Talk:Israel

Previous discussions on this topic may be found here:

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8

Israel and the Occupied Territories
Talk:Jerusalem/capital

"Israelis" template creep

The {{Israelis}} template is getting unreasonably large and incoherent. While it's justifiable to want to refer to all of these topics here, it just doesn't make any sense for all of them to mutually-reference. Look at an article like RAFAEL Armament Development Authority to see how disproportiate this appears in some cases. I'd strongly favour refactoring this template into a number of smaller, more topic-focussed ones (possibly including a top-level one for the main categories on this template). Alai 19:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of states

Lists of states that do and don't recognise Israel don't belong in this article. They belong in Foreign relations of Israel or something like that. Adam 03:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White space

And also someone please fix the enormous white space at the start of the article. Adam 03:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone fixes the white space soon I am going to delete the infobox. Adam 08:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see excessive white space at all. I'm using a Mac, and I tried Safari, Opera and Firefox (all current versions). It looks fine in all of them (cluttered, if anything). The two boxes are on the right and the text flows down the left. --Zero 09:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. I see the white space when I use IE and I don't see it when I use Firefox. Why is this? It still needs to be fixed for IE-using people. Adam 12:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. The problem appears to have been in the display of the table of contents against the {{Israelis}} template. As long as the template is below the first heading, it appears to display well in both browsers. --Viriditas | Talk 12:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Adam 12:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it created a problem for some IE users at higher resolutions. I self-reverted, but feel free to revert back to a version that works for you. I give up. --Viriditas | Talk 12:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golan annexation?

It is not a simple matter to say whether Israel annexed the Golan Heights. The question is hotly debated between experts on international law. For example, in vol 20 (1994) of the Brooklyn Journal of International Law, there are back-to-back articles by two Israeli law professors. One argues that the Golan was annexed and the other argues that it wasn't. Both of them agree that the 1981 Golan Law was intended to annex the Golan while using language that allowed plausible denial. However, they disagree on whether this objective was achieved. They also disagree on whether the Israeli Supreme Court has accepted annexation or not. I found similar disagreement on this question in other law journals. We should present it as a disputed point, and not adopt one conclusion or the other. --Zero 10:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does Israel claim to have annexed it? Does it appear on official maps and in official statistics as part of Israel? Adam 12:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the purpose in presenting it as a disputed point, obviously it is disputed that Israel had the right to annex it, but the right of the US taking half of Mexico in 1848 was also disputed, but very few sane people would debate that they had in fact not taken the land.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 06:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those territories were annexed by the terms of the peace treaty after the Mexican War, so the situation is not analogous. My question was - does Israel claim to have annexed the Golan? Adam 07:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to get a straight answer on this question, and there is no such thing as an official map in the sense you mean. Apart from what is in the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, Israel has never officially defined its borders. Whenever the subject of negotiations with Syria come up, Israeli politicians adamantly claim the Golan is part of Israel, or isn't part of Israel, according to their political positions. An example of the ambiguity: enter the Flash presentation on the Israeli Foreign Affairs website at http://64.49.224.152/mfa/mfa.htm and you will find a map of the Golan which carefully repeats the formula "law, jurisdiction and administration" (from the Golan Law) in the caption but says "sovereignty" on the map itself. Incidentally, the same wording "law, jurisdiction and administration" was used in 1967 with regard to East Jerusalem and spawned the same argument. This policy of vagueness served Israel well with regard to EJ and was copied for the Golan. --Zero 10:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics maps show Golan and East Jerusalem as part of Israel, but not the West Bank. Same with the Ministry of Internal Affairs maps, and maps by Mapa, the biggest private Israeli mapping company. -- Ynhockey || Talk 03:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Israel does not claim to have annexed the Golan Heights, so how can Wikipedia claim that perhaps she did?--Doron 12:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We should not claim that Israel definitely annexed the Golan, nor that Israel definitely did not annex the Golan. We should describe it as an unclear question that is a matter of dispute between legal experts. I believe that is an accurate summary. --Zero 13:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So would it be correct to say Israel did not formally annex the Golan Heights, although some experts claim Israel has? Or that what Israel has done amounts to a formal annexation? Or is this a question of de facto vs. de jure? What exactly do these experts claim?--Doron 21:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check edit of 86.105.71.34

Hello, if you can please check the edits of 86.105.71.34 because he's a known vandal inserting false figures in romania and hungary related pages, most of the numbers are from dubious sources or with no source at all. --grin ✎ 18:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question here is, is the amount of people with Romanian origin relevant to a short summary of demographics? The answer is (IMO) no. Therefore, I removed the info. Maybe it belongs to the Demographics of Israel article, but as you said, we'd need someone to check the validity of the information (although it looks valid to me). -- Ynhockey 19:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza

" The future status of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights remains to be determined." Didn't Israel declare the border with Gaza to be an "international boundary"? Why should it be mentioned in the "Israel" article

When did Israel do that? Preaky 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Druze community?

The following question/comment was left on the main page under the section "at the request of the Druze community". I've moved it here, after reverting the main page. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 08:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"at the request of the Druze community" What does this mean? Is there there some elected body that represents Druze people? I don't understand how things work in Israel. In the US no-one would say "at the request of the black community" - there is no-one who legally represents blacks. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.64.166.191 (talk · contribs) 08:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

What about lobby groups and such?

Incorrect Transliteration

This phrase: مغتصبةْ إِسْرَائِيل Does NOT spell Dawlat Israel. I don't know what the word on the right means, but it doesn't transliterate as Dawlat. The correct Arabic spelling is the one on the right where the official names are listed in boldface. Rhesusman 04:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'mughtasabat' - Rapist - the guy is clearly trying to push a POV, don't hesitate to revert again.

israel is illegal state it must have no name.if a baby is not born why you give him/her a name.

You must be joking. Preaky 04:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gross domestic product comparison

I find the table comparing the gross domestic product of Israel with its neighbors inappropriate for this article. It seems like the purpose of this table is to show that the Israeli economy is about as big as all its neighbors' economies combined. To this end, it would be sufficient to say just that (providing a link to the source of these figures). If anywhere, this table may perhaps belong in Economy of Israel, otherwise I cannot imagine what the GDP of Lebanon has to do with this article.--Doron 21:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doron: I do not agree at all with your claim. This table is highly relevant, IMO, to the article. It gives the reader a relational perspective on the Israeli economy. --Thorwald 12:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the point this table is making? Lebanon's GDP has nothing to do with the economy of Israel. The table is irrelevant and given out of context, and I am removing it. Please discuss my concerns before reverting again.--Doron 14:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is placing the economy of Israel in perspective (I believe that is fairly obvious). This section of the article is on the economy of Israel and to better understand Israel's economy in relation to its neighbours, this table is an attempt to do just that. It is simply not true that the table is "irrelevant". Since I added the information, it is appropriate for you to discuss its placement before removing it. That is simple Wikipedia etiquette. --Thorwald 16:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll stick my polite nose in. I agree with Doron; the table (a) doesn't look good; (b) conveys the wrong level of information for this article; (c) belongs with Economy of Israel much more than here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your opinion that the table "doesn't look good" is just that, your opinion. I do not agree that it conveys the wrong level of information for this article. I maintain that is gives the reader an important perspective on Israel's place (economy and otherwise) with respect to her neighbours. However, if you insist, move it to the Economy of Israel article. --Thorwald 18:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - One more point, if you look at something like the Economists's country profile of Israel, you will see that they do have a regional economy chart, but they use Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey as comparisons, and they give much more than GDP. I am not against including a comparison (probably in Economy of Israel), but it would be better to select a different range of countries in the region that then PA and Lebanon and Syria (none of which are good examples of working regional economies), and to include more data, such as the vital GDP/head, as well as some of the other ratios in the Economist chart. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - GDPs of Israel and neigbors
      - (After slippage) Obviously the aesthetics are just my opinion. I wonder -- do other country articles contain similar comparison-with-neighbors tables? The statement in the text ("Israel's economy is nearly as large as the economies of all of its immediate neighbors added together") should suffice, since the adjacent map shows the neighbors, and the link to the World Bank database provides the adequate citation. Why do you think the "relational perspective" is that important -- and why do you think the text statement does not convey that relational perspective? But while we're talking about perspective, I just made a pie chart from the numbers on your table, and it conveys a rather different impression: Israel and Egypt have quite comparable GDPs, both of which dwarf all the rest of the countries. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        So what have we got: Israel's GDP is a lot bigger than some Middle-Eastern countries' GDP, and comparable or somewhat smaller than other Middle-Eastern countries'. Of course what you really should compare is GDP per capita, which places Israel much higher compared to the Middle-East. On the other hand, Israel's economy has very little to do with the Middle-East due to the political situation, and comparing Israel to the EU or the US is a lot more relevant. And there are many other figures about Israel that may be interesting to know about Israel's economy. This should all go in the main article on the Economy of Israel, not here. The article about Israel should have a concise description of Israel's economy, the details can be left for the more specific article.--Doron 21:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

racist official policy

"It is official policy to preserve Israel as a Jewish state in both its ethnic character and a religious sense." Could we have a reference please?

Who are you? Preaky 04:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's Declaration of Independence proclaims Israel as a Jewish state, though the Declaration has very little legal binding. According to Basic Law: The Knesset, section 7a, a party or a person whose agenda or actions constitute denial of Israel's existance as a Jewish (and democratic) state, is banned from being elected to the Knesset.--Doron 09:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in Palestine before 1900s

"Throughout the centuries the size of Jewish population in the land fluctuated with the population in the region of the present day Israel"

I don't understand the sentence, maybe somebody can rewrite it. Repetition 21:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew naming conventions

Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 17:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin

I'm sorry User:SlimVirgin, but I doubt you read the changes entirely, or you would not have stated "rv to last version by Zero; I agree that it's better without these changes". That edition you two have reverted to contains outdated information on demography that changes from what is in stated in the intro to what is stated in the demography section. Further, I have also added Ladino as a spoken language. Please do not deny this. And I have also added that Arabic is also spoken my some Mizrahi and Teimani.

Please point out any inaccuracy in my edits, and delete those if you find them. But do not revert under the guise that it “looks better”, but by doing so you delete so much relevant information that should not be omitted.

Again, I cannot comprehend how you could agree (I you have indeed compared version) that it is better without the changes, when the article content conflicts from one part of the article to the other. Al-Andalus 11:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

From your own user page: "Try to avoid revert wars. Never violate 3RR. Be self-limiting in how many times you revert a page in a day. Try to get consensus on talk before reverting. If you do revert without prior discussion, explain why on talk." I have done this. Please do also comply by your own demands. I am the only one who has explained my reasons. I'm still awaiting yours and user Zero's. Once more, please point out to me the inaccuracy in my edits, and delete those if you find them. Al-Andalus 15:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your information is incorrect though. Not 19.5% of all non-Jews are Arabs, but 19.5% of the entire population. On the other issues, I don't necessarily (dis)agree with either side. -- Ynhockey || Talk 18:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Andalus, I don't think the average reader will know what point you are making with the sentence "Jews may be of any race.", and I find it rather jarring. Perhaps you should explain your intention (here). --Zero 00:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it back out [again] from Demographics of Israel where Al-Andalus insists it should be also. Not only is the subject covered in Jew, where it should be, the subject of that paragraph concerns Israeli census data, and no part of the Israel Census addresses "race". I doubt this will end the discussion on the matter, or the reversions of this rubbish back into the article, despite the fact that IMNSHO it should. Tomer ^TALK 03:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the insertion and the whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. Does the Israeli census really talk about what "race" Jews are? Even if it's true, wouldn't that information make more sense in the article about Jews? Also, you've used "first generation" and "second generation" incorrectly. "First generation Israelis" are immigrants, "second generation Israelis" are the children of immigrants. A "Sabra" can never be a "first generation Israeli". Also, ALL of the of the non-Sabra are "foreign born", so there's no point in saying so, and "olim" includes both "voluntary" and "refugee" Jews. Preaky 02:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes based on my comments above. I also fixed some grammar problems. I notice that a sentence was added which says "It is official state policy to preserve Israel's status as a Jewish state in both its ethnic character and religious constitution." What does this mean, and where is this policy written? Preaky 02:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that by using the term "race" in the context of Israel's demographics, we are stating a premise that is contentious in itself. The point may be that Israeli Jews are a highly diverse group of people (though they clearly have some important characteristics in common), but even that is raising a misleading issue, since it can be argued that Arabs and Palestinians also are highly diverse. --Leifern 13:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; we certainly don't state that Arabs are "multiple races" either, and the Israeli census bureau doesn't state anything about race at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I note that Al-Andalus has added back "foreign-born" to describe people who weren't born in Israel. As Preaky points out above, all non-Israeli born Israelis are by definition "foreign born"; this is redundant and confusing at best, POV pushing at worst. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it because it's odd looking, and I also deleted the sentence saying "Jews can be of any race," because the writing is odd and the point is jarring, as Zero said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GDP Table

The GDP table lists countries by their nominal GDP rather than the GDP adjusted by Purchasing Power Parity, if you look at PPP than the results are completely different, Egypt has a much larger GDP than Israel. See List of countries by GDP (PPP) I don't know enough economics to know which measurement is more accurate, but I don't think we should include a table that says one thing, when another measurement gives us an entirely different conclusion. GabrielF 07:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I didn't see the discussion above. Clearly the table was put here to advance a POV, I guess that would be okay except that the table is factually questionable. To quote List of countries by GDP (nominal)

"Great care should be taken when using either set of figures to compare the wealth of two countries. Often people who wish to promote or denigrate a country will use the figure that suits their case best and ignore the other one, which may be substantially different, but a valid comparison of two economies should take both rankings into account, as well utilising other economic date to put an economy in context."

GabrielF 07:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An entire paragraph about the AIC in the intro

The text on the conflict doesn't belong in the intro. This article is about a country just like any other. Many countries are imbued in conflicts, and usually such info is not mentioned in the introduction. We do talk about it just a couple paragraphs later. We do have whole series of articles dedicated specifically to the conflict. The text is clumsy, the words Jews and Muslims should be capitalized, etc. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 11:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also the last sentence says that resentment has resorted. --Zero 11:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, but it appears to be gone now. Preaky 06:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the paragraph, and I disagree (well, you expected that). The conflict is an important theme in an article about Israel, certainly more so than the etymology of the name. Israel is hardly "a country just like any other" (no one is anyway, "close enough no one is normal"), it is the center of a 50-year-old conflict that has worldwide implications. Humus Sapiens says that "such info is not mentioned in the introduction", but this is not true for many: see Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, details of wars fought by Israel (such as occupation of the Gaza strip and the West Bank) are implied in the introduction, and one who did not know anything about the Middle East may wonder what was Israel doing there in the first place.

I cannot really see what is the issue here: the introduction is supposed to give a brief overview of the subject, and I find that talking about Israel without even mentioning the Arab-Israeli conflict, which has so many implications in Israel, in neighbouring countries and worldwide, is quite negligent. --Orzetto 10:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the articles you listed, and I didn't see long paragraphs on the wars they are in. Anyway, they aren't the same - Afghanistan and Iraq are currently at war, filled with foreign troops, Bosnia and Hezegovina is a very new country, and Chechnya isn't even a country. Preaky 22:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This version is far superior to the frozen version I found several months ago. While might quibble with various details in it, It is on-balance NPOV. Hurray, the process works.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 06:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

The external links section just seems a bit too much; it consumes half of the table contents and adds a lot of unneeded bulk to the page; if I knew more about the subject matter I would trim it myself. Or perhaps just remove it from the TOC? Peyna 20:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the External Link subheadings from the TOC; I think it looks a lot cleaner now. It was a little distracting before. Peyna 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think most of the links there ought to be removed, I think many of the links there are unnotable or do not conform to Wikipedia policy about external links.--Doron 08:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right; I just didn't want to step into a page with so much discussion and work behind it and unilaterally delete most of those links. Peyna 15:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New section for Israeli Media

I've moved the list of Israeli media sources to a new section. There are two major uses for this list, a user may want to find an Israeli newspaper's website in order to read the news, or a user may want to know something about the media in Israel. When the list was in the external links section it couldn't be comprehensive or helpful to people who wanted to know about the media in Israel in general because it didn't make sense to add a link to one of the many Israeli newspapers in Arabic/Russian/Hebrew etc. that didn't have an online English edition. As a separate section it can be a comprehensive and fair guide to the Israeli media (which doesn't seem to exist outside of wikipedia) and it can also be useful to people who just want to find a link to the jerusalem post.

I do worry that it may require a separate article due to length.

GabrielF 00:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Map is outdated

Gaza is no longer "occupied" post unilateral disengagement. A newer map would be in order. Savidan 06:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the name "Israel"

Regarding Jacob's assailant: If the original Genesis (in Hebrew) is referenced, the term "man" or "God" or (effectively, regarding the lack of reply to Jacob's questioning the assailant as to his name) "unknown assailant" can be used...but there is no latitude for using "angel" unless a different source is going to be used.

Reference: link

If someone would be so kind as to refer directly to the Tanakh source for all of this, we'll nip this whole issue in the bud, as I will very gladly defer to a *direct* translation from that holy source (which is also the source for the Christian Bible's Old Testament and, of course, Genesis).

--AustinKnight 22:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind...lo and behold...Wikipedia has the following in the Jacob article: "...a mysterious being ("a man", according to Genesis 32:24, or "the angel", according to Hosea 12:4) appeared and wrestled with Jacob until daybreak."

In other words, this will boil down to a choice between the Torah and Genesis or the Nevi'im and Hosea.

So...new question: is there any reason for picking Hosea over Genesis with respect to describing Jacob's assailant...? --AustinKnight 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the commentary of Rashi which is one of the most accepted commentaries by religous Jews. See http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8227&showrashi=true --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...and thank you for responding. We can see that he is clearly focusing on Hosea over Genesis. But do you know why? It seems odd, as Hosea is one of the 12 minor prophets. --AustinKnight 00:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]