc, etc. though whether the borders of the territory Israel controls are Israel's borders, or The borders recognised by the UN are Israel;s borders is currently the subject of much dispute.

As I've said before, Israel's longest borders, with Egypt and Jordan, are not in any dispute. Its border with Lebanon is recognized by the UN, so no real dispute there. Only border remaining is the one with Syria, which is also clear (the current border), though probably not final. I see no need to go into detail about this right in the lead.

With the Palestinians - you've seen my suggestion. There is no current border, since there's no Palestinian state - no sovereign body to border. okedem 14:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

historically, "border" refers to the border of the area(s) controlled by a state. 1. the borders of the areas the state Israel controls are well defined. 2. all those areas are part of the land of Israel. 3. all those areas were acquired in a defensive war, so according to international law Israel has legal right to them. all this means that Okedems wording of this specific phrase is correct. it doesn't matter what people think the borders of the state of Israel should be, it matters what they actually are. thinking something other than reality doesn't make reality change to match your opinion. if you think the borders are other than they actually are, it doesn't make them so. if you think I'm an idiot, that still doesn't mean my IQ is low. and if it is low then it's low regardless of your opinion. -Shyisc 18:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is over whether or not to include this sentence in the introduction of the Israel article: Though its exact borders remain undefined, it is located between Lebanon to the north, Syria and Jordan to the east, and Egypt to the south-west. Currently, the article reads: It borders Lebanon on the north, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Egypt on the south-west. [4] A number of sources have been provided by one editor to support the claim that Israel’s borders are undefined and/or undeclared . Examples of these sources include: [5], [6] [7] [8] [9]. Two editors reject the relevance and/or reliability of those sources. Your comments would be appreciated. For those who require more information, review the section above the RfC where the discussion began here: [10].17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Petras? He goes on and on about the Jews' power and wealth in the US, how they caused the first and second Iraq wars (oh, I guess oil had nothing to do with it), that because of them the US supported Israel's "illegal wars of aggression against Lebanon..." (oh, Hizbollah didn't cross the international border, killed several soldiers and captured two more, Israel wasn't attacked, sure). And he goes on and on. This guy has no more credibility than any crazy anti-Semite. He's not worth notice. okedem 17:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, please don't poison the well. If you have reliable sources that accuse Petras of anti-Semitism, by all means bring them forward. But I think that this is a very bad way to start what should be a conciliatory process to build consensus to find a solution to this dispute. Tiamut 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's an anti-semite. I'm saying he's not credible, and definitely not a reliable source. okedem 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that? --Guinnog 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read what he said. He's bent on making the Jews and Israel look bad, regardless of reality. In his world, things are either black, or white, and complex issues have a single cause - the Jews/Israel. You're either good - Lebanon/Palestinians, or bad - Jews/Israel. That's ridicules. okedem 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend taking a look here: Talk:James Petras. okedem 17:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Petras is not a reliable source because he is not an expert on Israel or the Middle East, but instead on Latin America. Similarly, Noam Chomsky isn't a reliable source because he's an expert in linguistics, not politics. I frankly couldn't care less about either of their views on Israel. If they were experts on Israeli/Middle Eastern politics, history, etc. (such as for example Benny Morris, as much as it pains me to say this), they'd be reliable sources. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a red herring. If Okedem thinks Petras is not a reliable source and wants to poison the well by intimating that he's an anti-Semite, he is free to do that. But it doesn't address the issue here, nor does address the reliability or relevance of the other four sources provided here (not to mention the other five+ in the section above). Are the views of the professor from Hebrew University and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs not credible, and not reliable as well? Tiamut 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It indeed isn't the main issue, but you won't address any of the points that are, so what else can I do? okedem 20:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As for your sources - first link's dead, second is Petras, third is devoted to saying Israel is bad, and gets the facts wrong, fourth and fifth clearly talk about a future border with a Palestinian state. Nothing interesting here.

I've corrected the first link, so it awaits your examination. The Petras link I don't want to discuss with you any further. Your objections to the third, fourth and fifth links ar, however, rather poorly articulated. I'd appreciate it if you would expand. Tiamut 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your answers to the points about the surrounding countries, the problem of no-sovereignty of the PA, and your definition of border. okedem 21:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As for your surrounding countries point, I already answered it, please review the section above. And I don't need to define border. The sources I have provided already do. Tiamut 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(back to the topic) I'm pretty sure it is a fact that Israel's borders are not defined. If somebody disputes this, I would very much be interested in an official definition of Israel's borders, which I'm pretty sure does not exist. However, I don't think this fact (assuming it is a fact) belongs in the introduction. This legal anomaly is not one of the most important things the reader needs to know about Israel, and can be addressed in the relevant section in the article body.

As for its relations with its neighbors, I'm not a native English speaker, but I think there's a distinction between border (noun) and border (verb). The former may imply a legal status, while the latter seems less restricted or loaded. I think one can say that two countries border (verb) each other even if the border (noun) is not well-defined. Until recently, Yemen's border with Saudi Arabia was not defined, but I don't think that would have prevented one from saying "Yemen is bordered by Saudi Arabia". Furthermore, I don't think the usage of border (verb) requires the neighboring entity to be a state. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that Israel is bordered by the West Bank. I'd even mention that it borders on the Mediterranean. How about using a less loaded term, such as neighbor or adjoin?--Doron 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. However, saying Israel borders the West Bank is also politically loaded because Israel occupies the West Bank, therefore making it impossible to border it. That is at least according to the left side of the political spectrum. If you go right, you will hear the opinion that the West Bank (either parts or its entirety) is within Israel, therefore also making it impossible for Israel to border the West Bank. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of political inclinations, I don't think you can say that the West Bank is part of Israel. It may be under Israeli occupation or control or whatever, but there's no dispute that it is not part of Israel's sovereign territory, and there's no dispute that it is adjacent to Israel, so yes, I think Israel can be said to border it. Israel is occupying (or controlling) a territory it borders on.--Doron 22:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that in order to resolve this dispute, we need to stop evading each other's concerns. I think the easiest way to do this is to ask the other side a few relevant direct questions to which they'd have to answer in order for their argument to have more weight. Here are my questions for Tiamut:

1. Do you agree that Israel's borders with Egypt and Jordan are both defined and internationally recognized? If so, why do you still insist that these are not borders, and, assuming the other borders are indeed undefined, do you still agree that Israel has partially defined borders?

• Do you have a source that says that Israel's borders with Egypt and Jordan are defined and internationally recognized? If so, we can begin to discuss this issue. Ti<;font color="#FF0080">amut 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you agree that Israel's border with Lebanon, except a small area (Shebaa farms) is agreed on by both sides and internationall recognized? If so, how does that differ from defined borders with border disputes, such as Russia's or India's border disputes with China?

• Do you have a source that says that Israel's border with Lebanon is agreed by both sides and internationally recognized? If so, we can begin to discuss this issue.Tiamut 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you agree that the Palestinian Territories are not a sovereign entity? If so, do you agree that defined borders must be between sovereign entities? If not, please provide a source for Palestinian Territories being a sovereign entity with any borders at all (whether clearly or ill-defined).

• Do you have a source that says that the Palestinian territories are not a sovereign entity? If so, do you have a source that says that defined borders must be between sovereign entities? Tiamut 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you agree that whether Israel's border with Syria is to the west or the east of the Golan Heights, Syria is still East of Israel and has border crossings with Israel, which de facto makes it border Israel?

• Do you have a source that says that Israel's border with Syria is both defined and internationally recognized? Tiamut 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you agree that de facto borders and not utopian political visions are also considered borders for all intents and purposes?

• Do you have a source that says where Israel's declared and internationally recognized borders lie? Tiamut 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut (and anyone else on Tiamut's side of the argument): I'd appreciate if you answered these questions point by point. Feel free to ask okedem or myself whatever relevant questions you have in mind. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What's interesting here is that the way that Wikipedia policy works is that the editor inserting material needs to provide a reliable source to back up their edit. I have provided over 5, while Okedem and yourself and have provided a grand total of zero to support your position. But to humor you, I have answered your questions above anyway. Tiamut 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not need to go far to find sources for established facts. For example, here you can read about Israel's border with Egypt, which, according to the 1979 peace treaty, would be the former border of Egypt with Mandate Palestine, after an Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. These borders were defined in agreements following World War I. Here you can find a clear definition of the Israel-Jordan border, as agreed in the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty of 1994. Here you can read about the Israel-Lebanon armistice line, which is internationally recognized (in-depth look, clearly states that it's an internationally recognized armistice line, but not a defined international border).

Do you have a source that says that Israel's border with Syria is both defined and internationally recognized? You obviously haven't read the question.

In any case, I have provided a few sources for you to read and ponder. Please stop evading legitimate questions.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The first source you provided says nothing about the border between Egypt and Israel being defined and internationally recognized. Israel wasn't around in WWI, so it had nothing to do with any border definitions that were made at that time and we are in 2007 right now.

The second source you provided only proves the point that Israel's borders remain undefined. IT says clearly, ""This line is the administrative boundary between Jordan and the territory which came under Israeli military government control in 1967. Any treatment of this line shall be without prejudice to the status of the territory."

The third and fourth sources state that the border with Lebanon is an armistice line and not an international border.

Finally, I did read the question. The only relevant response was the question I gave you. It matters not that there is a border between Syria and Israel. What matters is whether por not is is clearly defined and declared. the sources I have provided you with insist that Israel's borders are neither defined nor declared. And three of the four sources you have provided me with support that position. Tiamut 22:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, you're not being serious.

The first source clearly speaks of the international boundary (see, for example, annex I, article II, 3). The second is even more obvious, being titled "Israel-Jordan International Boundary Delimitation and Demarcation", "The boundary is delimited as follows:...", etc. About Lebanon, you can read here. okedem 05:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am being quite serious. Your point, even if made (which I do not think it was), is entirely moot, since it would only establish that Israel has defined part of the border with Egypt, and does not address the undefined nature of the border with Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Jordan. Further, this World Bank source clearly states With the withdrawal of the Government of Israel (GOI) from the Philadelphi corridor in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Authority (PA) shares a border with Egypt. How can you insist on retaining the introduction's wording as is, in light of these facts? Doesn't this belie your earlier assertion that "only sovereign states" can share borders with others? And Okedem, you have yet to address the sources I have provided you with above. You keep evading the issue while accusing me of obfuscation. There are at least four reliable sources in the RfC section above that state clearly that Israel's borders are undefined, and one which states further that they are in fact undeclared. What Wikipedia policy are your objections to their inclusion based on exactly? Tiamut 09:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring what I just said about Jordan? It's just as defined.

The blue line (between Israel and Lebanon) is also recognized as the international border.

There is a border between Israel and Syria - it's where the fence and the soldiers are. It was determined by war. It may not be the final border, but it's the border now. There's also the international border, and the 1949 armistice line. All of them fully comply with the sentence "Israel borders Syria on the East".

Now, the Palestinians - that's more problematic. If we claim there's a border between Israel and the Palestinians, we can't very well claim there's an occupation, can we? okedem 12:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And just for fun, here are some pages using the term "current borders" - [11], [12], [13] (big anti zionist article!), [14].

By the way, Tiamut, I wouldn't mind mentioning the territories in the lead, right after the borders, something like: "It borders Lebanon on the north, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Egypt on the south-west. Israel also occupies parts of the West Bank." (or something similar). (Oh, wait. I shouldn't make such suggestions. They go against my "nationalistic sentiments"...) okedem 13:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely avoid the use of "undefined"; Israel's borders have been defined by the UN, by Israel itself, and surely by numerous other instances. The definitions are conflicting, however. What about saying that some of its borders are disputed? This is surely a clearer representation of the situation.

Whether it borders on the West Bank territory or not is once again a disputed situation. Why not use wording that makes the situation's ambiguity clear: "Israel borders Lebanon to the North, Syria to the North-east, and Egypt to the South. To the West, it has occupied the territory of the West Bank up to the Jordan River, bordering Lebanon." Hgilbert 13:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Israel's borders have not been defined by any of the bodies you've mentioned. Furthermore, the West Bank is not to the west of Israel, and the West Bank does not border Lebanon.--Doron 04:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Border, from the Oxford American Dictionary: "verb [ trans. ] form an edge along or beside (something) : a pool bordered by palm trees. • (of a country or area) be adjacent to (another country or area) : regions bordering Azerbaijan | [ intrans. ] the mountains bordering on Afghanistan."

In other words, border as a verb makes no statement about legal status of an international border. However any border disputes are resolved, Israel always has and always (to whatever extent we can predict the future) border the Mediterranean to its west, Lebanon to its north, Syria to its northeast, Jordan to its east, and Egypt to its southwest. Israel also borders the West Bank to its east, as well, whether or not it's a sovereign territory; there is a recognized boundary, though not a border, demarcating the West Bank. Which also means that it borders Gaza to the southwest. I just don't understand how any of this can be controversial. It's worth mentioning somewhere else that the borders are disputed or not official or whatever, but the fact of where Israel is is not disputed, right? GUSwim 03:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the above user. Although the exact line may be in dispute, for purposes of the article, it is probably proper to state the countries that borders Israel, as where Israel is situated, is not in dispute. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree also. If a border is not in dispute (Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan) it should certianly be named as such; perhaps a short mention of regions that are in dispute still to even it out (Golan heights, for ex.), but called them all as if they weren't borders because some of them are in dispute is not accurate. Fmehdi 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• The article as is, is not factually accurate and verifiable.

The Culture of Israel section is very much lacking in sources, even in the main articles it links to, with the exception of the Education sub-section. The Zionism and Immigration, Economy, Judiciary, and Military sections also lack sources, as do the section 1950s and 1960s and 1970s.

• The article is not neutral and fails to represent viewpoints fairly and without bias.

There are a lack of sources for controversial claims:

"In a massacre in 1929, 133 Jews, including 67 in Hebron were killed and 116 Arabs were killed in the riots."

• • This is wikilinked to 1929 Palestine riots and its 1929 Safed massacre and 1929 Hebron massacre subarticles, which have multiple sources confirming that the massacre happened, as well as the casualties. I'll try to clarify per the subs. Tewfik^Talk 20:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Many Arabs, opposed to the Balfour Declaration, the mandate, and the Jewish National Home, instigated riots and pogroms against Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa, and Haifa. As a result of the 1921 Arab attacks, the Haganah was formed to protect Jewish settlements."

• • I'll wikilink to 1920 Palestine riots and Jaffa riots and add more sourcing, though the sourcing already there and at the currently wikilinked Haganah seem to support the passage. Is there a specific part that you think is inaccurate? Tewfik^Talk 20:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, sources cited do not fully support the formulations made:

"Israel is the only country in the Middle East considered to be a liberal democracy, having a broad array of political rights and civil liberties present.[5][6]"

• • It was established in this archived discussion that per Freedom House's methodology, Israel is a liberal democracy.[15][16] Tewfik^Talk 20:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• The article is unstable due to the failure by editors to address ongoing issues.

There is still much unresolved controversy surrounding the designation of Jerusalem as a capital, and whether Israel is the "only liberal democracy in the Middle East", among other issues.

• • I addressed the "liberal democracy" issue above. Jerusalem was just featured as an FA, and we use the same formulation here as there. Tewfik^Talk 20:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I propose that the GA nomination be retracted until these issues can be dealt with. Tiamut 09:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to your opinion. However, please read WP:GA as to how good articles work. Thank you. -- Avi 02:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have passed this article as GA. It is a very well written article and conforms to all guidelines at WP:GA. I might suggest cleaning up the external links (WP:EL), otherwise, this page has been listed as a Good Article!--TREYWiki 00:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be more mention of the scandal (in the past possibly) involving Israel's nuclear weapons and Nuclear Physicist Mordechai Vanunu who was placed in life imprisonment and how he was, illegally in international law by any strech of the imagination, drugged and abducted by the Mossad because he spoke to the British Sunday times confirming an Israeli nuclear program (as he claimed on moral grounds). He was abducted by Mossad for denouncing an illegal weapons program (as the UN has not allowed it, although refrains from checking finally on it) and Israel having no legal right to charge him whilst he was Italy, however he did break a contract of no dislosure in Israeli law. He was drugged by a woman he came to trust, who turned out to be a Mossad agent, and was in life imprisonment until resently living a life with numerous restrictions on his freedom and liberty of speech (which some view as illegal, although sympathy is often limited for him in Israel). Im not sure about this but I think there are rumerous that some of this harsh treatment was from his conversion from Judaism to christianity, or at least his reason for exposing the program may have been due to this. Appratnyl however one Mossad seniour agent claimed they didnt grant execution for him because "Jews don't do that to other Jews". I understand this may have been slightly POV, but to be honest everything ive said is true I think, and to neglect the scandal in the nuclear weps section maybe slightly selective as it practically verifies Israel's nuclear weapons ability and is illegal according to international law. Im no expert on this guy, so if someone who knew more about him were to put something in I think that would be great, I see no reason why he should not be mentioned in the article at all, as it was a fairly major incident, but I understand there maybe more than one POV on this and possibly any article on him himself maybe sufficient. Its also possible thsi was talked about in one of the archives in which case im sorry to reopen any old wounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disabled Illuminati (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the comment, I understand your point, but there simply isnt space to put things like this into the main Israel article. There is already an FA? status article for Vanunu I think which covers the topic fully, by the way. Flymeoutofhere 14:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't important enough to be featured on the main article. Every country has its scandals, and if we start listing all of them, we'll never get anywhere.

By most countries' standards, Vaanunu is a traitor. Even after his release he continues to defy the court's orders, speaking to foreign journalists, trying to expose more information. Whatever he may claim about his prison time and Christianity is irrelevant. He committed acts of high treason, and in many countries would have gotten the death sentence for his actions. okedem 14:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is as a reply to both your comments: It's not important enough to be featured on this article. Nuclear weapons are already mentioned. International law is a vague concept, and doesn't override national law. Israel's actions in the matter do not preclude it from being a liberal democracy - the man broke a very serious law, committed treason, and paid the price for it. Nothing special here.

I'm not going to debate this any further. This isn't a discussion forum, and I'm not going to turn it into one. okedem 16:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page is for discussing the article, and only the article. From your comments it seems you'd like to discuss Israeli actions, and not just the article - and this isn't the place for it. We all know about Vaanunu, so there's no need to talk about him in length here. I've expressed my opinion - it's not important enough to be in the article, and the issue of nuclear weapons is already handled. We can't put everything in the article.

Also, as I've said, I don't see anything in the handling of Vaanunu's case to be in contrast with Israel's status as a liberal democracy. Regardless of the legality of Israel's possible actions in the field of nuclear weaponry (and it's really not that simple - international law and agreements are an extremely complicated issue, and seeing as Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, it's unclear what law it might break in this matter), Vaanunu betrayed his country - divulged top secret information he was given under strict confidentiality agreements. This constitutes treason in any country, and don't have any illusions about how such a case would treated by other western democracies. There's noble ideals, and there's reality - sometimes they don't mix well. okedem 16:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, I got a little carried away at this isnt the place for political discussion, however I don't think my first point was irrelavant since the Israeli nuclear weps section is tiny anyway and the imprisonment of Vanunu pretty much confirms Israeli nuclear capability whilst the article leaves it in considerbale ambiguity. Also, Im not trying to say that other people are ignorant or anything of the sort, but I dont think the idea that 'everyone knows about Vanunu' is a valid one as this dosen;t stop information that supposedly 'everyone' knows being entered which is quite considerably pro-Israel and I don't think it is wikipedia's job to assume 'everyone' knows something, and at least for younger people like me I doubt that most people know about him (maybe arrogance? However I simply say this because I might have more easy acess to this informatio, and anyway I didnt find this out until recently, although my personal circumstances dont rely count). I think that because Vanunu really introduced a lot fo the controversy involving nuclear weapons in Israel it is neccessary to mention how this controversy came about, if only in a sentence.

Oh and I would jut like to ask if its okay, since I got carried away emotionally and let my own POV get over entagled in what I said can I please remove some of it? just for the sake of keeping the talk page relevant.

I don't think Vaanunu's arrest proves much. Israel has always been vague on the issue, but doesn't deny having the reactor in Dimona, or undertaking research in the area of nuclear weapons etc.

When I said "We all know about Vaanunu" - I meant us editors, on this talk page - you don't have to write all about him, we already know (and if we don't, we can just go to his article here).

I wouldn't mind having a sentence about him in the nuclear weapons section of the article.

By the way, please sign your comments in talk pages with four tildas ("~~~~"), so it'll automatically add your name, the date and the time.

I don't think anyone would mind if you were to remove the personal bits of your comments here. Just don't change existing sentences (remove a whole paragraph, but don't change sentences you're gonna keep). okedem 17:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the comment below I put some irrelvant quite opinionated stuff in where im writing now, which I removed as it was written more in emotion and was not very helpful to the article.

This was placed in the "mislabeled" section above. Gracenotes^T § 17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As per the GA listing comment - the suggestion was to tidy up the list of external links as I did. -- Flymeoutofhere 19:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But now at least they're categorized - you made them into just one big list. If you want to re-categorize them - I won't interfere. okedem 20:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia's Hezbullah article states that Hezbullah and Israel had both been accused of War crimes by amnesty international cited with http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde020252006. However the word war crimes isn't even mentioned in the article. Kadhumia flo 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's mentioned six times on that page... --^hello,gadren 23:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

An alternative to military service in Israel is national service in approved non-profit organizations. National service earns you the same benefits as military service, and recently a mostly arab and haredi youth targeting organization was approved, which is expected to improve arab volunteer participation. This would lessen the perceived inequality in benefits for arab and jewish sectors because the other is more probable to have gone through military service. Because of this I think national service should be mentioned in the article. See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/865822.html Hyvatti 06:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, esp. as it's becoming more popular an option for Israelis regardless of ethnic background. GUSwim 03:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bahrain and Qatar are both democracies, and although they are ruled in part with islamic intrests in mind (as Israel is with MAINLY Jewish intrests in mind) they are both fairly liberal, at least liberal enough for 'only liberal democracy' to be disputed. If you were to argue back and say that they are not liberal, then you should also take the 'liberal' part ut of 'Israel ia the only liberal democracy' as although the religion plays a part in determing customs (as it does in most western coutiries, and to a large extent in Israel) relgious law (Shariah law?) does not dictate policy, and they are fairly liberal to other religions, and both men and women have the right to vote. Also Turkey IS a democracy (which is not ruled by islamic intrests, the reason for so many protests atm) its 'liberal factor' may be disputed, but as a highly ignorant and stupid westerner (who probably is directed to the 'best' parts of the country) I can say its pretty dam liberal, and has come on a lot in recent years, although is slightly repressive of the Kurdish and Armenian minorities (but so is Israel, to a degree, in its behaviour to the arab minority). If Moroco can be considered to be in the middle east thios is a fourth country which is fairly liberal and a democracy (although it technically is more of a constitutional monarchy, like Bahrain, and the UK). Im not saying that you have to change anything except by implying that 'Israel is the ONLY liberal democracy in the region' either change that or take away the liberal, because it is not really any more liberal than Turkey and it is definetly no more liberal than Qatar or Bahrain, which are both democracies. If you take away the liberal however you will be left with 'Issrael is the onyl democracy' which is factually incorrect anyway. I think its either that or change it to 'Israel is a liberal democracy' which is fair and true (to a generally western opinon). I think refering to a country (especially one which advocates being a state solely for one of the races present) as liberal is not helpful, as being lberal is (within reason) a matter of opinon and there are countries in the middle east that by some could be considered both more liberal and less liberal than Israel, jsut defining soemthing as 'liberal' seems a bit POV as liberal can be defined by ever changing criterion.

I haven't been to either Bahrain or Qatar, but from what I know, they definitely are not democracies, but monarchies. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They both are, read the wikipedia articles on both, I did my wikipedia reasearch (the worst kind), they are constitutional monarchies like the UK. How can women be granted the right to vote when they are lead solely by a monarch? All the power is invested in the parliament.Mental Note 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think Qatar has an elected assembly yet, I know they are planning to this year. But Bahrain is most definitely a fairly open democracy. In either case, the claim that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the middle east is quite dubious at best and should probably be removed. Let us not also forget that the US Government touts Iraq as an open and fair democracy (albeit somewhat fledgling at this point). Sasquatch t|c 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "constitutional monarchy" is misleading, as it says nothing of the balance of powers between the monarch and the democratic system. Jordan, for example, is one, but the king holds all actual power. "How can women be granted the right to vote when they are lead solely by a monarch?" - I don't even understand how this is a point. When the parliament holds no real power, who cares if women vote? People vote in Syria too, you know. Doesn't mean it's a democracy. Bahrain and Qatar aren't real democracies, as most power still lies with the monarch (despite some positive changes lately).

Examining its liberties and its political structure and balance of powers, Israel is easily a liberal democracy, and that is also confirmed by the Freedom House source. There aren't any other such countries in the middle east, and any challenge to this should quote a source for that. okedem 19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Israel in your, and the freedom house's opinions, may be a 'liberal and free democracy' but there is no source that you have which says (and even if there was one, it could not factually state anything about the other countries, it would only present its opinion of a liberal democracy) that every other country in the middle east is not a liberal democracy. Whether you believe other countries are liberal democracies or not is a matter of opinion, but in an article about Israel, and solely Israel, it is simply the writers opinion whether other countries in the region are 'liberal democracies'. It is fair to say, with the freedom house source (quite biased btw, but acceptable I guess), that Israel is a liberal democracy (although I believe, personally, this is open to some debate, but thats not the point im trying to make), it is not fair to say, without any definition of a 'liberal democracy' given, that no other country is a liberal democracy.

We all know that there are several democracies in the middle east, the writer of this article does not have the right to judge them as liberal or not, as that is solely his opinion, the only way that the writer could say this is by stating the definition of a 'liberal democracy' then stating why each other country in the middle east is not a liberal democracy, and why Israel qualifies better for this status, as this is completly off topic anyway, there is no point in doing this, although I doubt even if there was the writer could find a reason why Israel is more liberal than Turkey (and Bahrain, which is basically completly democratic, and Qatar as well I think, although personally Okedem I think, although it is not my place I know, that you are judging Qatar and Bahrai as undemocratic just so you can say that Israel is the ONLY liberal democracy). Comments about other countries being liberal democracies or undemocratic should be confined really to those country's pages. I just dont like the way that the writer of this article seems to want to point score against other middle eastern countries, or at least express some nationlistic pride, by implying there are no other liberal democracies in the middle east, which is open to debate as we have seen on this talk page, and therfore should not be presented as certified fact.

Apart from the reasons I've given you, the actual comment 'the ONLY liberal democracy' seems to be some kind of boast or other, probably made by some Israeli proud of his/her nation (which he/she has every right to be if he/she wishes, but not on wikipedia articles). I see nothign wrong or provocative about saying 'Israel is a liberal Democracy' full stop, there is no need to comment about the democratic/undemocratic status of othe rcountries in the middle east. I also think th same is true to a certain extent with the bit about human development, now that may be relevant, but it shouldn't be put in the first part of the article like its trying to prove something or state 'Israel is the best', that should be included in its own section, or demographics possibly.

172.142.152.117 20:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I was the one who added the "only liberal-democracy" bit to the lead, and I think that liberal democracies are bad, in that they are dictatroships of the bourgeois. Which isn't to say that monarchies are better. Anyway, the observation was not meant to make Israel look good; although, much of the more critical (of Israel) parts of that lead additions were removed. El_C 20:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh im sorry then =P, I guessed wrong It just seemed that way, the way its been left though seems to me to be some kind of pro-Israel boast even if thats not the intention. I may be the only one who thinks that, who knows, but I just dont think tis really relevant to highlight things that many people would consider better than other countires (although obviously you wouldnt) about Israel in the first paragraph. This may be more relevant in the section on politics, although even then I dont think we need to compare Israels system with other coutryies, especially since the other countries are generally arabic, and so have cultural differences and are difficult to compare to Israel's system of government (although I maintain many of them are 'liberal democracies' at least from many peoples point of view). Thats just my opinion and sorry for any undue criticism, but It probably looks that way to me because whoevers been editing this article has kept all the good and taken away all the bad and leaves this sentence quite inbalanced, as as I say I would assume many people view liberal democracies as a 'good' thing, this is mainly because of the use of the word 'liberal' which means free as far as I know, and I personally think it is a matter of opinion whether other countries in the middle east are 'free' or not dependign on what your defenition of 'free' is.172.142.152.117 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the bourgeois-owned media and education system propogates the illusion that liberal democracy is genuinely democratic and that elections are not merely showcasing for the rich. Nonetheless, Israeli liberal-democratic values and practices are rather unique to the region, which I felt was noteworhty. I also felt that having a few million Palestinian non-citizens living in occupied territories was noteworthy. El_C 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

since they aren't Jews, and refuse to accept Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel they have no right to be there. and some people in this section are expressing outright antisemitic opinions (which is the same as saying they are expressing opinions which hold bias against Israel, but not the same as saying they are antisemitic. they probably are, but sometimes people who are biased against Israel aren't antisemites so I give the benefit of the doubt.) and there opinions which result from this should not be given much weight. -Shyisc 19:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be better to say something like 'Israel has the only western style liberal democracy in the middle east' becuase it is both true and I dont think there can be many objections on either side to that, perhaps some Israeli 'fend for themselves with 1/3rd of foreign aid, nationalists' may object, but I think its a fair compromise. I mena Im just a bit indignant because of the referance to liberal, I mean how liberal can a country be where there are so many parties that advocate pro-Jewish lines (to a possibly racist extent, although the same is not permitted the other way round) but there are seemingly none which represent both arab and Jewish intrests. That means in practice only the 80% Jewish pop need to bother voting because the other 20% of the other Israelis are never going to get anywhere in terms of fair representaion, which is not that liberal in my opinion (but thats just my opinion). I accept that Israel is a liberal democracy within reason, I just dont accept that this 'within reason' excludes all other countries in the middle east.172.142.152.117 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a bit convoluted, I'm afraid; maybe it could be reworded though. Still, I think liberal democracy per se. is sufficient, because virtually all monarchies out there have some liberal-democratic (or should I say assembly-esque) fixtures. El_C 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yer sure, I just dont want it to seem like Israel is neccessarily 'better' (in at least the opinion of many in the west), but Im not so troubled with it now, I was more concerned with the way it appeared to me (wrongly) to be written. Now I understand you wernt trying to prove anything by writing it Im not so bothered, though I still think it should be changed as it may not just be me that thinks that (although it might be I guess), and it might be interpreted as some pro-Israel over arab counties, opinon.

We can't rely on explanations on the talk page to resolve this if it's confusing; the average reader only looks at the main article, and should only be expected to. I agree that 'liberal democracy' is a vague term. Whether it comes off as praise or not, it is relevant (in that it is distinctive) that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that according to freedom house is 'free'. Here would be the most recent evidence (see p. 3): Freedom In the Word 2007 GUSwim 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As El C has suggested above, it is equally noteworthy that Israel is holding the West Bank under military rule. There should be some NPOV and well-sourced way of phrasing this.--Doron 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion here - first of all, since Freedom House rates all of the countries in the world, I can definitely say that using their data, Israel is the only liberal democracy in the middle east (Only one with a "Free" rating, which, according to them, means liberal democracy).

Freedom House doesn't include Turkey in the middle east section, but in Western Europe, for some reason. That wouldn't have changed anything, though, as Turkey only has a "Partly Free" rating.

Bahrain has a rating of "Partly Free" (5/5), and Qatar "Not Free" (6/5). I truly don't understand how anyone can call these countries liberal democracies, or even democracies. They're not. They're monarchies with a weak parliament.

Using the criteria of a Liberal democracy, Israel is one, despite some problems regarding treatment of the Arab minority (and many western countries have similar problems). Having a minority doesn't mean a country isn't a liberal democracy. Even the anon's claim about "there are so many parties that advocate pro-Jewish lines (to a possibly racist extent, although the same is not permitted the other way round) but there are seemingly none which represent both arab and Jewish intrests. That means in practice only the 80% Jewish pop need to bother voting because the other 20% of the other Israelis are never going to get anywhere in terms of fair representaion" is false. The only time a party was disallowed from running was when the ultra-right-wing Jewish party Kach was outlawed. If you read the platforms of the current Israeli Arab parties, you'll see they're not very tame. There are parties that represent both group's interests, like Meretz, or Haavoda (which currently has 2 Arab MPs, out of 19 total). That's not even a relevant point, and has nothing to do with liberalism or democracy.

HOWEVER - I never even wanted the "only liberal democracy" thing. I opposed it, in fact. I don't think it's relevant. Israel is a liberal democracy, regardless of its fascist neighbors. okedem 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay I get it now, I wont argue that Israel isn't a liberal democracy (even though I still think that can be aruged with, I just dont have the energy or sources to go on a one man mission), I just dont like the term 'only' because it seems to be dragging other countries into the equation and deliberately comparing them with Israel in an unfavorable way, I think Israel is a liberal democracy, is fine (although I think 'Israel is a western styled liberal democracy' may be better, though this is just my opinion).

Anyway fascist enighbours seems a little extreme =P, Its off-topic I know and im not going to argue it out, but that seems a bit, well I dunno, shaky as many would view Israel's pro-Zionist policiies as slightly fascist, Actually I dont 'fascist' is the correct term for any of th governments around Israel (although undemocratic and oppressive may be) as lebanon is more weak than fascist, Syria is socialist and Egypt is just big on religion.

What I said about "fascist neighbors" represents my own personal opinion, and is not really a matter for debate. Note, though, that I wasn't referring to all the neighbors, just some, like Syria - a fascist dictatorship if I ever saw one (regardless of what they might claim about Socialism). Egypt, by the way, really isn't religious. In fact, it's one of the more secular states in the region (or at least the administration is). You might want to read Fascism. Syria, for instance, isn't related to the fascist movement, but displays most characteristics of Fascism. Many other countries in the region do too. Nevermind, this isn't relevant here. okedem 18:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The most fascist country i see in that region is the Apartheid state Israel. And before giving advises like "You might want to read Fascism" you better do this for yourself. Beside, there is no interest or need in your bias, so write a blog or something but do not influence the article with your personal and wrong opinion okedem. 83.135.165.175 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you want? I wrote two words, which I later clarified, and have nothing to do with the article, as I already said. Don't start fights (and if you're so adamant about not stating personal opinions, don't do the same). okedem 23:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. since the Arabs do not accept the sovereignty of the state of Israel over the land of Israel the state of Israel must kick them out. the fact that it didn't, despite the Arabs refusal to accept it, is a violation of Jewish thus a crime. 2. life takes precedence over comfort. if we have to use apartheid policies to protect ourselves we can. 3. the legal obligation we Jews have for self defense requires we use whatever we can. apartheid, as explained in point #2, is a legitimate one in these circumstances. 4. we aren't using the policy of apartheid. Arabs ride our buses, vote in our elections, eat in our restaurants and go to our schools. the fact of the matter is if we would have enacted an apartheid hundreds of Jewish lives would probably have been saved. instead we have lousy security blocks where we check Arabs to make sure they aren't carrying weapons or explosives. mind you, if we would have fought the Arabs properly during their previous rebellion we wouldn't have the current one, thus no harsh or uncomfortable methods would be needed. -Shyisc 21:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the term your looking for is "antisemitic"-hatred of god, and through him Jews & Judaism. as for what fascism is, I don't know, so I don't know if obeying god's law to live in, develop and have sovereignty over the land of Israel is fascist. somehow I think it's not, because then every country who's citizens live in it, that has sovereignty over itself and that develops itself is fascist. that probably means all countries in the world are fascist, and those who aren't are by definition corrupt. so no, I think Zionism isn't fascist. -Shyisc 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(there was an irrelevent discussion here, that can now be found on my talk page. I put this message here because I don't know what to do with the following posts. Shyisc 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Mind the spellingA dime a dozen 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh btw if your wondering about the changes form account to IP etc its simply because Im new to wikipedia and I also forgot my password to my above account, ill be more careful lol.A dime a dozen 19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not based on any published source, and seems to be nothing but the personal opinion of its participants, and therefore cannot be used in this article. The talk page is meant for discussions about how to improve the article, so I would kindly ask you to take this discussion to your user talk page. Thank you.--Doron 19:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd comply right now, but whose discussion page should we put it, his or mine? Shyisc 20:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Whichever you like. Often private discussions between two wikipedians are done by each user posting on the other user's talk page (this way the other user gets a notification immediately). Alternatively, you can choose one talk page and both post onto it (this way the whole discussion is in one place).--Doron 20:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I copied it to my own talk page. now it's up to him to decide if to copy it to his talk page or not. now I don't have to care anymore wht happens to the discussion on this page, but A dime a dozen might. I'll leave it up to him, and if he doesn't do anything, I guess I'll erase it myself in a few days. Shyisc 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

by the way, this discussion is based on published sources: the bible, and Maimonides in his introduction to his book mishneh tora (Hebrew: משנה תורה). However, I agree that this discussion is irrelevent to the actual wikipedia article. Shyisc 20:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a really minor thing but, though culturally European, Cyprus is a liberal democracy that is often defined as part of the Middle East geographically at least. Other than that I do agree the discussion is largly irrelevent in terms of improving the artical.Bored college student 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed two Hebrew sources that do not refer to what they are supposed to refer to:

• The first is for the sentence that claims that Israel provided gas masks for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The Hebrew source only states that the the High Court of Justice overruled the decision to provide gas masks to Jewish residents of these territories and not to Arab residents, it doesn't say that gas masks were provided.
• The second is for the sentence that claims that the Palestinians used the gas masks against Israeli use of tear gas (in 1991). The Hebrew source only states that gas masks can be used against Israeli use of tear gas (in 2002).--Doron 20:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, regarding the second source which you have brought back -- it is in the wrong context. The paragraph refers to 1991, whereas the claim was made regarding the 2002 conflict. Please remove it.--Doron 21:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"...and being the only country in the world to currently apply an appartheid system."

Really? Appartheid is a very loaded word(and almost always refers to South African appartheid). Could someone present an argument for this?

That little fragment was snuck in today, and has been deleted. okedem 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Israel does not have a "coat of arms" - it has an "emblem." The infobox needs correcting (and don't anyone tell me that this is Wiki style. It is not appropriate here).--Gilabrand 10:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This page has not commented on Israels illegal occupation of Palestine. I think there should be a sub heading which provides a link to the relavent pages. Also there is not a single mention of UN resolutions broken my Israel, (a record number btw) I also think that there should be a links, under sepearate headings about independent organsations such as Amnesty International, who have labelled the Israeli treatment of Palestinians as a 'War crime', again i dont think there should be much said about this on this page, but there should links provided to the other wiki's. This page is looking very bias, one sided, and from the looks of it, there are Israelis preventing people from writing anything which sights Israel in the bad light.86.138.100.241 15:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, please note section 4.3 - "Human rights", which is relevant to your comment.

About the occupation - I'm one of the main editors on this article. I have, several times, expressed my support for a section about the occupation. No one seems interested in writing it, at least not in an NPOV manner.

Note that calling the occupation "illegal" is in serious dispute, and isn't NPOV. The West Bank (and the Gaza Strip, no longer under Israeli rule) were captured in a defensive war, and held under the international law regarding such cases. An occupation by itself isn't illegal, and UN resolutions have no say on this specific point of legality.

There is an Israeli-Palestinian peace process, but it is a very complicated issue, with both sides impeding it repeatedly. It cannot be covered using language such one-sided language as "illegal occupation of Palestine". okedem 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to give a shot at writing it if people would be interested. Or are people not interested in having it included, period? And we're agreed that if we did it, it would be a brief summary with references out to the other articles, yes? GUSwim 19:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Brief, and objective. Stating only facts, not judgments, using neutral language. okedem 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a start:

The Arab-Israeli conflict is a prominent aspect of Israel's foreign relations. As a result of several wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973, Israel's territorial boundaries have changed significantly from those proposed in the never-implemented 1947 United Nations Partition Plan. Disputed or occupied territories remaining under Israeli control include the Gaza Strip and West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The latter two were annexed by Israel in 1980 and 1981, respectively, although the annexation is not recognized by most nations. The Gaza Strip and West Bank are administered internally by the Palestinian National Authority or by Israeli military rule. The final status of all these territories is the subject of ongoing or presumed future negotiations between the Israeli, Palestinian, and Syrian governments. [I know this last statement needs a reference, but I can't find one off the bat and thought I'd post as is for now.]

--GUSwim 22:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Golan Heights were never annexed, and according to many all of Israel is "occupied". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're technically right, the law never used the word 'annexation', though it's how most view it. The same is true for E. Jerusalem, though. Can we come up with flexible enough wording? Maybe refer to the laws? E.g., "The 1980 'Jerusalem Law' declared "Jerusalem, complete and united," to be the "capital of Israel." I think it should somehow be mentioned still that these two territories are widely viewed (I know we'd need a reference) as annexed.

As for viewing all of Israel as "occupied," I think that's beyond the scope of this discussion and is inherently POV if treated in summary, no?

--GUSwim 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The cases of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem are still different, in that the Jerusalem Law amounted to a formal annexation, though the term wasn't used, whereas Israel was quite careful never to make any formal pronouncements regarding the Golan Heights, though it did extend Israeli law over that territory. There are other wrinkles as well; some insist that Israel retreat to the 1947 partition plan borders. In any event, I think the view that all of Israel is "occupied" is quite widely held, and many groups and even countries actively agitate for the destruction of the State. A perhaps more serious issue even that that is that as soon as you introduce such a section it will become a battleground for partisans - your carefully chosen wording will, in no time at all, be turned into "Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land, under international law". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns, but is the solution to pretend that occupation--or at least the controversies surrounding it--is not a major aspect of Israeli foreign relations?

I'm fairly new to WP, so I don't know its standards for evidence and how we judge something like this, but I know that there is a consensus view that Israel within the Green Line is not occupied, that anything outside the Green Line (with the exception of E. Jerusalem, which is almost invariably treated separately) is occupied/disputed, and that those territories plus E. Jerusalem will have final status negotiated. Is there really no way to express this in this article? GUSwim 01:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem was annexed in 1967, a few month after the war. The 1980 Law was mostly declarative. The Golan was not formally annexed but is in fact - the 1981 Law is vague on purpose, but the Golan is considered by Israel authorities as a part of Israel territory. Regarding the West Bank/ Judea and Samaria - part of it is under israeli military administration, part of it under Palestinian administration. I am not sure if the part under the Palestinian Authority control can be viewed as "occupied" by Israel. Benjil 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally think there is already to much discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Wikipedia. The issues mentioned seem to already be mentioned in sections like Human rights and History, and I truly believe we would be doing a disservice by creating yet another address for this discussion. Tewfik^Talk 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, an article about Israel that includes Israeli music should have room for a concise paragraph dealing with one of the most important political topics in Israel. As for the phrasing proposed by GUSwim, I have two minor concerns: (a) Saying that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were annexed is very inaccurate, for several reasons. In order to avoid this issue (which is covered in the respective articles), we can just say they were de facto annexed. (b) As Benjil correctly noted above, the de facto annexation of East Jerusalem took place in 1967, not 1980.--Doron 00:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

East-Jerusalem was annexed *de jure* in 1967. Jerusalem had also its territory increased and all this space was annexed by law to Israel. The Golan was annexed de facto. Benjil 07:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Israel applied the same measures to the Golan Heights in 1981 as she did to East Jerusalem earlier in 1967. Both were placed under Israeli law, administration and jurisdiction, without mentioning sovereignty or annexation. In fact, Israel has explicitly denied that her measures amount to annexation in a letter to the UN two weeks after these measures were taken.--Doron 13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Doron's solution for the issue of annexation. Does that sound reasonable to others?

What about the issue of what is an occupied/disputed territory as alluded to by Jayjg? Is there some way to reference common understanding of the term? GUSwim 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we can add a sentence like "Israel is not recognized by most Arab countries" or something of this sort.--Doron 13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good, if that sounds to people like it covers it, then it's already under Foreign Relations. GUSwim 15:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with East Jerusalem has been under Israeli civil law, jurisdiction and administration since 1967[42] and the Golan Heights since 1981, though they have not been formally annexed. All the topics mentioned here are already included. Yet another section, when there are dozens of subarticles containing every type of synthesis imaginable, seems to fall prey to the trend where every entry on this topic repeats the same information about the AIC again and again. The point of separate entries is in order to allow us to focus on music, sport, etc. Again, I'm not saying the information shouldn't be mentioned, but that since it already appears, it shouldn't be mentioned again. Tewfik^Talk 02:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see that under geography. I think that's well written. I agree it shouldn't be repeated. On the other hand, I think a lot of people would expect a section on the occupied/disputed territories in an article on Israel. Couldn't we move that para. ("During the Six-Day War...") to foreign relations with an appropriate sub-heading? The territorial disputes aren't geography the way that land areas are, there's plenty left under 'geography', it would expand the 'foreign relations' section, and it would make a brief summary of the occupied/disputed territories easy to find. Yes? No? Maybe? GUSwim 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being repetitive, but there are without exaggeration hundreds of pages on WP dealing with every aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict etc., and creating yet another summary seems like the wrong direction, especially when this entry has direct links to so many of those pages already. I think it is reasonable to expect that people will follow those links, rather than create another address to maintain... Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

well hang TEWFIK, is a summary about'Jewish underground groups' is given, why cant there also be a summary about the occupation, its legality may be included if needed.86.132.119.135 00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

-

TEWFIK, you cant really be serious when you say ' hundreds. of pages on WP dealing with every aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict etc., and creating yet another summary seems like the wrong direction '

it may be true that there are hundred of WP dealing with the conflict, but what better page to include the information then on a page that is directed related to the topic. I cant believe your suggestion of leaving the information out is that it has been included 'hundred' of times on other pages so shouldnt be included on this one. The occupation is one of the biggest issues in the world today, and leaving out Israels role in the occupied territories is criminal! And who are you to say it is a step in the wrong direction, why should your judgement on the facts deter the general public from drawing there own opinions of the facts! Giving a brief summary about the occupation and conflict is absolutely correct, and should be included. Why are you trying to hide the facts! Plus there are so many less important issues mentioned in the page, and i find it shocking that a issue of this magnitude is not being included as it displays Israel in some sort of a 'bad light'. Furthermore this page will never be given a higher status unless such important information is put in. And I also support the views of the user that posted the previous message on 5th of July.81.132.224.10 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Shimon Peres, please update the info

The former president (Katsav) hasn't left office yet, and Peres has not entered office officially. Sometime in July (17?) he would be come the proper new president. Etams 10:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Regime Redirects to this page of Israel, while "Zionist Regime" has a totally different meaning than "Israel". Next to that, no info can be found om this page about the subject "Zionist Regime" (like Iran adresses colonial politics only of both Israel, USA and allies). As far as I can see at this point, that term is used primeraly for colonial politics in the Middle East where "Zionists" are involved. Some Zionists aren't jews, some Zionists aren't Israeli and many jews and jewish Israeli's don't support Zionism either, so what does that redirection here??! Can someone restore that error + provide the proper page-info for "Zionist Regime"? -Many thanks. 201.192.17.90 06:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Zionist regime" is mostly some kind of way of saying Israel without saying it like "Zionist entity". It is a term used only by rabid anti-Zionists. If someone wants to build a page about the use of this word, no problem. Benjil 08:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good find. I'm sure someone will be able to make a page about the term, which is fairly notable by itself. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's already a page Zionist entity, such as it is, maybe a redirect should go there, and the terms should be discussed there?John Z 19:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it. Zionist Regime now redirects to zionist entity WacoJacko 03:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. I recently re-added the Palestinian conflict to the introduction (after it was deleted) and felt the need to state why. First of all, it is (arguably) the most important part of Israeli politics at the moment, and certainly the one that garners the most world attention. That also has been the case for some years now, and it's absence was glaring. My goal on Wikipedia has always been to eliminate bias, and I was careful to write in a way that was neutral and did not place the blame. It links to the pages for Israel's conflict with Palestine and also Israel's conflict with its Arab neighbors generally, without going into any detail or placing any blame. Furthermore, while stating that Israel has received criticism for this (as cited) I also noted that it has received support (again, as cited). Changes were recently made to the foreign policy section of the U.S. article that similarly reflect conflicting views of U.S. foreign policy. I did not make those edits, but awhile back I made similar changes to the actual United States Foreign Policy page.

I hope this describes my edit well, and helps you to understand why I made the entry. I sincerely hope it is not deleted in the future. My own opinion on the conflict is mixed, and admitedly I'm not as well-learned in the subject as I'd like. But I certainly think it is noteworthy and important enough that it should be in the introduction.SpiderMMB 03:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Spider, but while it is a good attempt that tries hard to be neutral, and while there may ultimately be a new synthesis included (although I oppose one), putting this section in the lead lends undue weight to recent events, something which WP:Lead makes clear shouldn't happen. At best, perhaps a very general mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole is in order, though I'm afraid that that too would be inappropriate. Again I apologise, but just don't think that this belongs. Tewfik^Talk 06:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be quite honest, I think this article suffers from a very pro-Israel bias as a result, and I think that might have the opposite effect that it is intended to have. I'm not even opposed to the preceding (now only) paragraph in the lead that lists all of Israel's developments over other countries in the area. But I think this is a huge omission that people are afraid of because it potentially portrays Israel in a negative light. That's a little too defensive, I think. I appreciate your compliment that I tried to be neutral, because I really did -- my own perspective on the conflict being rather neutral itself.

But I still think the omission is glaring and unencylopedic. This is something that has been an important part of Israel's history since its inception (recent inception, mind you--i.e. post-colonial) and I think it's omission only serves the pro-Israel bias claims that I've seen on this talk page before. By way of comparison, it would be like not mentioning the Iraq War in the introduction to George W. Bush. What is it you'd like to see in a general mention? I'll reinsert the lead without mention of the "some support, some oppose" lines, and hopefully that will be acceptable to you and others. I don't intend to push this too much, but I think you should really consider how this omission makes the article appear POV. SpiderMMB 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't how you're writing, as you are clearly trying to be neutral. Rather, as important as the Arab-Israeli conflict is, it is entirely reasonable to expect readers to continue past the TOC to the rest of the entry and its numerous mentions. Again, this is not an issue of "pro-Israel" or "anti-Israel". Tewfik^Talk 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'd like to explain what I mean a little further. The "pro Israel" bias I'm speaking of mostly concerns the introduction. After a brief factual introduction, there is practically an entire paragraph that says "Israel is the only country in the region that is this...most developed country in the region in this, this, and this." Mind you, my problem isn't that good things are being said about Israel, especially when they are cited, what I mind is: 1) the introduction is so short and 2) the percentage of the introduction which that statement takes up. That is why it strikes me as pro-POV. The paragraph I added sought to change this by making mention to a controversial conflict that is an important part of Israeli policy, and to do so(as you mentioned, and I appreciate you mentioning it) to do so in a way that was as neutral as possible.

Like I said, I don't intend to push this issue but I hope that that explains my position a little better. Even if you disagree, I hope you'll at least think about it when editing in the future. Regards, SpiderMMB 02:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I will take another look at this. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 08:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Tewfik^Talk it doesn't belong in the introduction, per what he said.WacoJacko 03:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Shalom, I have added a POV tag into the lead. The passage

The State of Israel was created in 1948. With a diverse population currently exceeding seven million citizens of primarily Jewish background and religion, it is the world's only Jewish state. Jerusalem is the capital city and seat of government.[4] Israel is the only country in the Middle East considered to be a liberal democracy, having a broad array of political rights and civil liberties present. In addition, Israel is considered the most advanced in the region in terms of freedom of the press, business regulations,[7] economic competition, economic freedom, and overall human development.

one sided to say the least. Is it beyond the abilties of the editors of this page to make the lead more neutral and encyclopedic and less like a piece of Israeli foreign ministry propoganda? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This lead is the result of many discussions. Would you like to raise specific points about it, or just call it POV and be done with it? okedem 11:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The specific point I raised above is the one sided nature of all the statements in the quoted paragraph. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 12:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Are the statements false?

Would you like to add other statements?

Why don't you try to discuss things, before placing ugly tags? okedem 13:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My two shekels: there are lots of things you can say about Israel (as with any country, I suppose), but you should pick a few important ones for the introduction. The hard question is what is important and what isn't. Either the introduction should be a dry representation of Israel, in neutral geographical and historical terms, or it should also include some pro-Israel aspects as well as more controversial aspects. I agree with Abu Ali -- the intro reads like a pamphlet, which, more than anything, harms the credibility of the entire article (even though the rest seems rather balanced). Specifically, statements like "Israeli is the only ... liberal democracy" -- a neutral sentence would be "Israeli is a liberal democracy", which just describes Israel; instead, the phrasing in the article of this and other sentences is more about how much better Israel is than its neighbors. There are more superlatives here than in the intro to the article about the world's greatest superpower -- the United States. There's plenty of room in the article for regional comparisons, I don't think this is one of the things that should be picked for the introduction.--Doron 10:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I am amazed that no-one apart from Doron see anything wrong with the lead. I would write a more balanced version myself, but know that this would be reverted immediately. So I have opened a RFC to attract fresh input here. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Or you could try to suggest something here, in the talk page. But no, you only make general accusations, and don't bother suggesting anything, or raising any specific points at all. okedem 20:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Responding to RfC: I don't like the introductory paragraph quoted above, partly for NPOV reasons but more because it's kind of frothy and omits important facts about Israel, namely (1) its unique situation of longstanding tension with neighboring countries and (2) its ongoing problems (external criticism and internal debate) about the occupied territories, which of course arises from the first point. Also, I wouldn't try to cram the stuff about Jerusalem into a footnote to the introductory section, as is done in the version currently in place.

Of course, it's easier to note flaws than to draft something better. I agree with okedem to the extent of saying that the RfC should've been deferred until there were two (or more) competing versions that we could be asked to comment on. As someone who hasn't edited the article, here's my first cut at it, which I hope could be improved by those more familiar with the subject:

The State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל^ⓘ, Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل, Dawlat Isrā'īl) is a country in the Southwest Asian Levant, on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon on the north, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Egypt on the southwest.^[4]

The population today is over seven million, with a Jewish majority. Israel is home to both Jews and Arabs, but is the world's only Jewish state.^[5][6] Israel is the only country in the Middle East considered to be a liberal democracy.^[7]

The State of Israel was created in 1948. Many Arab countries did not accept the country's existence and immediately attacked it. As a result of a series of wars from 1948 through 1973, Israel now occupies large areas, parts of which it has controversially annexed. The status of Palestinians in these occupied territories has been a continuing subject of both internal debate and external criticism, and there are frequent outbreaks of violence arising from the issue.

The material that isn't included in this version would generally be appropriate for the body of the article. The point is that the introductory section should give a quick summary of the most important points. JamesMLane t c 18:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I like your version, here are a few comments:

1. "Israel is home to both Jews and Arabs" - Inaccurate - this sentence makes it seem like there are only Jews and Arabs in Israel ("both"), which isn't true - there are many other, smaller groups.
2. The Jerusalem bit from the current lead should stay, in my opinion.
3. I support getting rid of the "best in business regulation" stuff. However, I would like something about the economy - something like "Israel has few natural resources, and the high technology industry takes a pre-eminent role in Israel's advanced economy" (or something with a better phrasing). Maybe something about science in Israel. okedem 20:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

1. I just copied that language from the current version. If the introductory section is to identify Israel as a Jewish state, it should also make clear that it's not entirely Jewish. What about something like: "The population today is over seven million. A majority of the residents are Jewish, but there are also substantial numbers of Arabs and members of other ethnic groups. It is the world's only Jewish state."
2. I didn't look closely at the text about Jerusalem so I'm not saying it should be removed. I'm just saying it doesn't belong in the introductory section. Do you mean it should stay there, specifically? Parsing these legalisms about Basic Law isn't one of the most fundamental facts about the country. Furthermore, it's confusing to put the information in a content footnote (as opposed to having information in text with the footnote solely for sourcing).
3. Here again, I have no objection to the kind of wording you suggest if it's put in the body of the article, but it's not the sort of thing that's generally found in the introductory section of an article about a country. JamesMLane t c 23:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should change the existing lead inasmuch as it echoes other leads like that at United States, but we could add a brief history section:

The State of Israel was created in 1948, but many Arab countries did not accept the country's existence and immediately attacked it. The following decades were riven by conflicts with its Arab neighbours, while ensuing diplomacy and normalisation has been linked to the territories retained.

I still don't want to fall into the "recentist" trap where the whole Arab-Israeli conflict is overshadowed by one of its elements. Also, the territories in question weren't really acquired in 1948 or 1956, if parts of them were captured and withdrawn from then (and they are many things, but "large" is not one of them ;-] ). My main concern however, and my reticence to have any mention of history in the lead, is that it will automatically become a "POV magnet" of sorts, in that people will want to add in whatever part of that history they feel casts "their side" in the best light. Let me know what you think, Tewfik^Talk 04:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This description of the war is follows the official zionist narrative and is wrong, as the first phase in the war started in 1947, and the main arab fighters at that stage were Palestinians who did not want Zionist rule (and the associated ethnic cleansing etc.) in their homeland. Anyway I prefer JamesMLane's version as its language sounds less Borat's spoof Kazekstan anthem. I know that the zionists here (or rather those who do not actually live in Israel) believe that Israel is the best country in the world. But this is Wikipedia, not a Zionist propoganda site. So if you talk about Jerusalem being the capital, add that it is not recognised by most countries. If you talk about Israel being consired "a liberal democracy due to its broad array of political rights and civil liberties", you should also mention the denial of democratic rights to the residents of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967, the military rule over the Palestinians in Israel proper until 1948, the continued use of emergancy regulations, adminstrative detention and etc. Every phrase in the lead has a flip side. To restrict yourself only to statements which cast Israel in a positive light is a violation of NPOV. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's "recentism" to take note of the Palestinian issue, which is as old as the State of Israel. I referred to the occupied territories as "large" because they're large in comparison with the 1948 boundaries. The point is that we're not talking about some minor border dispute, like Qemoy and Matsu. Finally, I understand your concern about a POV magnet, but I assume this article needs heavy policing anyway. It doesn't make sense to prevent a POV magnet by using an introductory section that's already markedly POV, which I think the version commented on is. JamesMLane t c 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is "recentism" mostly because even the term "Palestinian" to refer to the Arabs is relatively new and is hardly found before the 70's. I personally think there is some POV in the lead, but very few, it's a matter of removing a few words here and there. Benjil 08:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

1947? We can go even farther than that in history, like the 1929 Hebron Massacre. There are others. But Israel was established in 1948, and was immediately attacked by several Arab countries (or are you disputing that as well?).

"military rule over the Palestinians in Israel proper until 1948" - huh? Israel was only created in 1948...

The lead talks about the country in general, broad, terms. There are always restrictions - Nazi parties aren't allowed to run for parliament in some countries - should that be in the lead for those countries? How about freedom of speech? That's restricted in some cases in plenty of countries (hate speech, etc.) - why not mention that in every lead?

There is a basic difference between Israel proper and Israeli citizens, and territories under military occupation. They are governed by different rules, according to international law on military occupations. The Palestinians, by the way, vote in their own elections, for their own local government.

Incidentally, if you want to mention administrative detention, you'd have to explain why it even exists - because some Palestinians think it's perfectly alright to murder innocent civilians, including children, for their cause/belief/virgins. So, there definitely is a flip side.

You wanna talk occupation - how about the fact the the Palestinians seem to try extremely hard not to end it - Israel withdraws from the entire Gaza Strip, and the Palestinians choose to escalate their attacks from it. The Palestinians aren't poor innocent souls, and carry a whole lot of the blame for the current situation. But I suppose it's only NPOV when Israel is portrayed as the devil.

Jerusalem - that issue has been discussed to death, but the main point is this - international recognition isn't, and has never been, a pre-requisite for capital. Capital is a simple word, which can be looked up in any dictionary. By any common definition of that word, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Regardless of what other countries choose to accept - nobody's asking them. okedem 13:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The short history section in the lead make the article similar to most other nation articles. The sentence with the only liberal democraty is strange and I could not find a similar sentence in other articles. This point I think is important, but the conflicts with Palestinians the suicide attacks and the wall have more influence on the Israel. And I thought that the most important things should be in the lead?--Stone 14:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As important is the conflict is, the very nature of Israel as a liberal democracy is many times more important. Still, I believe the territories should be mentioned, but in short, with no specifics (since then we'd have to write too many explanations, for the different territories, different status of areas, etc.). okedem 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The form of government is mentioned in some article Myanmar for example but even the military covernment is not mentioned in the lead. The democratic orientation is not mentioned at all in any western european country at all. The importance also should take into account for what things the media and people would think is important and there the conflict has much more attention and weight than the liberal democracy. --Stone 16:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'd be more careful with such sweeping statements...

France - "The French Republic is a democracy that is organised as a unitary semi-presidential republic."

Spain - "Spain is a democracy organised as a parliamentary monarchy,"

Italy - "Italy is a democratic republic"

Austria - "Austria is a parliamentary representative democracy"

Netherlands, United Kingdom, Denmark - have constitutional monarchy in their lead - a distinct form of government.

Also note the leads of these articles often contain details about development level, politics or economy, such as: "Today, Italy is a democratic republic, and a developed country with the 7th-highest GDP and the 17th-highest Human Development Index rating in the world.", "According to the World Audit Democracy profile, Finland is the freest nation in the world, in terms of civil liberties, freedom of the press, low corruption levels and political rights.[4]", "Today, Iceland is a developed country, the world's fifth and second in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and human development respectively. It is based upon a free market economy where service, finance, fishing and various industries are the main sectors. Tourism is popular, as many people are attracted to Iceland's exotic scenery. Iceland is a member of the UN, NATO,EFTA, EEA, and OECD.", and others (like the Sweden lead).

The Israel lead isn't special in its current form (though it's not ideal).

Located in the middle east, surrounded by non-democratic countries, often engaged in wars - it's a lot less obvious for Israel to be a liberal democracy than for any western European country - and still that fact is mentioned in many western European country leads. okedem 21:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is enough to say that Israel is a liberal democracy (leaving out the "only", whose purpose is really to say something about other countries in the region, not the subject of this article) and mention very briefly that Israel has been controlling the West Bank and Golan Heights since 1967. As for the history passage, the phrasing suggested above looks reasonable, perhaps change the first sentence a bit to something more neutral like "...was created in 1948 amidst war with neighboring Arab countries" in order to avoid endless attempts to balance this issue. For more information, the reader can refer to the relevant sections and other articles.--Doron 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC. No, the lead is not NPOV. It reads like a promotional blurb. The problem is probably more one of tone than of content (though Israel's neighbor to the north is considered by many to be a liberal democracy). The writing is simply very bad. The grammatically gauche "Israel is the only country in the Middle East considered to be a liberal democracy due to its broad array of political rights and civil liberties" literally if unwittingly suggests that other states in the region might be considered liberal democracies due to other factors, such as their delicious fruit drinks. "In addition, Israel is considered the most advanced in the region..." has a boastful quality about it that verges on unseemly, and when it wraps up by gloating about how Israel outclasses its Arab neighbors in "overall human development," it stumbles into inadvertent – that is to say, quite innocent – racism. The Human development index is a recognized statistical synthesis used by the U.N., but "human development" is a much more general and ambiguous phrase, misused here and to embarrassing effect. The lead as it is now is in nobody's interest, not even the most cynical POV-pusher's. All it will do is convince the casual reader that Wikipedia is biased, indeed quite vulnerable to propaganda.--G-Dett 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but mentioning reality need not be considered racist. Verifiably unique attributes may be understandably uncomfortable for some, and a wise person knows when and when not to mention them, but there is no reason to deny them placement in an encyclopaedia. Tewfik^Talk 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain you've understood my point; I wasn't suggesting the article should soften the blow of reality upon the impressionable heads of lamblike readers. I was suggesting that in reality, Lebanon is considered a liberal democracy by many; in reality, the phrase "human development" has a set of variously evocative meanings quite distinct from that of "Human Development Index" (HDI), which is a statistical, bureaucratic, and computational formula; and in reality, there is big difference between encyclopedic tone and content, on the one hand, and crass, jingoistic, and disputable value judgments set forth in barbarous and solecistic prose on the other.--G-Dett 13:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're entitled to seeing the wording as "crass" or "solecistic", but I'm totally at loss as to what might be construed as "barbarous" or "jingoistic". The liberal democracy point is based on the Freedom House index, which I believe does not define Lebanon as such (though I haven't checked in a bit), and which like the human development index is standard fare on country entries. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

'Barbarous' in its original sense (fr. the Greek, to 'speak like a foreigner,' compare with Latin balbus 'stammering'); barbarism = "the use of words or expressions not in accordance with the classical standard of a language...rudeness or unpolished condition of language." The syntax of "me Tarzan, you Jane," that is, not the suggestion of prognathic jaws and rough sex free of foreplay. I probably should have said chauvinistic, not jingoistic: saying a country is better than its neighbors is a weird way to begin an encyclopedia entry. Is Freedom House an uncontroversial source for these things? That's a sincere question, not a rhetorical one. I can understand Lebanon being "less free" than Israel, given the former's problems with instability, foreign interference, corruption, press restrictions, and so on; but I don't understand the claim that it isn't an electoral democracy.--G-Dett 15:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit archaic, but I admit that I find such usage refreshing. As far as I know, Freedom House is the premier index for such things, and anyways, the label is that of liberal democracy. No one is claiming that Lebanon is not an electoral democracy, which is somewhat different.

Actually, Freedom House is claiming just that, in the press release cited by our lead. That press release doesn't once mention "liberal democracy." Instead it refers again and again to "electoral democracies" (nine times). The following sentence is presumably the source for our article's claim: "In the 18 Middle Eastern countries, only one, Israel, ranks as Free (Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region)."--G-Dett 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the RfC - much of the lead is OK, including the Jerusalem reference, I suppose. I reference to the Arab-Israeli conflict in general terms, even if just to mention that Israel has fought three wars to preserve it's existence, seems necessary. Finally, the bit comparing Israel to the rest of the Middle East seems a little odd, to say the least. I agree with Doron that this article is about Israel per se, not about how Israel is a much nicer place to live than the rest of the region, which I really wouldn't think anyone needs to be told. Hornplease 08:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett - you said you don't understand the claim that Lebanon isn't an electoral democracy - well, here's my explanation for that viewpoint: In Lebanon, representation in parliament is divided up between sects, based on the proportion of the population they had many years ago (and which hasn't been correct for a very long time) - "distribution of the 128 parliamentary seats, which are divided in half between Muslims and Christians" - though only 39% of the citizens are Chrisitians. Also, the different executive positions are alloted to the different sects - "The President, for example, has to be a Maronite Catholic Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, the Deputy Prime Minister an Orthodox Christian, and the Speaker of the Parliament a Shi’a Muslim" (Lebanon). This is no electoral democracy. It's some sort of democracy, but quite flawed, a far cry from the democratic ideal of western states. okedem 20:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that many regard Lebanon's confessional system as a flaw in the "democratic ideal"; perhaps you're aware that many others regard the Israeli occupation as an equal or greater flaw. Neither the U.S. nor Israel is pushing for Lebanon to rectify this flaw (either by holding a new census or eliminating confessional representation altogether), because it is understood that doing so would give a significant boost to Hezbollah while marginalizing our perceived political allies within the country. Do you have reason to believe that Freedom House objects either to the confessional system in Lebanon or to the antiquated census, deviating in this way from the official U.S. position?--G-Dett 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the US or Israel want in Lebanon is irrelevant. The simple fact is that its current system of government is not a democracy, as usually defined in western circles. When a person sect determines what position he can fill, when representation in parliament is based on religion, and skewed towards one group - that's not a democracy. Freedom House speaks of this problem in its report about Lebanon, here (see "Political Rights and Civil Liberties").

Israel's occupation and its affect on the Israeli democracy is a different argument, which I don't want to start here. okedem 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the relevant passage:

Lebanon is not an electoral democracy. Electoral districts are blatantly gerrymandered to ensure the reelection of incumbent deputies. In contrast to the last three electoral cycles, the 2005 parliamentary elections were monitored by international observers, who judged them to be relatively free of interference by the authorities. However, vote buying was reported to be rampant. The Lebanese government is currently reviewing a draft electoral law proposed in June 2006; the debate will prove contentious as politicians are deeply divided over redistricting.

You're right about Freedom House's analysis, Okedem. Thanks for the link.--G-Dett 21:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

outdent: What is amazing is how few of the regular contributers to Israel related pages see anything wrong with the lead and the number of editors who are actually prepared to go on the record to defend it.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You are experienced enough to better than to make such incivil statements. Tewfik^Talk 04:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: one solution may be just to add a little more material, to lessen the focus on those two sentences. If you look at other countries, a little puffery may not be unusual or even so bad, but is usually mixed with a few more details. I don't know if other solutions are forthcoming, but that may help some. Mackan79 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As someone who mentioned POV problems with the lead not too long ago, I'm glad to see it being discussed in such detail. However, I'm worried that for some, the current debate is losing focus and turning more into a "my side/your side" situation. As such, I'd like to revist a proposed lead that was drafted by JamesMLane and well-received by people on both sides. I've also rewritten it to address some concerns that were raised, namely by okedem.

The State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info), Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل, Dawlat Isrā'īl) is a country in the Southwest Asian Levant, on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon on the north, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Egypt on the southwest.[4]
The population today is over seven million, with a Jewish majority. Israel is home to Jews and Arabs, though these are not the only religions present, and is the world's only Jewish state.[5][6] Israel is a liberal democracy, having an array of rights and freedoms that some consider to be absent from other countries in the region.[7]
The modern State of Israel was created in 1948. Many Arab countries did not accept the country's existence and refuse to recognize Israel today. This has resulted in a tense sitaution between Israel and the predominantely Arab population of the Middle East and resulted in several conflicts, the most prominent being the six-day war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I think this is much more academic and encyclopedic. It lays a lot of the facts on the line without leaning too far to taking any one position. I hope that the version above remedies most of these problems, and more importantly, I hope that the revised statement above will return us to a civil discussion, resulting in a lead that all are happy with.SpiderMMB 07:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I'd like to see the HDI or some other thing, just to give a sense of the level of development of the country ("is it like Europe, or like Africa?").
2. Jerusalem should remain in the lead (I know it's controversial, but it's an important fact).
3. Also, rewrite to "and some still refuse to recognize Israel today." - two of Israel's enemies have signed peace treaties with it. Some other countries have limited diplomatic relations (like some gulf states).
4. Note the discussion below, about mentioning the WB and Gaza. okedem 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, I think that those are fine suggestions. I'd like to add my opinion that the new intro is good in that it is expansive, bad in that it does not solve the problems of POV. It does not remove the laundry list of reasons why Israel is better than its neighbors, and essentially recalls Israel's history as "the Arabs threatened us, we beat them a lot, finally there was peace with Egypt." Granted, the language is a lot more eloquent than I put it, but I hope you understand my point.

In terms of your specific comments.

1. I think there is nothing wrong with listing Israel's HDI compared to the rest of the region, but does not need a laundry list. All that we'd need, to make mention of it while avoiding POV, is state that Israel is considered the most developed in the region by HDI. That's it. The source for that is adequate in summation, and comes from a relatively neutral source (the UN). By neutral, I mean that one would not argue that Israel does not face opposition within the United Nations, and for the UN to say this must hold water.

2. Jerusalem - fine to put it back in the lead. I know it's been a contested issue on Wikipedia. That said, I know that it was also a featured article recently. If the version that appeared on the page when it was granted FA status is deemed acceptable, then we should condense the major points of that lead into a sentence.

3. WB and Gaza - not sure how to handle this. Sounds like the argument has to do with defining Israel's border proper. If we can maybe get some opinions on that here and consolidate the discussion, hopefully we can work it into the lead. I personally don't know that much about it, i.e. the nature of the dispute, and wouldn't be able to write a section.

That said, here is my new proposed introduction:

The State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info), Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل, Dawlat Isrā'īl) is a country in the Southwest Asian Levant, on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon on the north, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Egypt on the southwest.[4] Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and largest city, though many nations do not recognize this and most embassies reside in Tel Aviv.

The population today is over seven million, with a Jewish majority. Israel is home to Jews and Arabs, though these are not the only religions present, and is the world's only Jewish state.[5][6] Israel is a liberal democracy, having an array of rights and freedoms that some consider to be absent from other countries in the region, and has been ranked as having a high human development index relative to its neighbors.[7]

Israel declared its independence in 1948 after the United Nations approved the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state in November 1947. Many Arab countries did not accept the country's existence and some refuse to recognize Israel today. This has resulted in a tense sitaution between Israel and the predominantely Arab population of the Middle East and resulted in several conflicts, the most prominent being the six-day war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has, however, normalized relations with some of its neighbors, most notably Egypt and Jordan.

I'd like to add that I will of course be adding more citations, but will wait to do that until a draft is satisfactory for the introduction. SpiderMMB 06:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds more encyclopedic and would be an improvement.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This nice discussion has the unfortunate drawback of being about several weeks behind the article's development. Beit Or 21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In what ways can we add to it so that it's current with recent development? I believe you're the one who recently rewrote the introduction (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm too lazy to look at the history right now). I think you've greatly improved its breadth, but that a lot of the POV issues still remain. I mentioned these above. I also rewrote this intro with your current revision in mind. For instance, I reworked the last paragraph to reflect some of your recent edits. SpiderMMB 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

'liberal democracy' has to be cut. Its an old myth and propaganda slogan, with little encyclopediatic value. We have no objective definition of utilize for this classification, and I think grading countries into liberal democracies, semiliberal, pseudoliberal, etc., should be avoided. In practice the slogan of 'the Middle East's only democracy' is just a euphemism for saying that Israel is part of the Western world and civilization. It has little to do with existance of multiparty system (present in several neighbouring countries), press legislations, civil rights (Israel hasn't exactly been spared of criticism by UN and other international institutions regarding this) etc. --Soman 06:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to disagree. "Liberal democracy" is a very relevant and precise concept and no country around Israel come even close to that, in fact, no country around Israel is a democracy at all, even Lebanon. Benjil 08:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Having a broad array of civil liberties present" is not English. Sorry. Same goes for the rest of the section, which is badly written, hence my edits. The trouble is, you've been looking at this wording for too long and think there can't be any other way to write it. I am looking at it with fresh eyes, and I'm telling you - it is bad.--Gilabrand 06:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried fixing the grammar - does it work? My problem with your phrasing was I felt that it took a less objective tone, almost making the value judgements instead of letting Freedom House speak. But I could be entirely wrong. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 08:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the majority of the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel, it is wrong to state in the article that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It is better to state that it is claimed to be the capital of Israel by the government of Israel, which must respect international law that denies it the right to place its capital in Jerusalem. Robert 12:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in several archives including here.--nids(♂) 12:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

True the international community doesn't recognise it, but only one country matters for where the capital is. Israel. If the United States decided that its capital would be St Louis, and the international community decided not to recognise it, does it matter? Ben W Bell talk 12:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Ben W Bell talk, a sovereign nation decides where it's capitol is. Israel has decided it's capitol is Jerusalem.WacoJacko 03:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem is internationally recognised as OCCUPIED TERRITORY, the official capital IS Tel Aviv. Jerusalem cannot be called the capital as it is not, this gives people with no knowledge of the region misinformation. In the event that a news station outside of the state of Israel refers to Jerusalem as Israels capital, an immediate retraction and is corrected statement is usually issued (as in a recent BBC news error) so, yes it does matter. I suggest that the Uk should change her capital to Paris as hey, we decide our capital. Stick to FACTS wikipedia.

- Ah yet another example of Israeli propaganda. The reason why the international community does not recongise Jerusalem is because it is under occupation, and under the fourth geneva convention no country has the right to claim the land until disputes are not over, they also are not allowed to build settlements, block roads, deprive the people of the occupied land, all of which Israel does and in doing so breaks International Law. I dont see a liberated Palestine, so Jerusalem can not be proclaimed its capital as it wasnt before the occupation began. And could the Israelis please stop saying that the international community does not have a say, because was it not the international community (UN) that gave Israel its independence. A country, does certainly have the right to chose its capital, but not when that country is occupying, its against international law, and well establised facts that all 191 countries obey, without it theres no stopping one country invading another! we dont live in the stoneages, we have laws for a reason! this brings me nicely on to the fact about the occupation that Israel is implementing and has been for the past 40 years. like i said before not mentioning it does not portray the full facts. Its all half truths and half lies being used by the Israelis on this wiki, that try to stop people from knowing the truth about there somewhat evil country. Stop cherry picking the information you want the general public to know, im not asking for tons of information being added, but small paragraphs like the others!81.132.224.10 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on shortening the lengthy History section in this article for the past month (I know... that took way too long; I've been thoroughly distracted). The results of this endeavor is located at User:Tariqabjotu/Israel history. Essentially, the history section in a country's article is supposed to be a summary, especially since we have a History of the State of Israel article, which itself needs some help. Note, as an example, the United States article. The editors there have done a terrific job of summarizing the extensive American history, which itself has a main article, History of the United States, and several sub-articles, including one dedicated to just nine years of history. What are your reactions to my rewrite (ignore the fact that there a few sources; that can be hashed out later)? -- tariqabjotu 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you point to what sections are significantly altered? Tewfik^Talk 19:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The original section is here. Essentially, the farther along you go in that original, the more stuff you'll find that was removed (because more recent events tended to be covered with excessive detail). This is the diff, although it's a bit misleading. -- tariqabjotu 19:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Western Asian Levant??? This article is getting weirder by the minute. Who came up with that doozy of a description?--Gilabrand 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It sounds as if there's another Levant somewhere else. Perhaps...

The State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info), Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل, Dawlat Isrā'īl) is a country in Western Asia on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. Located in the Levant, it borders Lebanon on the north, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Egypt on the southwest.

... would work. -- tariqabjotu 18:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What ever happened to good ol' "Middle East"? Levant is an old fashioned term (that also has negative connotations, by the way, especially "Levantine"). Since the British Mandate, this part of the world has been called the Middle East, so why complicate the issue? "Israel is a country in the Middle East bordered by Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, and Egypt in the south." --Gilabrand 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree Gilabrand Levant is definitely a bit outdated. WacoJacko 07:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Outdated though it may be, I have never before thought of "Levant" as carrying any kind of negative connotations, being merely a geographical term, albeit a somewhat archaic and romantic one. I am perfectly fine with the use of "Middle East" in the article, and am not arguing about that, but am merely curious as to your take on this. I've never even heard the word "Levantine" before, I don't think. LordAmeth 12:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi I noted that the references were not showing correctly on this page, so I corrected some of the basic reference syntax. If I did something wrong please acknowledge and advise..! Contact me on my talk page if I made some errors or caused a problem! Reuv 21:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

SeiteNichtGefunden has been kind enough to gift us with the horribly misleading and incorrect statement: "Groups such as Amnesty International[13] and Human Rights Watch[14] have been critical of Israeli policies with the United States government being the only major ally of Israel." I would simply revert it, but I am not sure how to best word it. There are plenty of organizations worldwide which are supportive of Israel, and a number of governments which are Israel's allies. If someone more knowledgeable as to precisely which organizations and countries they can cite would do so, I would appreciate it, and the project would certainly benefit. LordAmeth 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at this, as its clearly misinformation. The whole section seems to be taken from an newspaper article/blog, and is wholly inaccurate. If you take a look at the Science Citation Index, it is clear that the US is first in this, with 35%, followed by the United Kingdom, 8 percent; Japan, 7.3 percent; Germany, 7 percent; France, 5.2 percent; Canada, 4.5 percent; Italy, 2.7 percent. This needs to be re-written to reflect the facts. With the figures normalised to 10k per, Finland and Switzerland are higher. I think the blog is specific to one year. scope_creep 21:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand -- the figures you give are absolute, while the article claims something about per capita figures. Are these figures available on the web?--Doron 05:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this ended with no consensus one way or another, I'll start this again -- why is it forbidden to mention that Israel borders the West Bank and Gaza Strip?--Doron 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no independent state, widely recognized by the nations of the world, which controls those areas, other than Israel. Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip some time ago, and I have no idea what its official status is at this point, but the entirety of the West Bank is still technically part of Israel until the Palestinian Authority becomes a real full-fledged state or a similar pull-out occurs. LordAmeth 22:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does Israel have to border nothing but independent states, can't Israel also border territories that are not states? There's nothing in the verb "border" that indicates that whatever one borders has to be an independent widely recognized state. There must be a way to convey the notion that the West Bank and Gaza Strip territories are adjacent to Israel, unless there's a reason why this is forbidden.--Doron 00:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it important to "convey the notion that the West Bank and Gaza Strip territories are adjacent to Israel'? How is this situation any different form say, Western Sahara, where the Morroco article says "Morocco has international borders with Algeria to the east, Spain to the north (a water border through the Strait and land borders with two small Spanish autonomous cities, Ceuta and Melilla), and Mauritania to the south."? Isarig 02:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it important to convey the notion that Israel borders Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Egypt? It isn't important, it's just a basic fact about the geography of Israel -- the territories that surround her. I don't know why Western Sahara was omitted there, but it's mentioned in Mauritania. Also, Brazil and Suriname are said to border the non-independent French Guiana, Spain is said to border the non-independent Gibraltar, Cuba is said to neighbor the non-independent Turks and Caicos Islands and Cayman Islands, the Dominican Republic is said to neighbor the non-independent Saint Martin and Puerto Rico, and so on. In all these instances, the country's geographical location is describes in terms of her neighboring territories, regardless of their status. The idea that non-independent territories should be excluded is baseless. So, again, is there any good reason why the West Bank and Gaza Strip should be omitted?--Doron 05:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The "West Bank" is a loaded term. It includes places that are part of Israel, like the Old City of Jerusalem. That's why.--Gilabrand 06:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So what, "Israel" is a loaded term as well, anything on Wikipedia can be loaded, that doesn't mean it should be excluded. I don't recall a Wikipolicy that states that "loaded" issues should be avoided. When you call this POV, what do you mean? Is there any dispute that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are adjacent to the State of Israel?--Doron 06:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

With a name like Doron, I am surprised that you should even ask such a question. For the moment the so-called West Bank is not bordering Israel but part of Israel, so yes, your version of reality is definitely POV. --Gilabrand 06:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You know very well that's not true. It is not viewed as part of Israel even by Israel.--Doron 07:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that we are having this discussion and I disgree with you proves my point. I say the West Bank & Jerusalem are part of Israel until there is a signed agreement to the contrary. But if you disagree, that is your own POV and it has no busy in the lead of this article. If you want to discuss the controvery, that is fine, but you can't come along and put it at the top of the article as if it were the unvarnished truth. I wonder, by the way, why you think it needs to be there. If you want to make the point that Israel is surrounded by Arab enemies and territories that are in a state of chaos where everybody is busy killing one another in the name of Islam and sheer stupidity, then go ahead. That I agree with.--Gilabrand 08:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No. A few wikipedian disagreeing about something doesn't make it controversial. If you can bring substantial reliable sources that claim that the West Bank is part of Israel, then we have a controversy. Just because you or somebody else disagree with a universally-accepted description means nothing. As you probably know, every word in the lead, and indeed in the article -- including even its title -- is disputed by some. As far as many millions of people are concerned, there is no State of Israel. There would be nothing left of Wikipedia if we gave undue weight to tiny-minority views. Now, if you cannot produce substantial reliable source that claims that the West Bank is part of Israel, there's no POV problem here. As for my point -- it is very simple -- the lead of every country's article lists its neighboring territories, and I see no reason to omit any of them.--Doron 08:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Doron about that - the West Bank is not even asserted by Israel to have been annexed. That said, however if they were left out, it would not be on grounds of independence per se, but that the status of those territories are complicated - that is to say that Israel is the occupying power of a territory that doesn't legally belong to someone else, and as such doesn't "border" [at least the West Bank] in the traditional sense. Perhaps it would make more sense to refer to the Palestinian National Authority's autonomy. Tewfik^Talk 09:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, why not: "It has borders with Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, Egypt on the southwest, and with territories autonomously administered by the Palestinian National Authority." (Not designating the directions, since there are too many of them, even for a single territory sometimes, being enclaves).

The problem is that the West Bank and Gaza Strip don't overlap the territory of the PNA, which I'm not even sure whether it is well-defined. In terms of neighboring political entities -- yes, it is acceptable, but I was aiming at geographical entities. I am aware of the complications, but I don't understand why they are prohibitive. I don't think the word "border" should be a problem when used as a verb (and you know that Israel's border with Syria and Lebanon is also not well-defined), but if you feel it carries unnecessary connotations, I can accept alternative words.--Doron 09:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Doron, the examples you listed before weren't accurate - they're all (barring Western Sahara) territories controlled by a sovereign state. The West Bank and Gaza aren't claimed by any sovereign entity in world, after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims a long time ago. The PNA is an administrative body, not a sovereign entity. The term border is problematic, however I do feel a mention of the autonomous zones is in order. okedem 09:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How about something based on "adjacent", or "neighboring"?--Doron 09:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Also adjacent are territories autonomously administered by the Palestinian National Authority."? okedem 09:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

At the very least. I would much prefer something like "Also adjacent are the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are partially administrated by the Palestinian National Authority.".--Doron 10:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If Israel is controlling them, and it controls both territories even though it now only occupies one, and the PA exists only by the permission of Israel, can the territories be said to border Israel? First off, one cannot say that Israel borders the West Bank, as it has annexed East Jerusalem. If we say Israel borders Gaza, we must include reference to the fact that Israel also controls Gaza. Smaug 14:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel has "annexed" East Jerusalem in the same way that she "annexed" the Golan Heights, yet nobody seems to have any problem with stating that Israel borders Syria, so I don't see any problem with saying Israel is adjacent to the West Bank without getting into too many details about the exact nature of this adjacency. Control is another matter, a country can control a territory it borders, and this has happened many times in history. This is probably discussed somewhere in Wikipedia and we can give a wikilink in the appropriate place without cluttering the lead. Again, if the word "border" is so abominable, we can use a less charged word.--Doron 15:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel would border Syria regardless of how you treat the Golan. Syria is an independent sovereign country, the WB is not. See the Morroco article for an exampel of how this is treated on WP. Isarig 16:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the idea that because Israel annexed a piece of a given territory, it cannot border it. As you said, we can say that Israel is adjacent to a territory even without sussing out exactly where the frontier is.--Doron 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, and I was explaining why your analogy is inappropriate - we don't say "Israel borders the Golan" - we say it borders Syria, which is true regardless of how you view the Golan. Similarly, we may say "Israel borders Jordan" - which is true regardless of how you view the WB. Isarig 18:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with your point about the Golan Heights, but the West Bank is not part of Israel nor is it a part of Jordan. This whole argument is becoming very confusing. Is there anything wrong with the phrasing I suggested above (or the one suggested by Okedem)?--Doron 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well? Any objections?--Doron 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion that Israel cannot border a territory which is part of it, just as China does not border Hong Kong or Tibet, and the UK does not border Wales or Scotland. Gaza remains a bit confusing, as Israel has pulled out of there entirely, leaving no sovereign state in charge. Still, as for the West Bank, how about something like "It has borders with Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, Egypt on the southwest, and with the Gaza Strip, autonomously administered by the Palestinian National Authority, also to the southwest. The West Bank, also in part administered by the Palestinian National Authority, lies within the eastern portion of the country. It's a bit awkward and clumsy, but it's accurate. Someone could clean up the language without changing its meaning, if my own wording is too unwieldy... LordAmeth 20:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

But that is incorrect -- the West Bank is not part of Israel. Only a small bit of it can be said to be claimed by Israel, and even that has very little recognition outside of Israel.--Doron 22:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh? So, which widely recognized sovereign state controls it? Jordan? Syria? Egypt? The Palestinian National Authority is not a sovereign "state" government. Like it or don't, call it an "occupation" or don't, but the West Bank is no less Israeli territory than Tibet is Chinese. LordAmeth 22:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to call it anything, the fact is that it is not part of any sovereign state, including Israel. And this is the official Israeli position.Doron 23:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We say that Israel borders the Mediterranean, but what widely recognized sovereign state controls the Mediterranean? Clearly this is not the correct standard to apply. China claims Tibet and this claim is recognized by all states. Israel doesn't claim the West Bank to be part of Israel, technically or otherwise, and no one recognizes a nonexistent claim. We're talking about geography and Israel, so mentioning the PNA may introduce confusion into something simple. Other than this I have no objection to Doron's wording, and agree with him that our wording should be based on reputable sources. Official Israeli statements, like treaties, could be reasonable sources for a wording we can all agree on. John Z 00:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing several featured articles on countries, including Bangladesh, Belgium, Pakistan, Japan, South Africa, India, Indonesia, and Australia, I did not find in any of them a separate section devoted to human rights. All featured articles on countries have more or less the same structure to which this one must stick as well. Beit Or 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are numerous frivolous sections in this article, although I do believe human rights should be mentioned somewhere to a much lesser degree. -- tariqabjotu 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A separate section on Israel and nuclear weapons is too much for this article. What we need is one or two sentences, saying that officially Israel follows the policy of deliberate ambiguity, while such and such authoritative military experts believe Israel to possess so many nuclear warheads. The experts, however, must be authoritative and the sources reliable. Beit Or 20:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to get this point across before, to no avail. The lead is being fought over endlessly because it is arrogant and in-your-face. I offered a revision a while back that was promptly reverted by one editor, and was thereupon lost in the heaps of revision attempts since then. It is not the introduction that I would choose to write myself, if I were creating it from scratch, but based on the material that is already there, here is my suggestion:

The State of Israel was created in 1948. Today it has a population of over seven million people, with a large Jewish majority. While Israel is home to both Jews and Arabs, it is the world's only Jewish state. Jerusalem is Israel's capital city and seat of government. The official residence of the President of Israel, the Knesset and the Supreme Court are located in Jerusalem. The Basic Law: Jerusalem states that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel". However, the Palestinian Authority regards East Jerusalem as the future capital of Palestine. The United Nations and many countries do not accept the Basic Law, arguing that Jerusalem's final status will be determined in negotiations with the Palestinians. Most of the countries that maintain diplomatic ties with Israel have thus relocated their embassies to Tel Aviv. Israel is the only country in the Middle East today that qualifies as a liberal democracy. Citizens of the State of Israel enjoy political rights and civil liberties that are not granted in the countries around it. Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are also strictly upheld. Israel has a free market economy, encourages competition and investment, and attributes great importance to human resource development.--Gilabrand 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead you have proposed is practically all about Jerusalem; there's a lot more to Israel than Jerusalem. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the lead as it is today? This is precisely the same thing, just worded differently. If you have more to add, please go ahead. This is just a suggestion to get away from the infuriating tone of what is there at the moment (i.e., intentionally dry and factual sounding). Certainly there is a lot more to Israel. Absolutely.--Gilabrand 17:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you want to bring material from the footnote directly into the lead. If you don't intend that, then you should change your version. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to echo the sentiment that the lead you proposed has too much information on Jerusalem. On a related note, I would like to note the lead guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article is over 40,000 characters at the moment and, although that size will surely decrease once the Military and Human Rights sections are rightfully purged, WP:LEAD suggests a lead length of three to four paragraphs. Creating a lead that long ought to be no problem. -- tariqabjotu 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I adamantly believe some of the recent changes to the #Independence section are unnecessary (and to some extent incorrect). I can't locate the source entitled "Statistical Abstract of Israel No 51. 2000" so I cannot confirm whether it says 600,000 Jews arrived in Israel between 1948 and 1951, but an article from The New York Times says that same number of Jews, 600,000, moved from Arab lands to Israel between 1948 and 2001. Clearly, there's an issue there. This segment –

Over the years immigration waves have placed enormous stress on the social and political infrastructure of Israeli society. After 1948 they provided the human material for a massive settlement drive in areas occupied during the 1948 war. In many areas Jewish refugees lived in tent cities known as Ma'abarot for some years before permanent dwelling was provided by the state.

– and the number of Jews who arrived from North Africa seems unnecessary for a section that is only supposed to be a summary. The latter number also appears to conflict with the New York Times source. The changes to those sections should be reverted; the previous version seemed perfectly fine (or at least better than this version). -- tariqabjotu 22:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The number of Jews who fled from Arab lands is closer to one million, most of them fleeing to Israel, and a large chunk also to France - and more marginally to Canada and USA. Benjil 06:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source for Israel's population throughout the years: [17] (from the 2006 statistical abstract by the CBS).

This source says: "In the first four months of independence, some 50,000 newcomers, mainly Holocaust survivors, reached Israel's shores. By the end of 1951, a total of 687,000 men, women and children had arrived, over 300,000 of them refugees from Arab lands, thus doubling the Jewish population.". okedem 07:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A Haaretz piece reproduced on a Sephardic/Mizrahi website says "Some 750,000 Jews immigrated to Israel from Arab countries in 1948-1952". Tewfik^Talk 07:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "foreign relations & military" should be merged - even if this is true for other countries. Both are complicated subjects in Israel's case, and there is really no connection between them (unless military confrontations with the Arabs are considered a form of foreign relations).--Gilabrand 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit indifferent on this, but I'm not fond of extremely short sub-sections (such as the ones that exist under "Culture"). -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In my last few edits I removed the extensive geography from the lead as it was not really representative of the section, and was disproportionate both to the rest of the lead, which is already on the long side owing to the country's complex history, as well as to the treatment given in FA article leads (which I presume is where all this is heading?). I also restored a few other details that I thought were key and did not take up very much room. I removed the nuclear stuff, as it was also far out of proportion to coverage on United States, which actually used them in war, and an FA like India, which conducted tests. I think we might also be short on appropriate images: for geography, if editors don't want a topographic or climate map, perhaps we can produce a montage with some of the diversity. The desert image is quite nice, but it isn't representative (or is my objection crazy ;-] ?). A nice picture of diversity in contemporary society would probably also be a good addition, and while the associations with Israel are probably already military-heavy, perhaps a better image could be found than the mostly white emblem? Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 06:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the article is being turned back into an unpleasant piece of propaganda that doesn't represent what Israel really is. To take out the information that makes Israel unique (for starters, geography, but also leaving big gaps in subjects like scientific research, architecture, immigration, cultural and ethnic diversity, the development of Hebrew language & the arts) and then spend half the article on boasting about how somebody ranked Israel high on some theoretical list (using a single word, with lots of footnote numbers next to it), adding some apologetics for good measure, is not going to get this article featured status. --Gilabrand 07:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the lead, it contains way too many years. The nuclear stuff was obviously excessive, so I agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of montages for the geography; I don't see anything wrong with the sand image (or the topographic image). A picture of diversity in contemporary society would be nice (and I think I remember seeing one on Flickr or somewhere else). -- tariqabjotu 17:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The extended geography section in the lead doesn't change whether it is or isn't propaganda, as you put it. I encourage everyone to take a look at other featured country articles, whose format we should aim for regardless of whether this becomes an FA or not. Tewfik^Talk 08:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, it seems our aims are different. "Other countries" and "other featured articles" are not the point. The point is conveying a reasonably balanced picture of Israel that includes all the features that make it unique.

Can we just get rid of this –

The Israeli Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty seeks to defend human rights and liberties. Reporters Without Borders reported Israel 50th out of 168 countries in terms of freedom of the press, highest among Middle Eastern countries and just ahead of the Japan.^[8] In addition, Israel is also the only country in the region to have its press ranked "Free" by Freedom House.^[9]

– paragraph? It is so out of place and completely irrelevant to the other content being discussed in the government section unless we provide some sort of context (such as the fact that Israel has gotten quite a bit of criticism over human rights). Additionally, Israel's status as the Middle East's most free country is already addressed in the the introduction. -- tariqabjotu 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it seems slightly out of place, but it is quite short (shorter than the nuclear :-]), and shouldn't the lead be summarising something in the body? Tewfik^Talk 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the article has undergone dramatic and rampant revisions in the past few weeks. I have to voice my opinion that these revisions are making the POV problems in this article worse, not better. I was encouraged to find a long and intelligent debate on the topic of POV problems in the lead, but sadly that discussion seems to have halted, once more. I now notice that the Human Rights section, which at one point was balanced and presented both perceived problems and higher developments in Israel's human rights, has now been shorted to a few sentences that only mention the good things about Israel's human rights record. I understand why someone would think that an entire section devoted to Israel's human rights might be misplaced, but cannot agree that shortening it so that only positive statements are reflected is the way to go. I'll stress again that I don't think there is anything wrong with mentioning Israel's better positions relative to other countries in the region, but it is extremely unacademic to allow only good things about Israel to be edited into this article. I was afraid that had happened with the lead, and I fear that is now happening to the entire article.

By way of example, the foreign policy section of the United States at one point mentioning nothing about negative perceptions of American foreign policy. At one point it was much the same as the Israel article, with even one survey mentioning the low opinion of America's standing in the world following the invasion of Iraq being edited out. But in attempt to get featured article status, a compromise was reached. The US article is still not featured, but I think everyone involved in the process of making it better would agree that it has improved dramatically. You will notice, when you read it now, that it is balanced in the way it presents American foreign policy. It has become less about promoting the United States, and more about informing the readers about America and all the views that accompany it. At the same time, it does not do America a disservice, continuing to list beneficial things about it such as its economy and its standard of living.

I don't suppose that this plea to the editors of this article will meet with much success. Attempts at discussing this and editing anything into the article have been met with constant reversions. I don't blame just the pro-Israel editors, because the anti-Israel editors have made it just as difficult to make this work (as the discussion about the lead will show). However, I do hold out hope. Because I know that there are pro-Israel editors here who recognize the POV problems in this article, and who have shown their ability to have an intelligent discussion on the matter above. I know that some of you are defensive on this issue, and I understand why. But I also hope you see that editing out all the criticism, and editing in only positive reviews of Israel's record, is unencyclopedic and may ultimately having a detrimental effect on how this article is academically viewed.SpiderMMB 04:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the general tone of your comment. As this article has undergone dozens of edits a day, I just couldn't keep up with every single change, and I wish a serious discussion would take place before such drastic changes.

However, the article wasn't that great to begin with. Let's just see what we can do to make the article better, now.

I'd love to have a section about the territories and Israel's policies and actions concerning them. Writing an article about Israel barely mentioning the article is absurd, in my view. I do fear such a section will become a constant battleground, though.

I've often stated I'd like to see such a section, and would support an editor writing it, if it's NPOV. No one seemed interested. okedem

I agree that human rights is poorly covered. There is no mention whatsoever of the criticism Israel has gotten. If no one wants to put that in, the mini-paragraph ought to be removed altogether. It just looks like boosterism and completely ignores the somewhat valid complaints about Israel's human rights record. That being said, I don't believe the lengthy multi-paragraph section on human rights was necessary. Additionally, I have to say that your third paragraph is excessively pessimistic and a bit insulting. There are many of us who are trying to improve and balance the article, but you suggest we're approaching the article with an agenda, pro-Israel or anti-Israel (and that you are the only wise, neutral (wo)man within the crowd). As you can see from the responses here and the fact that the previous section on this talk page raised a similar topic, you are not the only one taking issue with the human rights piece. -- tariqabjotu 16:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to balance out the paragraph. I've been mostly following the bold-revert-discuss cycle here, so I'm just going to see what happens (although I'm not suggesting you revert just to be obnoxious; a constructive reason would be nice if you decide to revert). -- tariqabjotu 18:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's way too much stuff about human rights. In contrast there is practically nothing about the people and their history. Which should be a central feature of the article. What's happening is that everything is written from a perspective of the conflict,the history section is entirely about wars. The conflict centred writing is also why you are so concerned about human rights. It is obvious from the tone of your comments that you are far more interested in the conflict then you are in Israel - and that you have probably never visited the country. It seems to me that if you want to discuss human rights in Israel you should open a seperate entry and put in a link, or move it to the entry discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Otherwise it doesn't warrant more then a couple of sentences. Telaviv1 14:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the article recently? How is there too much stuff about human rights? It's only three sentences, whereas the history is a whopping eleven paragraphs. What do you believe is still missing from the history section? This should theoretically have a summary of Israel's history, with the most notable and prominent events. Unfortunately, those most notable and prominent events (especially from the past sixty years) have included quite a few conflicts. -- tariqabjotu 16:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The history section is written mainly from the classical "kings and battles" approach. Other ways of presenting history are possible, but it's far from certain that any of these is superior. Beit Or 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I accept your points about the Human Rights - its OK but I think the history section needs improving, the early years are all about wars while the later ones have too much detail. I think more space should be given to the impact of immigration on Israeli society. Incidentally it doesn't mention Ben-Gurion. It should probably be built to provide links to the relevant pages. Telaviv1 21:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to apologize if anyone found the tone of my post condescending or offensive, as did Tariqabjotu. I didn't mean to imply that there are no neutral editors here. The points I raised were particular to this article, but the overall problem is Wiki-wide and I've mentioned it on many other articles as well. It's simply the nature of Wikipedia, and what keeps an otherwise revolutionary medium from being taken seriously in the academic world, even to the point of being banned. But I can see how the tone would be offensive and apologize if anyone took it as such.

Back to the article at hand:

• Human rights section is still very small. I don't think we need to go back to the long multi-paragraphed section but I do think that it could be expanded upon. For instance, as relied upon as Freedom House is to flaunt Israel's freedoms, the current article neglects to mention that what it terms "Israeli Occupied Territories" are ranked "not free." If Freedom House is to be the benchmark, then both should be included. In addition, Btselem, has been critical of Israeli policies, and would be better listed along with Amnesty and HRW. Particularly because this is an Israeli organization, it also shows that Israel's freedoms allow for self-criticism. As much was stated in the old version.

• Since there is no point in trying to revive the discussion on the lead in the dead section above, I figure I will just continue it here. The introduction as it stands has greatly improved in breadth. The two major points I would raise is the mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital be coupled with the disputed status of such, in keeping with the Jerusalem entry that became a featured article. Also, as per the discussion I had with Okedem, Israel's HDI can be mentioned in a more neutral, less laundry list fashion.

• Finally, the Arab conflict, Palestinian in particular, is probably better mentioned in foreign relations/government, or some other such section, and less so in the lead although it certainly deserves a mention there. No, it is not the only, or arguably most important, part of Israel, but it is important enough that it should be discussed. In agreeing with Okedem, I'd like to see it elaborated upon, and I'd like to see it be neutral. SpiderMMB 20:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In the hopes of facilitating this discussion a little further, and faster, I've made the following changes:

• I added more detail about Jerusalem. However, in the end I self-reverted this. When I first made the elaboration, I didn't notice the detail of the footnote. While I still feel that this footnote sort of "hides" the information, it is nonetheless extensive and accurate, and available to anyone willing to click the citation.

• I left the political and civil liberties of Israel, but shortened it so that it was more of a factual statement and less of a list that seemed to be saying "this is what makes us better than all the other countries in the region." I feel that the current version references and notes Israel's acomplishments without making it sound boastful.

• I've extended the Human Rights paragraph. I first noted that Freedom House, though it ranks Israel as the only "free" country in the region, also ranks what it terms "Israeli Occupied Territory/Palestinian Authority" as "not free." It's important that if FH is the benchmark for mentioning one, you also mention the other. Finally, I added the bit about B'Tselem. I've changed it from the old version, which I will post below for comparison. While B'Tselem is far from being above criticism itself, I felt this illustrated two important points: 1) Israel's civil liberties allow for self-criticism of government,; 2) such criticism is not merely external.

I hope that these changes will be discussed here before anyone attempts to revert/edit them. I honestly believe that they make this article more neutral while still highlighting the good things about Israel that editors want included. SpiderMMB 17:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

By way of comparison, this is the old section on human rights in Israel, from which I took information to make the current revision. I hope after comparing you'll see that my edits tried to make the current version more neutral:

Within Israel, policies of its government are often subjected to criticism from the left and right by its press as well as by a vast variety of political, human rights and watchdog groups such as Association for Civil Rights in Israel, B'Tselem, Machsom Watch, Women in Black, Women for Israel's Tomorrow, among others. According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Sephardi Jews "have long charged that they suffered social and economic discrimination at the hands of the state's Ashkenazi establishment."^[10] Btselem, the Israeli human rights organization, has stated that Israel has created in the West Bank a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality.^[11] Such criticism has also led to Israel's press being ranked as most free in the region. According to the Reporters Without Borders (RWB), "The Israeli media were once again in 2005 the only ones in the region that had genuine freedom to speak out."^[12] RWB ranked Israel 50th (tied with Grenada) out of 168 countries as regards freedom of the press, the highest of any country in the Middle East and just ahead of the United States (53rd).^[13] In addition, Israel is also the only country in the region to have its press ranked as "Free" (28 on the scale 1-100) by Freedom House, though the Israeli-Occupied Territories/ Palestinian Authority were ranked "Not Free" (84 out of 100).^[14]

SpiderMMB 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Gilabrand reverted my changes to the introduction. I've reverted them back, and will explain here. First of all, the current introduction tries to balance out the list by stating "Despite Israel's political problems...etc." The problem with this attempt at neutrality is that the criticism is not cited. As valid an attempt at neutrality as it is, you cannot balance cited praise with uncited criticism. Thus, I both deleted the criticism that preceeded the praise, and consolidated the praise in a more neutral fashion. I believe this makes the introduction sound more academic, and does not do Israel any disservice as civil/political liberties and HDI are still mentioned and cited.SpiderMMB 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet again the Israelis on this wiki have failed to mention one of the biggest allegations that Israel has against its name, that is of 'War Crimes'. What is it going to take for these people to stop there acts of propaganda and to stop hiding the basic establised factual truth. This page has some information that really goes of in tangents, from the culture of Israel to its sport, which is all fine, but why isnt there a effort being made on controversial issues regarding Israel. Amnesty International along with the UN have been claiming Israel is responsible for some of the most digusting crimes against humanity, not mentioning it is just injustice to the innocents that have fell victim to Israeli aggressive occupation. I believe someone should make an effort to stop these propagandists from detering, and hindering the truth. Im not asking for pages and pages on the issue, just a mention would be fine along with leading links to other wiki pages! ill be happy to right the page and provide solid information about the claims, but i fear it may deleted as the Israelis cant actually handle the truth about there country. 81.132.224.10 00:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"some of the most digusting crimes against humanity"? Well, you lost credibility right there. You obviously know nothing of the world, and nothing of Israel. okedem 08:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

lol, mate that not be talking there, that has been reported and documented, ill show you the links and sources! Its a fact that Israel has oddly 'mistakely' killed thousands of innocents under there 40 year occupation. The UN and Amnesty international have reported that Israel is one of the biggest abusers of International law. I have the ffacts! but of course okedem cant handle the truth about his beloved Israel. Its rather dissapointing, when efforts to portary the truth on WIKI is denied by the Israelis that dont want the world to know hoe evil Israel is. quite sad! I81.132.224.10 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a tip - don't make personal attacks, not in the talk pages, and not in the edit summaries. If you can't be civil, you will be blocked. I won't discuss your baseless claims. okedem 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I cant believe this, im talking on the topic, and have been saying why the information must be included on the wiki, and you start abusing and name calling me. I shall be reporting you to the main moderator also for threatening to block me, which under wiki rules is forbidden. and please stick to the topic and improve this sorry looking page, and dont threaten me, its cowardly, really81.132.224.10 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Amusing. During these past few comments you've managed to say I: "cant handle the truth", "cant really face the harsh realities of Israel regime", am "spreading your propangandist lies", making a "cowardly attempt to hinder the truth about his beloved Israel", am a "zionist propagandist, and does want the harsh truth about his ISRAEL be told to the world", "being rather babaric in his responses".

You're not talking on topic. You're here to make a riot, and attack other editors.

I say again - make more personal attacks, and you will be blocked. okedem 07:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

yh nice try, take everything i say out of context! i justified all my points with arguments to further improve the wiki, im not bovered about attacking you, and please dont assume it is my primary target, because it isnt. listen to the points i make and the explanations i give, be open minded. And youve been reported to the admin for exploiting wiki rules and threatening me with bans81.132.224.10 13:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm trembling. What wiki rules have I exploited, if you please?

I can't even personally threaten you, as I'm not an admin, and cannot block users myself. I can report violations to admins who will block users, if necessary.

Your words had little context, especially the edit summaries. You're off to a bad start here. Personal attacks will not be tolerated here. okedem 13:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Im off to a bad start? ive been a wiki user for longer then you, and am familiar to wiki more then you think, i just havent been able to use my proper account, and again, this is a topic talk page, stop thinking your a hot shot, and stick to the issue rambo86.132.121.162 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging by your behavior here, the personal attacks, and your claims that "I'm breaking wiki rules" - you obviously know nothing of wikipedia. You can't stop the name calling even for a second, can you? okedem 18:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

okedem please, stop judging my behavior, i didnt ask you to, and its annoying please stick to the topic and stop with the personal attacks86.154.85.87 23:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like a section to be included about the vast amounts of money Israeli officials are offering the Jews of African, European and the Islamic countries to give up there land to come to Israel. I have loads of relavent webpages of factual claims that clearly protray Israel tactics to pursuade these Jews. This topic should be enlisted in the wiki because it has been one of the main tactics used by Zionists to proclaim there 'biblically promised land'. I would also like to start a dicussion on this topic, as it was recently brought to light by many news broadcasters across the UK. I dont wish the topic to be very long, but a mension under a main heading relating all controvesial issues would be very informative to the user and will improve this wiki very much 81.132.224.10 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not worthy of mention. Israel offers immigrants monetary assistance, as coming to a strange country and starting a new life isn't easy, and takes resources. okedem 08:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

hah!! okedem, i beg to differ. If topic about foriegn relations with turkey and japan can be discussed, i think this scandal can also be.I dont wish it to be talked about in detail, but under religion it should be. Israel has be caught out for exploiting the Jews of different countries and offering them money to give up there born soverienty, which the governments of there countries have been outright angered by. And it is important to note that it should be helpful to the reader, in order to make this wiki better how Israel gets the money to manage this and yet recieves more Aid then any other nation in the world!81.132.224.10 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A scandal? Giving people monetary aid to start a new life? Come on... okedem 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a scandal, when you think about the facts. Israel is recieving aid, some of which more desperate people around the world can do with and using it to lure people to Israel. And its digusting how Israel seems it can buy citizens based on there religion, its sad and a scandal. Do you think the Christian and Muslim people around the world, that are living in worser conditions then the Jews would give anything to be Jewish. Its explotation!and a rather big scandal, which the BBC, SkyNews France24 etc have all reported on. Its appauling to think the money the US tax payers give go, not to the people that are dying, but to people who are luring people because of there religion. 81.132.224.10 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I say again, you don't know what you're talking about. US Aid is a very small part of Israel's budget, and is almost only military aid.

A country has every right to choose what to do with its money. If it wishes to help Jews come and live there (which is the purpose it was created for, and the purpose the UN approved), it may do so. okedem 07:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

okedom, this is not a talk page. I am just giving suggestions to improve this page, your not helping by attacking. you should know the wiki rules 'be welcoming'. I think if i gave the evidence of the aid and the luring tactics, it would help others who are interested in improving the page, rather then your continual boring rants.

Ill start making up the para asap!86.132.121.162 18:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Good luck with the WP:NPOV. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a talk page? Hmmm... Why is the headline lying to me, then?

Anyway, I responded on topic - the fact Israel help immigrants is of no special interest, and means nothing. I don't need your "evidence" - I'm not arguing about the fact of it; I'm saying it's not notable, and certainly not the evil thing you're trying to make it appear. okedem 18:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Okedem completely. Offering people assistance in starting a new life in a new place is nothing scandalous. Plenty of governments do it, as starting a new life is indeed expensive and difficult; this is far from underhanded. LordAmeth 18:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

your debating the morals here, not the facts. No other country in the world pays certain individuals to become citizens of there nation because of religious believes. I dont care what you think, and what you think other countries might do, Israel does it, so should be included in the WIKI. Furthermore, the luring of Jews with economic benifits is expliotation of the poor. The Israelis are in a sense buying citizens, and asking people to sell there sovegien identity, thats what i know from the facts, but even so there should be a suggestion to what israel does. and it was a typo, this page is not used to express personal views, so stop it!86.154.85.87 23:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

First you say: "Furthermore the luring of Jews with economic benifits(sic) is expliotation(sic) of the poor." Then comes this gem:"This page is not used to express personal views, so stop it!" Do you even read you own stuff before you post it? Schrodingers Mongoose 18:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there should also be a topic included in this wiki, that discusses the amount of aid Israel recieves, which makes them so capable to advance in such high fields. It would also explain to the reader how a small country the size of Israel has become to rich, yet recieves aid, so quick. This should really be incoperated with the occupation, as some analysts do say it would have been impossible for Israel to maintain the 40 year occupation it does without the aid. However it could also be included in the defence section, which discusses the issues on Israel nuclear capabilities. Either way, it shouldnt be touched on that much, but small didication to other web pages should be made. It is very relavent in its advancement in recent decades and would be very informative!81.132.224.10 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The amount of aid is very small compared to Israel's economy and budget. By the way, Egypt receives a lot of monetary aid from the US (which it can buy weapons with). okedem 08:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

okedem Your a typical Israeli that cant really face the harsh realities of Israel regime. And Egypt does not get anywhere near the amount of aid that Israel gets, this being more then the whole of Africa and South American combined. I have tons of realiable sources that i can point you to to confirm this. On the other hand can you prove that Egypt gets more military then Israel as you claim, and furthermore why did you find it relavent to bring up Egypt into the topic, when were tal;king about Israel. Israel has been able to occupy the WB and Gaza for over 40 years because of US military/economic aid, and i have evidence, so please stop spreading your propangandist lies!81.132.224.10 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not discuss the article with a person who can't be civil. okedem 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice tactic, yh sure go off the topic and rant about me not being civil. Do you even know what the word civil mean son! and im not making my comments to make friends, im doing it to improve this WIKI, something which you seem not to be important81.132.224.10 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

hardly npov user 81 :) This is not a discussion forum...130.91.98.31 07:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi 81, if you have "tons of sources", why not just link them here? It might add more weight to your argument than insulting people. --Dilaudid 10:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the american aid to Israel is restricted to be used for military purposes only. not only that, a significant part of it must be used for the purchase of american made weapons and military equipment. Even without counting the aid, Israel still has significantly higher military expenses than any other nation in the west. So I'm afraid that even if we specify about the american aid (and about the huge financial burden that is Israel's security budget in general), it won't help the reader to gain a better understanding of how "Israel became so rich". Apollo 11 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So how come you aren't getting your knickers in a knot over $13 billion in state-of-the-art military equipment to Saudi Arabia Mr User 81,132,224,101? Oh, and don't forget to add that to the Saudi Arabia page --Gilabrand 12:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I seem to have been drastically misunderstood. I am not user 81, and my The comment was ment to debunk the above mentioned claim that the American aid is accountable for Israel's economical success. In the last sentence I ment the huge financial burden that Israel's security budget is to Israel, not to the United States. Apollo 11 13:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Apollo 11, have no fear. The above remark was not directed at you, but at Mr. 81-trillion, whoever he is--Gilabrand 13:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A while back, Israel used to receive two kind of aid from the US. A part was "civilian" - which was money, to be used as Israel saw fit, and the other part - military aid (FMF), which can only be used to purchase American military equipment - weapons and other military equipment. Some yeas ago, it was agreed that the civilian aid would be reduced, and the military aid enlarged (though by a smaller amount - for a 100 million decrease in civilian aid - a 50 million increase in military aid). Today, almost all of the aid is of the military kind (to be spent only in the US). While this is very helpful for Israel, it's also a convenient way for the US to subsidize its enormous military industry, tilting the playing field in its favor, versus competitors like European companies. This actually means that while the aid helps Israel, a large part of it returns to US hands, whether directly (taxes - on the company, the employees, etc), or indirectly (poring money into the American economy, creating jobs, etc).

Interesting points - at times, the aid significantly hurt Israeli companies - like when the military decided to purchase most of its combat boots and uniform from American companies (since that could be done using the aid money) - Israeli factories suffered, and some closed down.

Also, if you hear about the problem of unexploded cluster bomb munitions (bomblets) still endangering civilians in southern Lebanon from the war - those were American bombs, purchased using aid dollars. These bombs are actually highly inferior to the Israeli variant - the US bombs have a ~30% dud rate (~30% of bomblets don't explode on impact, and endanger civilians), whereas the Israeli variant has only a ~1.5% dud rate, which would have left far fewer bomblets in the area, making the cleanup job shorter and easier.

Not very relevant, but just trying to give a little food for thought, showing that the military aid isn't such a wonderful gift, and has some "dark" sides. okedem 13:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see under the section of the religion, a small sentence or two, dedicated on Israel immigration situation. From the facts i have come to learn, and for which i have concreate proof, any Jew can be given Israeli citizenship and recieve the benifits from the Israeli government, even if they have no tie to the country. I think it would be appropreaite to put this infortmation in as it is of the upmost importance when looking Israels immgration policies. It would also be appro. to add that many international organisations have frowned upon Israel for granting citizenship to people who have no conncection to Israel, and denied the very people who had been living there over 60 years ago.any more comments would be appreciated!81.132.224.10 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that this is a policy relating to the Jewish people as an ethnicity, not as a religion. In gaining Israeli citizenship, there is no requirement to show that one is devout or observant to any particular degree, only that one is of Jewish descent. As the Wikipedia article "Jew" says: "A Jew is a member of the Jewish people who are an ethnic group originating in the Israelites of the ancient Middle East." In this respect, Israel is seeking to be little different from any other nation-state which identifies itself with an ethnic group. The Jewish people have Israel just as the French people have France, the English people have England, the Japanese people have Japan, and the Arab people have Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Oman, UAE, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. LordAmeth 06:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I know, it is also a policy relating to Jewish people as a religion. Converts to Judaism are covered under the Law of Return and Jews who convert to other religions lose privileges given by the Law. Being of Jewish descent is not enough if you are not Jewish. -- tariqabjotu 06:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. You just need to have a Jewish grand parent to be allowed Israeli citizenship even if you are not Jewish yourself. The case of a Jew who willingly converted to another faith is more complex. In the past, in the case of a Jew who became a Catholic priest, the Supreme Court of Israel judged that by doing so, the Jew decided to cut himself from the Jewish people and so cannot be considered as a Jew anymore, but I think this is mostly because the guy was a priest. I think that nowadays a Jew converted to another religion can make Aliyah without any problems. On the other hand, I don't think many Jews convert to other religions, and among them not many make Aliyah. Benjil 07:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about willing converts, but a lot of people came to Israel from the former Soviet Union republics. Many of them were born and raised Christian, but have a Jewish grandfather (or more than one), and came to Israel under the Law of Return.

On a side note, Israel's law of return is nothing special - a lot of countries have similar laws of practices - see Right of return and Repatriation laws. okedem 08:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure how you can abruptly say "You are wrong" and then continue with "The case of a Jew who willingly converted to another faith is more complex". Yes, I was talking about converts. I'm having trouble finding a copy of Rufeisen v Minister of the Interior, but I've seen a couple secondary sources that suggest in no uncertain terms that converts out of Judaism (presumably not like those from the former Soviet republics okedem noted) could lose privileges given by the Law (ignoring the frequency of the ruling's enforcement). Either way, I'm not advocating that the requested sentences alleging an immigration problem ought to be put into the article, although a mention of the Law of Return somewhere seems reasonable. -- tariqabjotu 15:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No your wrong, Its based on the religion and not only ethicity (like the ethiopian jews. A Jewish convert can also apply for citizenship. I think it should be noted in the wiki. And there is no other country in the world that grants citizenship based on the religion they preach, that is why some international organisations have frowned upon Israel.81.132.224.10 13:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Converting to Judaism isn't just changing your religion, but joining the Jewish people, as an ethnicity. Anyway, a country can do whatever it wants when it comes to granting citizenship. It can choose not to give it to anyone, it can choose only to give it to people with needed skills (like Medical Doctors in Australia), etc. It's a country full prerogative. okedem 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you convert to an ethinicity, you convert to a religion, that being Judaism. And i didnt say there was anything wrong with it!! why are you always attacking me!! religion can be spread preached by people of any ethicnicity, i just argued that it should be included in the wiki, not about its moral implications, stop with the attacks, its annoying stay on topic were not talking about Australia were talking about this wiki!!, if i was to convert to Judaism, and become a Jew, i can ask for an Israeli passport, thats what im saying, and that is what i think should be included in the wiki. Other info about Israel tactics to lure Jews is a different matter86.132.121.162 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Attacking you? I understand you're trying to change the meaning of the word attack, so as to make it seem as though you're not constantly attacking me, but it's not gonna work. I explained to you why you're wrong. You don't accept my argument - fine. okedem 18:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

please stop with the off topic posts okedom, its annoying, and wasting space, if you have nothing useful to say, just say nothing, your not helping86.132.121.162 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Plase stop bickering, both of you. Jews are both a religion and ethnicity. You can be born one, *and* you can convert into one with the rituals the religion provides. On the other hand, you can't stop being a Jew if you were born one, even if you reject the religion. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48189][18] The country incorporates all of the above in citizenship and Aliyah considerations. • Maurog • 07:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

in simple words, religious based citizenship being used!! why isnt that included in the wiki. If i convert and become a jew, i can get an Israeli passport. This nonsense about jewish culture, is not the point here, even though people of jewish culture are also given a citizenship.86.142.216.167 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Economy/gdppercap.html states a 2004 gdp per capita at approx 17,000 CIA fact book puts population at 6.4 million https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html

Your information is outdated.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The CIA fact book is full of mistakes and concerning the population of Israel the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics is the best source. The GDP per capita in the article is at purchase power parity (ppp), that is used usually for international comparisons and not nominal. The nominal GDP per capita in 2006 vas by the way close to $21,000. Benjil 06:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

ah yes, the facts are right for every other country apart from Israel, seeing how it sees itself as superior to all other countries. The figures are incorrect, and outdated, please correct, and dont dispute evidence86.142.216.167 23:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The figures are correct and up to date. The source for the GDP ppp are the IMF and the World Bank (who gives even $30,000 for Israel in 2006), the source for the population is the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics. And yes the CIA factbook is full of mistakes and outdated data. Benjil 16:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the reference links are not scholarly links. Please investigate further. Shadibeidas 14:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You will have to explain a little more. If you have examples of non-neutral references, please give them. Benjil 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the RFC issue now resolved? Can the RFC be closed? Eiler7 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice idea to introduce "religious diversity" into the religious section, but devoting at least a quarter of the article to a few people who belong to esoteric religious sects is unacceptable, bordering on the ridiculous. Every time I try to add pertinent information to this article, most of it is promptly removed in the interests of "keeping things short and tidy." Religion in Israel is a very important topic. There is no listing of the zillions of Christian sects, no discussion of very significant differences between trends in Judaism, and no mention of Islam, when Islamic beliefs are central to terrorism in Israel today. So fine, keep the Bahai photo (nice pictures are definitely lacking here), but either add more info on other religions, or remove the overly detailed discussion of a handful of marginal religious groupings somewhere in Israel (or not even living in Israel, with just a temple here)--Gilabrand 07:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, I don't believe this is the appropriate location to talk about Islamic beliefs being central to terrorism in Israel today. As for esoteric religious sects... I'm unsure who you could be talking about. Buddhism and Hinduism are by no measure esoteric sects. The Bahá'í Faith is significant due to its headquarters being in Israel, allowing me to ignore addressing whether that's an esoteric sect. Honestly, religious tolerance is a two-way street; it wasn't too long ago when people would have (rather wrongly) called Judaism an esoteric sect (or something of similar demeaning stature). Anyway, you may note that the religion section as it stands now does not actually discuss any of the religions, but simply explains their relative presence in numbers. Perhaps the cultural aspect of religion (presumably Judaism) could be discussed in the Culture section (that's how the Saudi Arabia article does it, although that is by no means the gold standard). -- tariqabjotu 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Israel has decided to call the war the "Second Lebanon War" but Lebanon has called it the "July War". The fact that we are writing in the Israel article does not license us to only use the Israeli name. That would be akin to rephrasing the first sentence of Palestinian refugee to say "the Palestinian Exodus, the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة, meaning "disaster" or "catastrophe")" instead of "the Palestinian Exodus, which Palestinian Arabs call the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة, meaning "disaster" or "catastrophe")." So, I'd suggest either (a) removing the end of the sentence (like I did earlier) or (b) rephrasing the item to say "known in Israel as the Second Lebanon War" (specifying that Israel calls it that, and removing the link to Second Lebanon War, which is redundant with the "five-week war" link). I personally prefer the first option since (i) we already link to the 2006 Lebanon War article earlier in the sentence, (ii) what Israel calls the war is rather inconsequential, and (iii) we don't explain what the First Lebanon War was (and probably don't need to). -- tariqabjotu 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What Israel calls the war is inconsequential??? If we are talking about an article on Israel, and a war in which Israel was involved, I would think it DOES matter what Israel calls it. When I last looked, the sentence said "known in Israel as the Second Lebanon War." I'm fine with that. You can get rid of "summer rain" or "five-week war" (as a media person, I spend every minute of my day with my nose in newspapers, and I can assure you none of those other names are used in any English language source). --Gilabrand 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For Operation Summer Rains, see The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, the U.S. State Department, the New York Times, and the United Nations. As for "five-week war", I'm not sure what you're attempting to contest here. That the war lasted longer or shorter than five weeks? What Israel calls the war is inconsequential; what matters is that the war happened. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether some call it the Second Lebanon War, the July War, or the Lebanon Lollygag; that's why the naming issue is covered in 2006 Lebanon War and not, rightfully, in places such as the Lebanon article. -- tariqabjotu 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If in the grand scheme of things nothing matters - not names, not dates and not facts - why get involved in Wikipedia? Just to put things straight, Operation Summer Rains was an IDF operation in the Gaza Strip. The initial name of the 2006 war in Lebanon was Operation Change of Direction, and it lasted 34 days (hey, we could add another name to the list: the Thirty-Four Day War!). In fact, all these names are said to be computer-generated. The names are silly and wars are silly, but we still need to get the facts right (preferably without the angry undertone). --Gilabrand 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You did not respond to my comment at all. -- tariqabjotu 20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you two are great contributors to this article - and fighting won't help you improve it. I'm not even sure what you're fighting about, now. okedem 05:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Responses like this one tend to be unnecessarily dismissive, characterizing discussions as childish, disruptive squabbles (okay, you didn't use those precise words, but the effect is still the same, even if it is unintentional). No one's edit-warring over this or calling on the arbitration committee; I simply cross-posted this here to get some broader feedback. If you don't feel the matter is worth your time, don't comment. But if you were simply having trouble discerning the context of the discussion, it's in relation to this and this. -- tariqabjotu 06:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was not my intention. It only bothered me to see you two "fighting" over something so minor. You both seem to agree to use the phrasing "known in Israel as the Second Lebanon War" - so what's the argument about? Whether or not names are silly?

For the record, I do think mentioning the name used in Israel is relevant, since the reader will undoubtedly encounter that name when reading any Israeli media, or Israeli statements. I think the phrasing suggested is good. okedem 10:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to your blanket reversion of my edits and "rewriting" the information in substandard English. Since when do you have the right to monopolize this article, erase everything and put back only what suits you? If you have a correction to make, fine, but the current system of reverting everything and writing that you will "reintroduce certain bits later" is unacceptable.--Gilabrand 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I hoped to come to the talk page to pre-empt the kind of comment Gilabrand made above, but unfortunately he beat me to the punch. I'm not here to monopolize the article, but when serious quality errors, such as ones caused by this edit, these edits, and these edits (in reference to the line breaks), are introduced, one should not be surprised if someone comes along to fix them – even if in a drastic manner. In reference to the line breaks, the line breaks were not merely put between paragraphs that had already existed. Piecing together the coherent paragraphs that originally existed would have been more difficult, in my opinion, because making all the section edits at once might have hit edit conflicts and other issues along the way (if you have not noticed, that is basically how I choose to re-write other, shorter, sections; this edit, for instance, took several hours). You appear to disagree. Fine. And maybe you're right. But the effect of either method would have still been the same. I didn't say I was going to "reintroduce certain bits later"; please don't put something in quotes unless you're copying something verbatim. I instead said that I "will attempt to merge content changes momentarily", which, unlike your misquote, (a) does not suggest I'm only going to put a few things back in and (b) shows an intention to more immediately fix the issue. Unfortunately, you hardly gave me an opportunity to fix the issue. You probably did not know, but when I was submitting the reverting edit, I repeatedly got a Wikimedia Error page. It wasn't until about fifteen minutes that I decided to just go back to the Israel article only to discover that my edit had actually went through the first time. I then proceeded to begin to merge the content changes back into the article, as I said I would, beginning with one of your edits.

So, I didn't use your exact wording regarding the Rabin assassination. So what? I have as much right as you to add information to the article. You split off the sentence regarding Rabin's assassination. Terrific; I don't care. I simply added the name of the killer as well as the part about Oslo Accords support rebounding (which you appeared to remove from the original version because it didn't fit in with splitting off the sentence). Saying the assassination "shook the country to the core" is media sensationalism; there's no need to be so dramatic. I was momentarily side-tracked by the fact that you had changed the sentence in the following section despite the fact that we both tentatively agreed on one phrasing, but you hardly gave me a chance to proceed to complete the rest of the merges as you reverted my revert (along with my content change) before the end of the hour.

You complain about my "blanket reversion of [your] edits" when no such thing took place. The only thing I reverted was the section entitled "The first fifty years, 1950s-1990s". You worked on the Culture section and the Education section and the Religion section, which I left alone, but the changes to the prescribed section from the history were hardly your doing, but almost entirely the work of Telaviv1 (talk · contribs) (and, as I said, I was going to merge the content changes back in anyway). I don't know what you're trying to say out of this. That I'm making too many changes to the article? That I'm being pedantic about the quality of even specific sentences? Well, I'm sorry to inform you that is the way I will continue to work on this article (and any article I devote this much time to). I will look at all the edits since my last visit to this page and make changes to the work of others if I see stylistic issues or if something was inadvertently removed in the midst of another change. This is less an indictment of your (and others') ability to write, and more a tendency of some to edit more quickly, thereby sometimes introducing unwanted stylistic errors (like the ones noted in the first paragraph of this comment). So, in the same vein, I'm unsure where you got the impression that I'm ""rewriting"" (again with the misquote) "the information in substandard English". I tend to proofread my edits quite well and although I still do sometimes make mistakes, there appears to be nothing grammatically incorrect about this phrasing (which, as I said earlier, is a reflection of your wording with the introduction of two pieces of information).

There is no "system" of "reverting everything and writing that [I] will "reintroduce certain bits later"". Let's not exaggerate; I made one single edit. This article was in desperate need of help (particularly in the style department rather than the content department) and I have, as I'm sure others have, been doing their best to improve this article. Suggesting that my way of editing (whatever that way of editing may be) is unacceptable is, well, unacceptable. I'm not asking for a gold medal here, but my edits on the whole have contributed positively to the article. I'm more than willing to discuss pieces when others make serious objections to my edits or reverts (a lá WP:1RR), but asking for permission on the talk page for every edit (or even most edits) I make is unnecessary and counter-productive to improving this article in a timely fashion. -- tariqabjotu 19:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

why there is no information about Gini coefficient for israel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.22.136 (talk • contribs)

As far as I can tell, the gini coefficient is not usually covered in country articles (I imagine in part because most are not familiar with the concept). Is there a reason you believe the coefficient is especially important here? -- tariqabjotu 16:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)