Talk:Israel/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Another biased paragraph

[quote] For over 3,000 years, Jews have regarded the Land of Israel as their homeland, both as a Holy Land and as a Promised land. [/quote]

This ignores the fact that a complete people (The palestinian people) has lived contintuously (and is living) on this land for the last 2000 years. If couldn't be deleted it should rephrased for sure. And the title should be changed too, "Historical Root"?! up to this moment there is not historical proof of the existance of this "Hostorical Kingdoms".

just wanna know

whats the diffrence between hebrew language and yiddish ? and does both hebrews and yiddish understand each others ( as diffrente accents in same language ) ??Ammar 19:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish is a mix of Hebrew, German and English.

"Yiddish (Yid. ייִדיש, yidish) is a Germanic language spoken by about three million people throughout the world, predominantly Ashkenazi Jews. "

Check out Yiddish for more. Dev920 19:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank u sir for good info . Ammar 20:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm female but you're welcome. :) Dev920 20:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

single ? :P lol sorry Ammar 15:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanna know why theres no mention in the article of the fact that israel is violating a number of UN resolutions. Those would be resolutions 252, 262, 267, 271, 298, 446, 452, 465, 471, 484, 487, 497, 573, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 726, 799, 904, 1073, 1322, 1402, 1403, and 1435, to be precise.

hmmmm i dont know hehe , they even Blocked editing in this article Ammar 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanna know why the UN keeps making racist resolutions against Israel while ignoring the human rights violations in the Arab countries. Woman's rights, gay rights etc. Israel rescued black Africans from Ethiopia. Arab Sudan is killing black Africans in the Sudan and the Arb countries whine about Israel.

Israel violates resolutions, but so do many other countries. And make sure you know where you are getting your sources from. For example, many biased publications state that Israel violates Security Council Resolution 242, however, the fine details of the resolution implies that Israel isn't required to follow the resolution until there is a "termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and the acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" (UN Security Council, Resolution 242, November 22, 1967)

Gays rights ???!!! maaan your country is a group of killers , hustling everyday killing and robbing both palestinian and jewish citizens and you happy for saving gay rights ? Ammar 21:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ammar since you are from Saudi Arabia - the a country where women don't have civil rights (voting, allowed to drive cars) and NO freedom of religion - you should move to Israel and learn what freedom really is.

Mister , dont judge on saudi arabia on what you see on Fox-news hehe its for jewish american anyways :) but anyways i guess that saudi arabia have eaten too many human rights ( freedom of religion is not considered as one of them in fact ) , but saudis dont blow buildings on their residents in gaza ( which is a very poor state and can't defind it self ) , and they never bother their neighbour countries :S , saudis has embassies in 197 countries which proves how friendly community they are , thanx my friend :) Ammar 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

New template

I've created a "Arab-Israeli conflict" template, I'd like to add it to this article if that's alright with everyone.

It can be seen under Template:Arab-Israeli Conflict.

--Soviet Canuckistan 20:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this is appropriate. -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A correction to "the history section" regarding the country of Israel. In defense of the State of Israel.

How Israel was given the name "Palestine": The word itself has never been the name of a nation or state. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there. Israel can trace it's history back 5766 years. FACT.

213.42.2.21 17:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Wow! you sure know a lot about history. What about the Land of Canaan? Do you think you can erase this people just by saying FACT. Do you think it is easy to win every argument just by saying FACT. Your 'FACT' answer clearly proves you lack factual evidence, Palestine has been occupied for more than 50 years and to this moment the archeological excavation haven't turned out any proof of an Israeli or Jewish Civilatzation or state at all. As for your depedence on the Bible as a source for historical information this has been refuted by many history scholars. Nice try....though, 'FACT'!

The word itself derives from "Peleshet", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". It was NOT given by the Romans. The Philistines were mediterranean people originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers - chiefly from the Mediterranean islands - overran the Philistine districts. From the time of Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "Syria Palaestina".

The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman "Palastina"; which is derived from the Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea.

The use of the term "Palestinian" for an Arab ethnic group is a "modern political creation which has no basis in fact - and had never had any international or academic credibility before 1967".

Last 2000s Paragraph removed

I didn't feel it appropriate to discuss a current/ongoing event in the form of the current dispute in Gaza. There are no facts and no results. Someone should instead add a piece about the Hamas elections and its overall effect instead of a skirmish. If this becomes a full-scale war, this part going on right now is still just a sentence in the history of the event about how it begins.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.192.159 (talk • contribs) 00:34, July 5, 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and for the same reason. Anyway, isn't there Operation Summer Rains? -- Avi 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rights of citizenship?

I am interested to learn more about rights of citizenship. Are Jews given more rights than non-Jews? How is this determined? Lenehey 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Any Jew may automatically become an Israeli citizen under the Law of Return. Non-Jews may become citizens like in all other countries, after a certain period of living in Israel, or by marrying an Israeli (if they are over a certain age, according to a recent law). Another user may provide more legal details. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if they coming from west bank and gaza.The law is temporary i.e it should be voted every year in knesset.--Shrike 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you just missed something in your wording. The fact is that citizens from other countries may recieve israeli citizenship by marrying Israelis, EXCEPT if they come from the West Bank or the Gaza Strip (and that's the temporary law). Israel doesn't actually have a law for citizenship, and the whole process for non-jews is not well ordered. okedem 15:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all this is what was being asked. My interpretation was that Lenehey was asking whether Israeli Jews have more rights than non-Jewish citizens. In case that was the question, the answer is no to the best of my knowledge. All citizens of Israel have equal rights, including the large Arab minority living as citizens within Israel's borders (not to be confused with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.) Schrodingers Mongoose 18:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

There is one key area where non-jewish citizens have inferior rights. If an israeli arab marries a non-israeli arab, the non-israeli arab spouse is not entitled to citizenship by marriage. Any spouse of any israeli jew is entitled to marriage by citizenship. This means that arabs are second class citizens.

The prior claim is simply untrue. The only limitation here is that if a palestinian marries an Israeli (either an Arab or a Jew, it doesn't matter) he can't get legal status in Israel, because of the fact that Israel is in conflict with the palestinians (and the palestinian authority is led by Hamas, an organization which has, or several occasions, expressed the desire to destroy Israel. If an Arab marries a Jordanian arab, an Egyptian arab, an American arab or any other person, arab or not, they ARE entitled to legal status. And if a Jew marries a palestinian (there are such cases) - the palestinian still wouldn't be able to get legal status.

To sum it up - this temporary law does NOT discriminate against Arabs. okedem 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is this the case even if an Israeli Jew marries a non-Israeli non-Jew?

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, an Israeli citizen's spouse is entitled to legal status (residency, and eventually citizenship). It doesn't matter if the Israeli citizen or the spouse is Jewish or Arab. A while ago the Knesset enacted a temporary law restricting that right when it comes to Palestinians, and that law is widely misquoted and misunderstood. okedem 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What about "real estate"? In many countries being the owner of a piece of property requires being registered with a special register ("land register", for example). This is, because lawyers make a difference between "possession" (i. e. I have something in my hand) and "ownership" (I am the owner of that thing in my hand; it is not something I just borrowed). For many people a piece of land or a piece of property are the most valuable items they have (think of your house). Now Arabs are said to be rejected from those registers. Is this true? Are only Non-Israeli Arabs denied from those registers or are even those Arabs denied from getting registered which do have Israeli citizenship? --134.100.172.24 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't true. Most Israelis don't own the land under their houses, Jews or Arabs. In fact, I believe more Arabs own their land than Jews. Most of the land in Israel is held by the government, and leased (for 99 years, usually), to the occupants. Now there's an initiative to pass complete ownership of the land from the government to the people, and end that whole "lease" thing. An Arab can be registered as land owner (at the "land register") just as a jew can. What you may hear about, is land owned by the Jewish National Fund, which originally (from 1901) bought land in Palestine for jewish settlements. They own some 14% of the land in Israel. Once in a while they establish new towns, and they tried to prevent non-Jews from living in these towns (since the land was originally bought for Jews, usually using donations). However, the supreme court stopped that practice, and now Arabs can (and do) come to live in these new towns. Please note, that once the town was created, anyone can buy the land from anyone. The restriction was about the first sale, from the JNF itself, not subsequent sales. Non-Israelis can own land in Israel. They can be Arab of Jew, it doesn't matter. okedem 17:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Aid

I suggest the addition of a paragraph in relation to foreign aid and Israel. Covering both what Israel gives to other nations and what it recieves. Any thoughts? --Oiboy77 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for such information, it would be legitimate information to add to the article. Hopefully such information would be broken down into different categories, such as outright grants, loans, loan guarantees and the like. Often one sees huge lump-sum figures thrown around for foreign aid (in general, not just for Israel), but if they include such things as the amount of guaranteed loans which are in fact paid off by the borrowing nation, they vastly overstate the amount of "aid." Another category of aid, which may not show up in official statistics, would be purchases of goods at vastly inflated prices; I do not know whether this happens much any more, but the Soviet Union used to throw a lot of money around this way, to nations such as Cuba, without calling it "foreign aid." It also would be interesting to see comparative information both for Israel and other nations, particularly its immediate neighbors. 6SJ7 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What would be deemed "reliable sources"? I have noticed almost all non-Zionist edits have been reverted as their sources are not "reliable". Also would foreign investment be considered foriegn aid? --Oiboy77 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course non-Zionist means stormfront.org and David Duke.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting white power websites on the discussion page. It is both an insult to peoples intellect and may be construed as a personal attack. You seem to be convoluting the fact that Zionism and Judaism are two seperate things.--Oiboy77 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oiboy, I do not know why you are saying this (22:03, 7 July) in response to me, I have made (to my knowledge) exactly one edit to this article, ever, and it was not a revert. It also was not an edit of anything written by you. So I do not know what the problem is. I referred to "reliable sources" because it is a rule of Wikipedia, and also because and I thought I should write as precisely as possible, so I said "reliable source" instead of just "source". But I don't see any need for a hypothetical discussion of what might be a reliable source. Do you have, or can you find, information about foreign aid that you would like to add to the article, and that you believe is from a reliable source? If so, add it, and what you write will be subject to editing the same as every other statement in every article on Wikipedia. As for foreign investment, if it is made by a private (i.e. non-governmental) enterprise, as most investment is, I don't think it could be considered foreign aid. If it were made by a foreign governmental entity, then I think it would depend on whether it is actually being made as an investment; in other words, does the party providing the funds anticipate receiving a return on the investment, or appreciation of the asset, and do they expect to be able to get their money (at least) back at the end? If so, it probably cannot be considered "aid." 6SJ7 22:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jews have an undemocratice law stating that israel must have a population of at least two thirds jew at any given time. So the answer is no, jews have more rights than non-jews in israel and in many other contries—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.225.153 (talk • contribs) 17:53, July 12, 2006 (UTC)

You would not happen to have the source for that in the Laws of the State of Israel, would you? -- Avi 21:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear - that "law" does not exist. It's just anti-Israel propaganda. okedem 17:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

For many years Israel recieved the largest chunk of the United states foreign aid. The chunk was reduced a few years ago, but the percentage of this aid to be used for the jewish army went up. this one reason the enimies of israel are also the enimies of the united states, if you give somebody a gun to go commit murder than you are also responsible for the murder along with the one that pulled the trigger.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.225.153 (talk • contribs) 17:58, July 12, 2006 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question; which you obliged me by not answering. -- Avi 22:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the US military aid to Israel is not cash money, but money to be used specifically for purchases from American weapons factories. This arrangement lets the US help (basically subsidize) it's own industry, while helping Israel. Also, since the IDF is considered a powerful army, if the IDF purchases some new weapon from the US, it increases the chances of other nations buying it. Basically, it's a marketing/subsidizing/aid thing. okedem 17:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article violates Wikipedia's NPOV clause. It is written from a Zionist viewpoint and neutral viewpoints are frequently edited out/reverted back to pro-Zionist propoganda. -- The preceding unsigned commented was made at 22:15, 7 July 2006 by Oiboy77

Can you cite any specific examples where the article is biased? Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 22:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire article is sympathetic to the Zionist cause, mentioning only in passing the toll that Jewish immigration took on the Palestinians. Also, it seems to suggest that the war was provoked by the Arabs. Not exactly neutral, and actually quite inaccurate.--Smitty Mcgee 00:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Proof please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Which war? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article includes nothing regarding the second class status of Palestinians or the silencing of their media. Please admit that it deserves to be tagged as only representing one viewpoint, i.e. that of Israeli supporters.Smitty Mcgee 02:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite any example of the silencing of Israeli media? The media constantly reports critical of the goverment, and I've never seen it ignore a story reported on international media because it's critical toward Israel. Where is the silencing? okedem 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not the article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't see anything wrong, except that certain editors push their unsourced POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As Smitty Magee said just because something is "sourced" doesn't mean it is unbiased or neutral. I vote to put the tags back. Please do not BAN me for editing in a tag as others here think this article in not neutral too.--Oiboy77 03:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Make your case. Cite examples within the article that would indicate that it is biased. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 05:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite the claim that Israel is "silencing their media"? I'm curious as to if the reason you think the article is biased as, as of yet, you haven't made any claims other than the vague statement of it being biased. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 05:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Biased Article

Introduction- To call Israel a democracy overlooks its apartheid policies. The Negev desert is filled with bedouin villages which are not even recognized by the Israeli government and therefore not provided with basic needs such as water supply. No country can claim to be a democracy if they do not support the basic human rights of all its people.

If you take political theory, democracy doesn't require the application of basic human rights. Really, democracy just requires voting, even if not all citizens are eligible to vote. In any case, Bedouin tribes aren't provided water becaus they travel, and they don't remain in one place for too long. Not to be rude, because I totally respect the migrant tribes in Israel, but if they choose to live in the desert and migrate, it isn't the Israeli government's responsibility to provide water wherever they go. Bedouins aren't prevented from going into stores and buying stuff if they need it, but Bedouins aren't a suffering people in Israel. They have chosen to live the way they do, and I'm quite sure they enjoy it.

• See WP:NOR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights made its report on the Negev Bedouin, along with the Arab minority in Israel as a whole, in 1998. I did not make it up.Smitty Mcgee 06:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical roots- The article speaks of mass expulsions of Jewish presence in the region, as it should. However, if we are addressing the historical roots of Israel, would it not be biased to leave out the manner by which the Jewish people originally came to the land? The article makes no mention of the pagan tribes which were the original inhabitants of the land.

• The article you want to discuss is History of ancient Israel and Judah. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Existence of this article does not excuse bias on the main page. As this article mentions violence against Jews, it should, in fairness, mention violence against others who made their home in the "Promised Land".Smitty Mcgee 06:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Zionism and Aliyah- "Arab riots in Palestine of 1929 killed 133 Jews, including 67 in Hebron". This is the only mention of violence in this section. To leave out the massacres of Palestinian civilians that stood in the way of the developing Jewish state is simply not neutral.

• The section in question is a summary of History of Israel. The "massacres of Palestinian civilians" did not play an important role in the establishment of the State of Israel. I would be interested to check the articles on 20+ Arab countries: which one of them mentions expulsions of Jews or even their millenia-long presence there. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• So, if there is a lack of neutrality on articles concerning Arab countries, we should excuse an obvious bias here? I disagree. Interesting use of quotes there, as if you don't believe that Palestinian civilians were massacred. Do you believe they are still alive, or is it just the civilian part that irks you? Either way, that sounds like original research, so go check out that policy of which you seem to be so fond. (If you still don't think it was important, and need some citation, just let me know).Smitty Mcgee 06:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"...legitimately bought and owned by Zionist organizations plus additional private land owned by Jews" We must at least admit that the legitimacy of land-acquisition methods employed by the Jewish immigrants is debatable. There is absolutely no mention of differing points of view,

• Because the differing point of view is wrong. The Jews of the first Aliyah did not "steal" the land from Arabs living in present Israel at the time, and it is a huge exagerration to claim that Jews displaced thousands and thousands of Arabs. In fact, there weren't many Arabs there to speak of in the first place. The majority of the land Jews eventually occupied was bought from absentee landlords in Jerusalem, Beirut, or in Turkey. For more information I suggest reading Chapter 2 of Alan Dershowitz' "The Case for Israel"

• Wrong place again. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Really? Seemed okay to me. The use of the word "legitimately" is really nice. Like someone is trying to test our bias detection skills. I found it! I win!Smitty Mcgee 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Underground Groups- "The Irgun adhered to a much more active approach, which included retaliation to attacks and initiation of armed actions against the British". Certainly the massacre of 254 civilians in Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948 by the Irgun does not count as "retaliation".

• You mix up the articles Irgun and Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• No, I do not. The Irgun are mentioned in the Israel article, and that was not my decision. If this is the wrong article for that, then lets delete it. I just find it objectionable that terrorism is excused as "retaliation".Smitty Mcgee 07:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Establishment of the State- I was already forced to edit this section, and apparently everyone was okay with that. My edit: "Attacks on civilians by both sides soon turned into widespread fighting..."

War of Independence and Migration- To label the Arab armies as "invaders" while claiming that Israel was acting is self defense is at the least biased, in my opinion offensive. "Large numbers of the Arab population fled or were driven out of the newly-created Jewish State." Even with this claim, the authors of this passage still seem to believe that Israel was defending itself.

• Here and below: see WP:NOR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• O RLY? What was my original research? The idea that perhaps Israel was the aggressor? Well, you caught me. I have a suggestion, though: let's adhere to our policy of neutrality and not take sides in a passage about a war.Smitty Mcgee 07:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

1950's and 1960's- This section seems to leave out something that the Israeli Human Rights League revealed, i.e. 20,000 Arab houses were destroyed in Israel and on the West Bank. Not one passing mention of this fact, yet an insistence on focusing on war with Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Interesting how an entire indigenous population can be written out of history.

1970's- "...in the early-1970s, Palestinian terror groups embarked on an unprecedented wave of attacks against Israel and Jewish _targets in other countries." "Those two groups (Irgun and Lehi) were even classified as terror organizations after the murder of a Swedish diplomat." Please compare and contrast those two statements.

1980's- Trying to write about the invasion of Lebanon without mentioning Sabra and Shatila, or even making a passing comment about other civilian _targets? Not neutral.

Government- Absolutely no mention of the second class status of Palestinians or the censorship of Arab news outlets, obviously integral to an unbiased discussion of Israeli government. Palestinians are not recognized by Israel as a national minority, in direct violation of UN Resolution 181. The 1991 Article 19 World Report on Information, Freedom and Censorship discusses the "harassment, physical abuse, arrest, detention, imprisonment and deportation of journalists, writers and academics in the West Bank and Gaza for engaging in their legitimate occupations."

For these reasons, among others, this article must be tagged as not representing all points of view. Smitty Mcgee 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A short response to the above: 1. Negev Bedouin - Many democratic countries fail to provide services of all sorts to their citizens. These included the US and Canada (phone in remote areas) and India (almost everything unfortunately). 2. The original pagans - Jewish presence in Israel spans the last 2,500 years at the very least. While an article of any country should go back a reasonable distance, going 3,000 years for a 50 year old country is extreme to say the least. 3. Invading Arab countries - in the real world, there could exist more than two sides. In this case, both Jordan and Egypt conquered and annexed parts of Israel/Palestine. Whether Israel was the agressor against the Palestinians is immaterial to this claim. 4. A variety of other subjects (freedom of speech, Sabra and Shatila etc.) - These belong and exist in other articles. The 1980's paragraph is linked to the War in Lebanon which does contain the Sabra and Shatila Massacre. This is an article about Israel and it appears pretty long as it is. --89.1.249.251 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Roy

I don't think Smitty should be allowed access to this article. He's extremely anti-Semetic, uses the word "Zionist" in a very disparaging manner, and continues to use blood libel against Jews. Point of view or not, users are not allowed to make up or lie about information simply because it fits their POV. - MSTCrow 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.183 15:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Very biased article indeed, It even ignores the presence of the palestinian people as a righful owner of the land thoughout 400 years of Ottman Empire. It strongly demand a re-write, for they policies of this entity have deprived me of the right to live in my own homeland (Yes I am a palestinian refugee).

It's so easy to ignore the fact that the Zionists arrived at Israel during many years, from the late 19th century to 1948, with no use of force, buying lands for hefty sums. The Jews did not attack anyone, just purchased lands from their owners, to set up settlements and farms. The Arab owners did not have to sell their lands - they chose to. But what happened when the Jews tried to set up farms on the newly purchased land (something they had no experience in, as Jews where not allowed to farm land in Europe)? They were attacked and killed by Arabs. Also, it's worth mentioning that a great number of arabs came to Israel following the financial development brought about by the Jews. okedem 15:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Zionists legally bought the land with their own money. The Palestinians sold it to them as a real estate transaction. The Zionists decided to use the land they had purchased to form a new country. Palestinians sold the land in question. They no longer own it. If I buy a house, does the former owner have a right to come up to me and tell me I have to give it back because he doesn't like how I put a new extension onto the house? Absolutely not. It's my property now, I own it, he cannot tell me what I can or cannot do with it. There is no way to rationally claim that the Israelis are "on Palestinian land" when the Palestinians willingly sold the land to the Israelis. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.22 11:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC) To equal a house with a land of a whole people, is an ignorance of common sense. You can't buy some land the day before and wake up in the morning the next day and decide to establish a state on that land. If that is correct, then what prevents me from buying a land anywhere in the world and declaring my own state? You wanted to prove that arabs 'wellingly sold' thier lands, but ended proving the lack of legal foundation in creating a state on a land 'purchased' for private properity and agriculture. Gosh! Even if you want yo build a house you should get a license, did you have a 'license' to establish a state on these lands? So please, pick another false metaphor, this one is weak.

Oh, I see we're making progress. Are you waiving your claim that the land was not lawfully purchased? Cause that's what this seems to me. The sellers of the land cannot decide what the new owners will do with it. That's up to the local ruler. What you wrote above is, again, unbased. The Jews did not buy land in a Palestinian state, and tried to establish a Jewish state. The ruler here was, at first, the Ottomans, and then the British. Britain, as the ruler of the territory, promised the Jews their own state, with the Balfour Declaration, 1917. Following this declaration, the League of Nations decided that Britain should have control of Palestine, under the Palestine Mandate, for the explicit purpose of establishing a national home for the Jews. So, yes, the Jews did have a "licence" to establish a state. okedem 12:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes actually, if look more closely into one of my posts, you will see that the land you LEGALLY purchased it is roughly 7-8% of the total area of Palestine. As for the 'license' issue I will elaborate further in a short time, but it seems that you are confused between the Belfor Declaration and the concept of a mandate.213.42.2.23 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate#Class_A_mandates : ["...have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."]. As you see there is no mention of EXPLICIT purpose of establishing a NATIONAL HOMELAND. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine : [During World War I the British had made two promises regarding territory in the Middle East. Britain had promised the local Arabs, through Lawrence of Arabia, independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East, in exchange for their supporting the British; and Britain had promised to create and foster a Jewish national home as laid out in the Balfour Declaration, 1917.]

As you see, britain misused the Mandate Trust and gave our land away for you. 'License for a state'? Do you believe that this sentence is correct? It your claim to this state is legal you don't need any sort of license, the only reason for licenses in such cases is to cover up the illegality of the actions taken. 213.42.2.28 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

From the text of the mandate itself (please check twice before claiming flasehoods):

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

Clear enough?

You are the one that raised the question of license. I don't think Israel needed a license, but if you insist - there it is. okedem 16:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

* Actually pretty clear and puts a lot of things in perspective. First among others, it nearly confirms the theories on consperacy. Sheesh, during all my reading not even one arabic source refernced this. It even makes it more logical why the Mandate Authorities leaked land to the Jewish Agency. Cast doubts on the whole devision resolutions. And proves that Britain has deceived the Arabs after pursuing them to revolt against the Ottomans, actually, A Well Written Scenario. A plan worthy of a lawer! Gotta give the zionists credit for such a great plot. Anyway, that proves my argument:you needed this license as a cover up for legitimacy, and your occupation of that land will stay illegal, and the existance of Israel for matter, is not accepltable. As we, or rather the politicians of that time, share a part of the guilt for allowing this to happen. 213.42.2.10 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(I moved your comment so it starts after my signature).

"consperacy"? Between the Arab sources, you mean? Maybe they're just ignorant (or want the Arabic speakers to stay ignorant). Anyway, if you knew any history at all, you would know what I've just referenced. okedem 18:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure you should be happy, You all have mastered a 'great' plot, expelled a great deal of Arab Palestinian Population out of thier home land, and occupying our land. But you still lack legitimacy, you may have all the 'legal' cover up you need, Mandates .. Resolutions ..etc But the main claim that you base your existance upon is invalid. Will prepare a thorough revision of the article in discussion and the historical 'facts' you claim, and will see how solid they are. 213.42.2.23 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.22 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Ehm, Buying is a broad concept. The contract itself might be correct, but how about the means that led to that contract? As for your argument that arabs didn't have to sell thier lands, well As we palestinians know the CORRECT version of history we all know that if the landlords didn't sell, the land would have been magically sold somehow. I don't know what they teach you in school about that period of history, but it is a Propaganda version indeed. As for your claim that they were killed, GIVE ME PROOF. Even if that was correct, They (Zionists) would be still considered as Occupiers (And they still are). One interseting thing though, WHO WERE THOSE ARABS WHO COME TO ISRAEL AFTER THE "FINANCIAL GROWTH"? To conclude, I really feel sorry for you, to me, the Israeli Education System is a huge operation of brainwashing.

Are you really suggesting the Jews from Eastern Europe, weak and unarmed, took the land forcefully from the arabs? Have you any proof of that? Do you even think that's possible? Your claims are unbased, and quite simply - false. About the killing - I refer you to the articles about the Jaffa Riots, and the 1929 Palestine riots. There were many smaller incidents, isolated shootings, etc. , on the Jewish settlements.

"Even if that was correct, They (Zionists) would be still considered as Occupiers" - Would you like to explain that? How can the zionists be considered occupiers, if they rightfully purchased the land?

About Arab immigration and other issues, I refer you to this page. It's a website run by Arabs and Israelis. About the refugee issue - a lot of the arabs left in 1948 to "get out of the way" while the Jews were to be killed (as 7 arab nations declared war on Israel the moment it was established). They bet wrong, and couldn't return. However, if you'll notice, somehow, Arabs make up 20% of Israel's current population - they are the ones who chose to stay, and recieved citizenship. okedem 17:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.182 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Look dear (metaphorically speaking), I don't need lectures from you about MY history. I am a palestinian refugee, so I know all about it. I will post a reply tomorrow insha Allah. But I would like to note something about the Arabs who stayed. If you want to convince me that they are treated equally so you are either misinformed or are speaking propaganda. We all know that '48 Arab Palestinians are treated as second class citizins (A blow to your statement that they received citizenship) And they are being discriminated against in almost all aspects of life. If you are so sure that they 'FULL' citizens of your state, can you explain why the police killed 13 of them in 2003 (or 2004 don't accurately remember?) Do you really beileve that the police would have acted similarly if the demonstrators were JEWS??? If you asked me... well why doncha answer that yourself.

Well, that's convenient - you ask for references, and then you ignore them. What an arguement strategy. The FACT of this is, the Arabs did recieve citizenship, and do have full rights. They vote, they recieve social benefits, medical care, just like the Jews. If you claim otherwise, bring refereneces!

The event you mentioned took place in October 2000. The demonstrators acted very violently, and that's why they were shot. Do I think it's right? I don't know, as I haven't studied the matter. The police didn't act similarly against Jewish rioters (such as during the Hitnatkut). I wish it had. okedem 18:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.23 12:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC) The Black citizens of Aparthide South Africa had citizenship, also Black-Americans did in '50s and '60s and were still considered Second-Class citizens. So if you mean that by the fact that Arab Palestinians hold Israeli citizenship you brought no-thing new. As for the discremination against '48 Arab Palestinians look at this link http://www.arabs48.com/display.x?cid=1&sid=32&id=36048 it's a site run by '48 Arab Palestinians, if case you don't read arabic, it talks about the discrimination in Infra-structure projects between arab and jew communities. As for the your comment on the different ways of action taken by the Israeli forces it reveales that your state itself doesn't consider Arab Palestinians equal citizens. As for your claim that the jew immegrants to palestine were peaceful (the kind of socialist romance saga your government wants you to believe) I will look into some resources and post back. And will do necessary changes myself in I had to.

Yes, there is some discrimination in resources between Jewish and Arab towns, and that's been confirmed in a new government report. It's not right, and shouldn't happen. About the different ways of action - the american police doesn't treat black or latinos the way they treat whites. Is the US racist? Discrimination always happens, and it's always wrong, and should be dealt with. However, the Arabs vote, just like anyone else, and have representaion in the parliament, just like everyone else. A lot of the difference in investments in Arab towns comes from very low money collection on the side of the municipal authorities, who freely give exempt and discounts to residents.

If you claim the Jewish immigrants were not peaceful, I demand you reference that claim. And stop with the propaganda claims. Unlike the Arab countries, Israel has a free media, and information here is not controlled by the government. Also, I don't need the education system to tell me what happened here, as I know all about it from my own family. So just stop with the accusations against "the Israeli education system". These are only diversions on your part, in order to avoid talking about the facts. okedem 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.21 13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC) No comment on the discreminiation part, thought I was just kidding eh? Your argument that they are full citizens lacks credibility becuase of that. And yes, US was racist at that time (50s-60s). And nice try paraphrasing me (I know it all from my family), well tell me what your family told you and we'll see how accurate it is. As for the jewish immegrants I said I will look into some source and will post back.

I know about the discrimination, and cannot comment on the site you linked, since I don't know arabic. Look at black neighborhood in the US, look at the different way the police treats blacks. Is the US still racist, in your opinion? Because that's similar to what's happening in Israel, and it's changing too. However, they are full citizens. The discrimination is against arab towns, but are you claiming discrimination against arab individuals (for instance, arabs living in mixed, or mostly jewish towns)? Because I don't see any, and haven't heard about it from the arabs who studied with me in school, or in the university, or the arabs who taught the courses I was taking.

I was not paraphrasing you, I do know about it from my family (and friends' families, and their friends' families). What do you want to know? I'll do my best to answer. okedem 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

protected wiki site

I understand that the site is protected from edit. It happened between two edits that I was doing. I feel responsible and wanted to ask about the matter. I feel that the Religion page is ok and wanted to know when protection was coming off.RoddyYoung 09:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Something tells me that 3000 years of religious conflict has something to do with it... Not you. --217.65.158.118 09:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

5766 years (Hebrew: Hatashsav, an alfanumeric for 5,766). --65.96.79.16 01:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Roy

1. Democratic countries may fail to provide services to their citizens, but Israel fails to recognize certain populations within their borders as citizens deserving of rights. Big difference.

• See WP:NOR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights found this practice objectionable. I simply agree.Smitty Mcgee 06:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The UN is not a neutral source when it comes to Israel. See United Nations and Israel. ←Humus sapiens 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That's convinient. I suppose the United States and Israel are the only two nations in possesion of the truth. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that the UN is indeed biased against Israel. Shouldn't a neutral article at least mention accusations of racism and oppression. And no, I do not believe it is fair to link every blemish on Israel's history to a separate page.Smitty Mcgee 16:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Your refernence to NOR is utterly spurious, and you probably know it. It is a mere deflection tactic. Olborne 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

2. The articles states "For over 3,000 years, Jews have regarded the Land of Israel as their homeland, both as a Holy Land and as a Promised land." Yet you claim, "going 3,000 years for a 50 year old country is extreme to say the least." Interesting. It is strange that the article only goes as far back in history as it is helpful to the Zionist cause.

• This is true", For over 3,000 years, Jews have regarded the Land of Israel as their homeland, both as a Holy Land and as a Promised land. What's the problem here? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes this is true. It is also true that before this, the Land of Israel was home to a number of pagan tribes, apparently not worthy of mention in this article, because going back that far would be "extreme".Smitty Mcgee 06:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The pagan tribes extict for 3+ millenia are not worthy to be mentioned in the article on the State of Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The "extiction" of these pagan tribes happened to coincide with the establishment of Jewish presence in the area. Yes, they are worthy of mention.Smitty Mcgee 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Do you have any proof of that extinction?--Shrike 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I assume Humus Sapiens was attempting to spell extinct. I also assume that the pagan tribes are extinct, given that they no longer exist. However, as Humus Sapiens is the one who brought it up, and as I no longer wish to argue with belligerent administrators, I will leave it to him to prove it.Smitty Mcgee 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

3. I don't even know what you're trying to say here. This is the real world, and there are more than two sides. The article conveniently fails to mention all sides except one, i.e. that of the Zionists. You state "whether Israel was the agressor (sic) against the Palestinians is immaterial to this claim". Wrong, nothing could be more relevant to a discussion of Israeli history.

4. Apparently you do not believe that the silencing of an ethnic minority is worthy of mention in an article about a nation's government. Fine. As for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, the Kahan Commission found Ariel Sharon personally responsible. I do not believe it is neutral to leave such information hidden amongst links. Personally, I do not believe that the length of an article is an excuse for bias.

I assume you agree with my the rest of my assessment of this article's faults since you do not attack it.Smitty Mcgee 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• It seems that you want to cram all your favorite pieces of history into a summary section. See WP:SUMMARY. This article is already 60k long, I think it needs culling rather than adding more details. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, creating a summary section of Israel's history of slaughter and apartheid oppression linking away from the page would be convenient, especially while all the positives remain on the main page. Perhaps in conjunction we could make the slightest mention of my above points somewhere within the article, since no one seems to disagree with them. It just doesn't seem very neutral to have a 60k entry on Israel which refuses to mention those historic instances that the public may find objectionable. A quick tour through the archives will make it clear that I am not the only one who feels this way. Smitty Mcgee 06:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Smitty, an articles on a country isn't a place to demonize its people. You don't see the article Palestinians citing the fact that their suicide bombers often kill innocent children and are later glorified as martyrs by nearly the entire Palestinian population. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• An articles (sic) on a country is not a place to take sides on a political matter, since this is (purportedly) an encyclopedia. Rather than demonizing Israelis, as you suggest, let's just get the facts straight and be fair to all parties involved. Edit the article on the Palestinians if it is incomplete. But be careful, you'll probably get blocked for offending someone with authority.Smitty Mcgee 07:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Smitty, this is not about the Palestinians. Why don't you insert information on Jewish pogroms and expulsions in every country per sections in Jewish exodus from Arab lands, and then let's continue this conversation. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the article is not about the Palestinians. It is about Israel. Why would I possibly want to mention the Palestinians in an article about Israel? Perhaps we should edit the blacks out of the article on South Africa as well. Fact is, the Palestinians are essential to any neutral arguement regarding Israel. Mentioning the Arab states with which Israel has fought while leaving the Palestinians out is quite outrageous. And with all the time it is taking me to fix this article, due largely to administrative resistance, I don't see how you expect me to change articles on 20+ Arab states. Here is my suggestion: I'll take this article, and you fix the articles on the Arab states.Smitty Mcgee 15:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Smitty, the Palestinians are being mentioned numerous times in this article, but this discussion is not about that. Don't expect to be taken seriously here until you "fix" the articles on the Arab states. As you are trying to push extreme POV here ("apartheid", etc.), expect being challenged. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand the basis of your arguement. Apparently, you believe I have no right to edit this article until I edit twenty others. Well, listen: you have no right to demand such a prerequisite. Bias should be removed where it is found. Why don't you address the neutrality of this article rather than send me to do your errands?

As for the Palestinians' place in this article, I have listed below each time they are mentioned- 1. "Furthermore, in the early-1970s, Palestinian terror groups embarked on an unprecedented wave of attacks against Israel and Jewish _targets in other countries." 2. "...Palestinian terrorists held hostage and killed members of the Israeli delegation."

You know, the words terror and terrorist are used in this article eight times. Seven of those refer to Palestinians. Neutrality if I ever saw it!

3. "It was also agreed to lend autonomy to Palestinians across the Green Line."

They didn't have autonomy? I didn't know, since the article failed to mention it.

4. "Israeli forces expelled Palestinian Liberation Organization forces from the country, forcing the organization to relocate to Tunis. "

Sounds like a fair fight. Good thing we don't mention civilian expulsion, since the article is so long.

5. "Although seen as a hardliner opposing the Oslo Accords, Netanyahu withdrew from Hebron and signed the Wye River Memorandum giving wider control to the Palestinian National Authority."

I have concluded that Palestinians are either terrorists or members of the government. In other words, no innocent civilians.

6. "Barak's offer to Palestinian State on 90% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was rejected."

Come on, we're giving back most of the land.

My point is, this article's "neutrality" is laughable. And yes, I intend to fix this one before moving on. Looks like you'll actually have to debate me!Smitty Mcgee 04:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure that you mention the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's alliance with Nazi Germany.

• This would only be fair, since the article mentions the Stern Gang's attempted alliance with the Nazis.Smitty Mcgee 16:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Smitty, but I think your proposed changes would cause a lot more harm than good, and are fundamentally unfair. In all of your comments above, you bash the article for not including an extra POV to further explain the statements you cite. But not ONCE do you claim any of the statements are, in fact, false. A statement such as "Barak's offer to Palestinian State on 90% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was rejected" is completely, verifiably, 100% factual. Any addition, such as "This was unacceptable to the palestinians since they demanded 100% of their stolen land returned" is blatantly non-neutral. Similarly, there is no need to insert things like "Israel offered these unprecedented concessions despite 4 wars of aggression and hundreds of terrorist attacks, something no other democracy would ever contemplate." Your efforts to "correct" the POV of this article would have the effect of spinning it wildly in favour of one side. This would then lead to others inserting more statements like those above to re-balance things, and the only coneivable result would be massive bloating of an already large article. Just my $0.02. Schrodingers Mongoose 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• An exclusive collection of facts can be just as biased as an editorial, since not all points of view are included. I do not attack the article's truthfulness, but its fairness. Also, your first hypothetical statement is only non-neutral because you inserted the word "stolen". When speaking of land, the word "stolen" is just as biased as the term "legitimately owned". As for your second attempt, I wouldn't even consider entering that in the article, since it suggests that Israel is alone in its aggression. Consider that we could insert non-Zionist points of view without being blatatnly libelous. Finally, you seem to concede that the article is indeed biased. In order to fix this, we should not insert opposition propaganda, but simply ensure that all aspects of Israel's history are mentioned. Certain editors seem to believe that the facts themselves are biased, and not worthy of inclusion. Thank you for your two cents.Smitty Mcgee 17:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand where you're coming from. But just to continue the debate...let's say we did insert the statement you say is neutral: "This was unacceptable to the palestinians since they demanded 100% of their land returned." My point is this opens a whole other can of worms. Is it really "their" land? There is a legitimate argument to be made, and I'm sure some editors would make it, that the Palestinians forfeited the right to much of that land by joining in wars against Israel and launching terrorist attacks. Others would respond by explaining what they feel is the justification for those wars and some of those attacks, writing about what they feel are oppressive Israeli actions, etc etc etc. Edit wars ensue again. My point remains...the original statement that the Palestinians turned down Barak's deal is as NPOV as this particular segment can get, and I think it extends to the entire article. Personally, I think the article is doing about as well as it can at this point, as any efforts to change its POV will simply not be allowed to stand by those on either "side". Schrodingers Mongoose 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, let me thank you for being civil. I understand what you're saying, and obviously an article concerning a hot-button issue such as this will never be satisfactory to all. For now, this is going to be my final word on this matter, as I have already exerted immeasurable energy into trying to see this article improved. I must say that I still find the article extremely biased, for all of the reasons I have mentioned above. I also think that it could be made more neutral, and that inserting a different bias could be avoided. But, I will leave that to future editors to decide. Finally, I would like to express my disappointment in those who abuse their administrative power and refuse to address the actual issue.Smitty Mcgee 04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-presidential system?

Isreal has both a head of government and a head of state. Wouldn't that make it a semi-presidential system? It does show Israel as a Semi-presdiential system on that map on the semi-presidential system.--Scott3 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just spend a few minutes squinting at the map at Semi-presidential system, and after figuring out how to get the largest version of the map, I believe you are mistaken. At maximum size, Israel is clearly in orange (meaning a parliamentary system). At smaller sizes, Israel seems to be two tiny orange dots with a yellow dot, which I think is supposed to be the West Bank (let's not get into that issue) and then a yellow dot above it, which I think is supposed to be Lebanon. Anyway, Israel is correctly portrayed as a parliamentary system, as it also is on the map at Parliamentary system. Israel does have a parliamentary, not a semi-presidential system. If you look at the definition at Semi-presidential system you will see that the president in such a system is not a "ceremonial figurehead." The president of Israel is just that, a ceremonial figurehead. As for having a separate head of state and head of government, as far as I know, all parliamentary countries do. While the best-known heads of state in parliamentary systems are monarchs, a number of nations have parliamentary systems with figurehead presidents, including Germany, Italy, India, Turkey -- and Israel. 6SJ7 01:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, Israel is a pretty normal run-of-the-mill parlimentary government, the only thing that sets them apart from some of the larger countries like Germany, is the fact that they are small enough to only have one district, probably most other parlimentary governments would do the same if they were the size of Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel may be unique, or close to it, in not having districts. I looked at a couple of other really small parliamentary countries, Grenada and Saint Kitts and Nevis and, while their lower houses of parliament are very small (15 and 11 members respectively), all members are elected from single-member constituencies. In my state we have local school boards that are larger than the St. Kitts House, and even more amusingly, St. Kitts has a three (3) member Senate! (I love this stuff.) At its foundation, Israel made what I think is a very wise decision, that it only needed one house of parliament, and that in a country so small, and with no previous governmental history to dictate division into districts, there was no need for districts. 6SJ7 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that districts exists so that there is proportional representation for all parts of the country, I guess that Israel decided their population was homogenous enough that it was unnecessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Israel's population is extremely heterogenous. Diving the country to districts would cause minorities to not be represented. Additionaly, districts would make little sense, as Israel is a very small country, and all areas of it have the same interests. okedem 08:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am quite aware of the subtleties of Israeli society, no need to be pedantic- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

A few points here (and isn't it refreshing to have a debate on this page that isn't about the Israel/Palestine stuff?) First, Scott seems to misunderstand what a semi-presidential system is, as opposed to a parliamentary system. Both a semi-presidential and a parliamentary system have separate heads of state and heads of government. The distinguishing issue is how powerful the president is. In semi-presidential systems like France or Russia, although any government that is formed must have the support of a majority in Parliament, the president nevertheless has substantial power in his own right. In such countries, it is the President (Chirac, Putin) and not the Prime Minister (Villepin, some Russian dude whose name I don't know) who is considered the "leader" of the country in things like international summits. Israel is a parliamentary system, like Italy.

As to districts or not, many of the smallest countries are former British colonies, and as such have adopted the UK tradition of the single member constituency. In PR countries, the number of districts does tend to be related to the size of the country, although I'm not sure of the details. And one could easily imagine an Israeli PR system divided into districts along the lines of the districts in which the country itself is divided. The idea that all areas of a small country have the same interests is ridiculous. Different areas always have somewhat different interests, it's just a way of the world. To refer back to Saint Kitts and Nevis, the people of Nevis and the people of Saint Kitts don't particularly like each other, and have different interests. john k 11:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should leave scott alone, he asked a simple questions that happened to be wrong, and we have just written like 3 pages about why he is so far off, I think it is pretty unnecessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yes - I didn't read carefully and failed to realize that 6SJY had already basically said this. john k 23:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I liked everone explantion about Semi-presidential system:)--Scott3 00:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

More Maps, Please

Can anyone provide maps of this region prior to the establishment of the country, maps showing Jewish immigration and settlement patterns prior to the establishment of the country, and maps of the changing borders after the country was established? Thanks! --TimeDog 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Attention: Israel at War with Lebanon, needs current events tag and/or appropriate section

ISRAEL IS EMBROILED IN A WAR WITH LEBANON AT THE MOMENT, following attacks by Hezbollah on Haifa and other towns. Israel has blockaded Lebanon by sea and air. this needs to be noted. 68.32.48.42 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Masterhomer 20:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Done. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it creates an inconsistancy relative to the pages of other nations (ex. there is not a current events tag or section on the United States page regarding Iraq). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.14.42 (talk • contribs)

Well then perhaps America should have a current events tag on its page too. Just because it's America doesn't mean the military action in Iraq shouldn't be documented as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonioBu (talk • contribs)

Well then maybe you should look over the page for every nation and make sure each one has a current events tag on its page. Oh wait is it only military actions that justify the tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.14.42 (talk • contribs)

Seeing how this is a major topic all over the news in every country, I think it justifies the tag. Yonatanh 06:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with tag, and disagree with need for separate section. This is meant to be an ancyclopedia entry on Israel, not a news site entry on it. In six months time we can perhaps assess how relevant this affair is compared to everything else we could write about regarding Israel. I would suggest that people look at the pages for major countries such as the US, UK etc and see how current events are dealt with there, and in the meantime maintain a sense of proportion. Palmiro | Talk 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely ignore the sentiments of unsigned comments. The current war that Israel has been backed into a corner in waging against terrorism and terrorists in Lebanon is a war. This is notable in and of itself, and should be listed in the article. Both Israel and Lebanon have openly declared a state of war, and as such, this should be included. - MSTCrow 09:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Israel attacked Lebanon and caused comparable levels of havoc there a couple of times in the 1990s, and those events don't appear to be mentioned at all. We don't as yet have reason to believe that this attack is so much more important than those ones, have we? Palmiro | Talk 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think the current events tag should be removed; the current events are being handled in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis article. It might be worth adding a link to that in the 2000s history section, although it's not really history yet... UltraNurd 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The terrorist organization Hezzbollah has declared "open war" Hezbollah Aircraft Attacks Israeli Warship Off Beirut on Israel. I believe that's worth noting. - MSTCrow 02:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They may have said they were ready for 'open war'... but which side had the warship there? Words like "terrorist" and slanting this thing is POV. 68.6.254.16 15:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Terrorist"?? Hmmm, You may call it as you want, but sure you can't put that in the article if Wikipedia claims objectivity. I will change it myself if you did. To ask the above mentioned question again: "which side had the warship there?"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.241.182 (talk • contribs) 13:46, July 16, 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't it worth noting? I'm going to add a couple of sentences on this, and I'm going to fight to keep them. Every other military conflict Israel has been in is noted in this section, there's no reason to wait. I'm sure info on America invading Iraq was added to both articles the day it happened. bob rulz 13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pop Density Rank in Info Box is Wrong

Not sure if it is part of an edit war or not but the current pop density ranking in the info box is 18th, when it should be 40th, see List_of_countries_by_population_density. Something to fix when the article is unprotected. --Ben Houston 16:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a Country ?

Israel is not a country (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/14/113819/889) --Jabba27 17:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

DailyKos is notoriously anti-Semitic. No dice. - MSTCrow 02:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should any critisism to Israel is always labeled "anti-Semitic", that is not objective,,, As for the above mentioned idea, yes Israel might be a state, but it surely lacks the description of a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.25 (talk • contribs)

Hatred ofthe Jews has taken many forms throughout history. Anti-Judaism, Anti-Semitism and now Anti-Zionism. They're all the same thing, though. Just because people who hate keep shifting their reasoning and their arguments with the changing times does not make the hatred any less relevant. Legtitimate criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitic. Believing the nonsense that is put out by some people who hate the Jews (ie blood libel, that the Israelis mass-murder the Palestinians, etc.) is. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 13:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.180 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Can you please explain so the murder of a whole family and by a Israeli gun ship on the shores of Gaza? To reply to the above mentioned reasoning, is that you always keep shinfting the definition of Legitimate criticism as needed to save Israel being condemed and held responsible.

You mean the Gaza beach blast? It's unlikely that the IDF was responsible, but if they were, it was a mistake. You're falsely implying that the Israelis want to hurt or, worse, enjoy hurting Palestinian civilians which is complete and utter nonsense. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.181 12:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Well, IDF seems to be committing a lot of 'mistakes' in the last 50 years: Qana.. Deir Yasim .. The Killing of MOhammad Al Durra ... to name a few. And I am not implying I am saying it clearly, medical reports have proved that the shell remains extracted from the victims belong to shells used by Israeli Military.

Please Refer to http://nakba.sis.gov.ps/British-mandate/British-mandate-3.html

You can see the table at the end of the page that lists the land owned by the jews untill 1948 (use translate.google.com if you can't speak arabic) As you see the lands total to about 2 075 000 Dunums, and according to wikipedia's own article about this area unit it roughly equals 1000 m^2. With a little math you can see that jews only owned about 7% of entire palestine area at that time, and the table is detailed as follows:

300 000 - Bought from Palestine Arabs

500 000 - Ottoman Government Land given to the jewish Agency by the mandate government

650 000 - Jewish LEGALLY owned lands under ottoman law before 1918

652 000 - Bought from the Jewish Agency from Arab, Non-Palestinians Landlord from Syria and Lebanon.

All numbers are in Dunums. Are you convinced now? I am waiting for new myths about poor arabs and Wealthy Jews. 213.42.2.22 12:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel has well defined borders, and a constitution. This is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefzen (talk • contribs) }

It may not have a specific written constitution, but then neither does the United Kingdom. By any objective definition, Israel is a country. The DailyKos poster is an idiot. — Impi 13:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I take that back, what I thought to be a constitution was the declaration if independence, though Israel still have rule and laws the same way any other country has. Anyways, who actually says that every country must have a constitution? even a dictionary definition is more like a description rather than a difinition.--Nefzen 13:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.181 13:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC) If that is true, please tell me about this "country's" hiratage and civilisation. A country has a civilisation and a well known history, please tell me how does Israel fall under this category: civilisation, It may be industrialized but not civilised, the practices of IDF surely proves this. History???? Well that should be dicussed seperately, please tell me : are there any historical proof of the "Old Kingdoms of Israel" other than the Old Testament???? So you see, It didn't even comply to the two basic definitions of country. Nevertheless, It stole the heratage and national idenity of a whole people, the palestinians, there food (among other things) has been re-marketed all over the world as being "Israeli", so please don't tell me that Israel is country, a state-size settlement, maybe, but difinitly not a country.

Sheer nonsense. The most commonly used rules of statehood are those of the Montevideo Convention of 1933, which states: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Clearly, Israel has a permanent population, it has a defined territory (the Green Line is not disputed as the basis of Israel's sovereignty), it has a government (note, no mention at all of a Constitution) and it has the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Most importantly, Israel is recognised as a legitimate state by the vast majority of the world's countries, thus meeting the final hurdle for statehood. By any objective definition, Israel is a legitimate state and country. All that talk about the Old Kingdoms, heritage and national history is irrelevant in this context. — Impi 14:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Archeology of the area indicates that the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah did, in fact, exist. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.182 14:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC) So what, I said it might be considered as a state, but IT IS NOT A COUNTRY. If you are so well educated in history you should know how it came into existance. More over could you please guide me to the "clearly identified territory" Does that include Gaza and Western Bank? Oh, does that also include the Occupied Al Jaolan Hieghts (The accurate naming of Golan Heights)??? Where is this clearly defined border is mentioned in the basic law?

213.42.2.10 14:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC) To continue; As you see Israel even fails this simple test.

In International Law, the only definition that matters is that of a state. A state refers to a defined territory that is independent, with a government, a population and sovereignty over these (to borrow from Wikipedia's own definition) whereas a country refers only to a geographical area. While in 99% of cases, country and state mean the same thing, it is possible for a country to be non-independent and non-sovereign, for example Wales and Scotland. In Israel's case, Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights are disputed territories, but that doesn't affect Israel's core border (and thus defined territory) which is internationally recognised as being within the '67 Green Line. If, in some future peace deal, Israel acquires 5% of the West Bank, then its defined territory will be considered under international law to have been expanded, not created. Please note, that the existence of disputed borders does not mean one's territory is considered undefined, therefore just because Pakistan and India are disputing the Kashmir border does not mean that either country is not considered a state. Without a doubt, Israel is both a country and a state. — Impi 15:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.22 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Allow me to disagree, the word country involves the presence of a hiratage and history. Which is not correct in the case of Israel. They have remarketed the Palestinian National Idenity as theirs due to thier lack of a national idenity to rally behind: Falafel and Homus for example. As re-iterate: It is a state (regardless of how legitemate) But is it a country? In your replies you focused on the state definition, but you failed to convince me of how this state came to be a country?

The word country does NOT involve that, and you are evidently confused about the definition. Take a look at Wikipedia's page on Country and the Wiktionary definition to see what I mean. No country or state requires any sort of national heritage or shared history in order to exist. This is not about disagreement, this is about right or wrong, and on this you're clearly wrong. — Impi 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.182 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Thank you very much, please read on: [qoute from Wikipedia's own country def] In political geography and international politics a country is a geographical territory. It is used casually in the sense of both the concept of nation (a cultural entity; see below) and state (a political entity). Some definitions tend to place it as meaning only state,[1] though general use is wider than this.[2] [/qoute]

IMHO, I am not wrong on this one, even if you say so :).

Ok, this is becoming tiresome. Your quote says absolutely nothing about "heritage and history", nor does it contradict my assertion that the word refers properly (not casually) to a geographical territory. If you continue to be unable to justify your assertion, I would suggest you do the honourable thing and give it up. — Impi 17:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.23 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC) It is used casually in the sense of both the concept of nation (a cultural entity; see below)

To remind you, our dicussion was about if a country involves the existance of a national idenity and heratiage (sorry for the typo) You said it doesn't. And the text you referenced me to clearly states that a nation is a cultural entity, and if the heritage and history aren't components of a cultural entity what is!!? To further elaborate, the Israeli soceity comprises of a number of racially distictive communities, each and every one of them has its own culture that they brought with them from thier original countries they migrated from. As for you mate, you haven't privided a single proof to prove me wrong.

Casually. Casually! Properly, it is a geographical entity, and has nothing to do with ethnic identities or heritage. People misuse words in a casual context all the time, for example most people casually refer to Iran as an Arab country when it's actually Persian. What matters is not casual (and often wrong) usage, but proper usage, and the proper usage for the word "country" most certainly involves neither heritage nor history. Now kindly stop wasting my time with your pointless and erroneous arguments. — Impi 18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, all of the previous claims about heritage and culture (or lank thereof) can be just as easily applied to the USA. okedem 18:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.187 12:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Please refer to this link (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/country.html) and look to the first definition. I find it rather difficult to place a casual use of a word first in the list, if you were right it should rank 2nd or 3rd. As for your claim that a country means a geographical entity, then it should be called Palestine not Israel. The latter name came into use only after the creation of this state, while that geographical entity have been known all along its 7000+ years of its history as Palestine.

It was called Israel during the United Monarchy period of Jewish history and after the restoration of sovereingty by the Maccabees. When Rome conquered Israel, they renamed it Judea. The name "Palestine" did not come into use until after the failed Bar Kokhba Rebellion of Judea against Rome. Rome wished to break the Jewish spirit as permanently as possible (as this was the second time the Jews revolted). One of the things they chose to do was rename Israel "Palestine" after the Philistines who had made a kingdom in the area of Gaza. The Land of Israel was not called Palestine until 132 CE. The Land of Israel was named "Israel" about 1100 years before "Palestine" came into use. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.10 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Is there a single archiological evidence to support this claim?

213.42.2.22 13:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC) To continue, even the zionists acknowledged that, on Mandate Palestine cions and banknotes you will see Palestine written in Arabic, English and Hebrew. But in the Hebrew case they included the letters (Alef Youd, if the spelling is correct)== Eretz Esrael. If they were so sure about that, why hiding it so sucpeciously??

I'm not sure the above assertion is entirely correct, but if it was hidden that way, it was a means for the British to keep from upsetting the Jews too much, who likely acquiesced and said "ok, fine, at least some little token of recognition will be fine", meanwhile they avoided inflaming the ignorant [of Hebrew] arab hordes who would have used such a petty thing as yet another excuse to kill non-Muslims...as though they ever really waited around for excuses. Yes, I'll admit, that's deliberate flame-baiting, but let's see whether or not the anonymous cowards can avoid some frothing-at-the-mouth response... Tomer^talk 07:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This should have a permanent POV tag

As there is no prospect of Zionists allowing this article to comply with the neutral point of view policy it should have a permanent POV tag. Olborne 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As there is no prospect of Anti-Zionists allowing this article to comply with the neutral point of view policy, it should have a permanent POV tag. 18:53, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

Don't smear Zionism. Yes, people who are anti-Semitic will never allow Israel to be written about honestly. - MSTCrow 02:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

that's incredibly funny. 68.0.185.95 10:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.21 16:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Why not cretisize Zionism? I have the right to do that. You have destryed my homeland and made me a refugee? Should I thank you for that? Sheesh,

BEIT DAGAN

Anyone know a town called Beit Dagan? I find it on yahoo and goggle but not here. Joe I 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's under the list of towns in Center District (Israel). You could create its article. --Schzmo 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of creating the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, thnx :) Joe I 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Coordinates header

Please add Israel's coordinate 33°21'54"N,35°5'57" in the header. In general I think that every aricle concerning a place located on earth should have CoorHeader added to it. --Man are from earth, women are from earth, deal with it! 15:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Why there? Is that where the Israeli ship was hit by rockets? It seems to be off the coast of Lebanon, about 15km from Tyre. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC) +

  eh..."man are from earth"? Is it possible to copyedit someone's sig? Tomer^talk 07:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Jews Against Zionism

See this link. Although many Jews are Zionists, the two labels cannot be equated due to the existence of groups such as this.Smitty Mcgee 15:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No one was arguing that all Jews were Zionists. Numerically, most Zionists aren't even Jews, but Christians. -

Archived

Although discussion was ongoing, it seemed to me that it mostly consisted of pointless and mostly obnoxious arguments from partisans on both sides, rather than an actual attempt to improve the article. I thought it would be best to archive this stuff. If people want to actually propose changes to the article, they should propose specific changes, and not vague discussions of whether the article is POV or not. And, to both sides, nationalist point scoring doesn't do any good for anybody. john k 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unarchived article as Smitty Magee has posted direct information on improving the article. Also it is YOUR POV that the talk page is "mostly pointless and obnoxious"--Oiboy77 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule that archiving of a page needs to be NPOV. I'm not even sure what that means. The page was too long, anyway, and needed to be archived. I'm rearchiving. Anyone who wants to read stuff can read it in the archive. If somebody wants to repost something, they can do it. But the page was way too long. john k 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing Information

On July 14th, 2006 Noam Chomsky was interviewed by DemocracyNow.org [1]

During his interview at (Time Marker 3:40) He states that the current Flare up of violence that has ultimately resulted in the Bombing of Lebanon, started with the Israeli’s abducting two civilians from the Gaza strip. These two people were a doctor and his brother. As a result, Palestinians abducted two soldiers. When the Israeli army retaliated, Lebanon weighed in. This should be mentioned in the Article.

'Also...'

There does not seem to be any information about the United Nations recognizing the Israeli occupation as "Illegal"

Source: "Peace Propaganda & the Promised Land" [2] I don't know who is in charge of changes, but something reflecting these facts would be good to see.

July 17

Why are some contributors scared to state the undeniable facts? Israel does hold thousands of arabs in prisons, including women and children. Israel has also killed at least 100 lebanese civilians in the first 5 days of its attack. And Israeli soldiers killed a family of 8 palestinians including their children on a beach in gaza in early June.

What suggestions do you have for improving the article? That's all that this talk page is for, thank you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we add this information to the article. It does mention Palestininians as terrorists, so why not mention Palestinians in another light.--Oiboy77 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Deletions

I have made the following factual ammendments to the opening paragraph.

"The State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info); Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل‎, Dawlat Isrā'īl) is actually a part of Palestine which was occupied and taken over by the Jews after WW2 with help from the British Army. Now a country in Western Asia on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It is a parliamentary democracy and the world's only Jewish state. A state of unease exists between it and the rest of the Middle East which is predominantly Muslim and largely opposed to Israel's invasion and occupation of Palestine." User: universetoday

The amendments in question are not factual in the least. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 07:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Karimarie What facts in the revision are you disputing? I have ciations for all!--Oiboy77 07:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The part " is actually a part of Palestine which was occupied and taken over by the Jews after WW2 with help from the British Army" clearly.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How about the one where Palestinians are not considered full citizens? Or the part where Israel is actually a part of Palestine? Put forth your citations. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I agree that the edits made were not NPOV. In the interest of MAKING this article as NPOV as possible, I withdraw my last statement. I hope all of you look at this with an unbias perspective. I added an article on Human Rights Abuse (with citations) It does not "demonize" either party. It simple recites the facts.--Oiboy77 08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the word "is." Not only is Israel no longer part of Palestine, Palestine no longer exists as such. It is fair to say that Israel is on land taken from Palestine, but you may as well say that it's in the Ottoman Empire. Twin Bird 16:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

usurper government ?

What's the reference in the first sentence: usurper government ?

It was an act of vandalism by an anonymous IP, and has been reverted. - MSTCrow 05:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's already been removed.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

...

I wrote a laundry list of everything that is wrong with this article, yet some editors are insisting that no specific points have been made. I can copy and paste the entire thing if your memory span is really that short, but I prefer that we continue the discussion, rather than pretend that there is no real debate. Finally, the poll has not yet expired, so let users vote if they are so inclined.Smitty Mcgee 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Smitty, you're going to get yourself in trouble if you keep this up. - MSTCrow 14:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Make your point if you have one. That would be more productive than a vague threat.Smitty Mcgee 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Your "laundry list" can be seen at Talk:Israel/Archive 12, as can the responses to it. No need to copy and paste them; they were discussed at the time, and then the conversation moved on. (I'm assuming you're referring to the numbered list of excerpts from the article and your opinions of each of them; am I wrong?) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You are correct. However, editors are still insisting that no specific points have been made regarding the neutrality of this article. I thank you for posting the proper link and hope that these accusations will be dropped and that productive debate will resume.Smitty Mcgee 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Smitty, as you are aware, original research and analysis is verboten on Wikipedia. If you can find supporting sources for your allegations from crdible sources that are not pro-terrorist, Islamist, or anti-Semitic, they will be considered. - MSTCrow 23:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you just claim that any source that supports Smitty's position is either pro-terrorist or anti-Semitic? That's your whole game. The idea that basic ideas like "lots of people, including most leading human rights groups, have argued that Israel commits human rights violations in the Occupied Territories," and "a lot of people, including most Arabs, disagree with the idea that the Arabs were the aggressors in 1948" is ridiculous. john k 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WHAT IS AN OPINION ANYWAY?

A user named Avi has told me that I edited this article in a bad manner, because of my "opinion" that the land acquisition by jews in Palestine was not legaly sound. Well, if opinions are not wellcome, why the word legitimate (evaluating these acquisitions)was there? Legitimacy is not an objective fact is it? Because there are laws made by americans to prevent this! Could France or Germany authorize such a procedure?Of course not! Well in Palestine all this was possible: foreigners authorized jewish organizations to buy as much land as they wanted and gave them a "legitimate" state afterwards... Ottoman and British laws granted this procedure! which kind of legitimacy is that? The dictatorship legitimacy it seems! Amazing that legitimacy is a neutral standpoint and questioning it is not! Looks like the New York Times treatment of the conflict!Kusnetsov 18:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I am glad to see you registered a userid :) Thank you. -- Avi 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, the word "legitimate" was removed, and rightly so. However, the comparison you're making here is invalid. The USA is a sovergeign state. Palestine was not. It switched hands for millenia, but the last time it was actually an independent state was at the time of the kindgom of Judea (you can also count The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, I guess). okedem 18:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again: if Palestine was not a sovereign state, you mean that it could not become one, unless by the hands of its last historical self-ruled population, even in minority. In the case of the United States, if we apply the same logic, Mr. Washington could never have declared independence (he was playing Arafat's role), but some Native American could, even in minority and surrounded by annoying white-never-sovereign inhabitants. Well, lets do it so! Lets give america back to its native inhabitants and send every white man back to their native europe! I don't think so... And in the case of Palestine, it was never homogeneous in its population. The problem is: while the ottomans and british were ruling, jews created a parallel power that destroyed any possibility of political rights of the arab inhabitants. And even being minority in population and owning less tha half of the territory, the jews got from UN a sovereign state with 56% of the land. The whole question was decided by turks, british and jews in the UN circus as if the arab inhabitants were not there.Kusnetsov 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. The Arabs were there. See Peel Commission and note the map: had they accepted that 1937 partition, a Palestinian Arab state would be 69 years today and much bigger territorially (and countless lives could be saved). Their leaders refused to even negotiate and consistently chose violence. I equally respect all the nations, and that means that each should take responsibility for the decisions of their own leaders and not blame others. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Humus sapiens, you forgot to tell that the 20th zionist congress also refused the proposals of the Peel Comission, because they wanted to continue immigration and to get more and more land, whatever the consequences for the arabs could be. Kusnetsov 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While this is true, it was not the responsibility of the Zionist congress to serve the needs of the Arab population in their choices regarding the Peel Comission. That was the job of the leaders of the potential Arab state, and they made a choice that led to a loss of that particular chance for a Palestinian Arab state. In most negotiations, the leaders of either party will look out for the needs of their party, as opposed to the needs of all involved. Therefore, all leaders are responsible for their actions. --Fairygothmommy 02:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

AVRAHAM: A LEGITIMATE SURPRISE

Dear Avi, you surprised me (in a positive way) by agreeing that legitimacy could be deleted of the previous version. I don't intend to keep editing this page forever. Some guy named Daniel wrote some warnings that my editing was vandalism. I don't think so. I created a userid and have tried to discuss my editing. I know that a supporter of Israel can't be convinced of almost anything because of the injustices the jews have suffered by millennia and because of the overwhelming psychological impact of the holocaust. Considering these things it's easy to see why brilliant jews miss the point (oftenly in good faith, I think)even when israeli policies are clearly unfair and abusive like in the case of the West Bank settlements. I'd like to be clear that I don't think the jews don't have the right to live in their former ancient homeland. I only think that the way this modern version of Israel was built was not fair to the arabs and that they have the right to fight against the occupation of Gaza and Cisjordania. When the UN gave the jews 56% of the area it was not fair, but I think the arabs will have to live with that. But that is enough, and enough is enough. I think the occupation must end and that the settlements in Gaza and Cisjordania must be totally removed. Only after that Israel can complain about terrorism. As I see it, until these withdrawals are not accomplished there is no terrorism, but resistence. I'm sorry if it seems offensive, but invaders are invaders, not "victims of extremism". The jews should keep their 56%, not take the displaced arabs back to this area (fair or not...lets live with this too), but should give the West Bank back to the arabs, give Golan back to the syrians and pay some compensation and only then complain about "terrorism".Kusnetsov 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote bellow, I agree with the need to end the occupation of Judea and Samaria. A large part of the Israeli public sees that. It's extremely unfortunate that the palestinians in the Gaza strip continue their attacks (with Qasam rockets) even after all of the settlement there were dismantled, and the Israel army pulled out. If they would have ceased their attacks right after the Hitnatkut, it would have been a greaet incentive for Israel to execute more withdrawl plans, dismantling more settlements in the West Bank, and eventually leaving it all together. Basically - the palestinians are hurting their own cause, and that's a shame. okedem 12:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that was okedem. I had a one-sentence response :) Indentations are useful. -- Avi 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This talk page as a metaphor for the conflict?

This whole thing is a mess. What we always seem to get on this and related pages are completely incoherent partisans of the Palestinian cause, and considerably more coherent people who say things like "the Palestinians left their homes in 1948 to wait for the Jews to be driven into the sea" as though this is an established fact. The whole dynamic in articles related to Israel/Palestine issues seems to mirror the conflict itself, in that it's dominated by extremists on both sides, and the pro-Israel extremists have the big guns (in this case, writing and debating skill) on their side, but remain unable to actually pacify the situation. (They can also use the constant threat from trolls to justify never having to make any concession to reasonable opponents). Deeply distasteful. I suppose that things will never get any better. Yuck. john k 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This does look like the conflict, but let me just clarify something - I made this the claim that SOME of "the Palestinians left their homes in 1948 to wait for the Jews to be driven into the sea", based on things I've read in the past. I wish I had the sources to link to, but I don't, so I withdraw that claim.

Palestinians left their homes because there was an ongoing war and they wanted to be out of the way. Presumably they were more sympathetic to the armies of the Arab states than to Israel, and I suppose one could characterize their behavior in this way, but this way of characterizing it is putting the least charitable spin on the issue imaginable. That's my basic issue with it - it is spouting propaganda rather than making even the slightest effort to be fair-minded. john k 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess the aggressive nature of these arguments does cause one to view things that way. okedem 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although you try to group the supporters of Israel with the supporters of the Arabs together, that's not very fair, as the supporters of Israel actually back their claims with sources, and the arab supporters mainly use ALL CAPS as their source, writing complete and utter lies (like claiming Israel silences it's media, and then evading referencing that claim). I don't know if you were refering to me as an extremist, I hope not, as I try to write only facts. I do think facts are important, and I do find claims like "the jews don't have any history in Israel" highly offensive, in their complete falseness.

I thought I was being fairly clear that, just as Israel has a stronger and better equipped army than the Arab states and the Palestinians, pro-Israel editors on wikipedia tend to have better arguments and writing skills at their hands. I agree that many of the people posting from a pro-Palestinian perspective here like to use ALL CAPS and write lots of anti-semitic nonsense. On the other hand, I find "there is no such thing as a Palestinian people," and such like to be at least as offensive as "the Jews don't have any history in Israel." On both sides I see a lack of fair mindedness and a lack of willingness to engage in discussion, rather than to spout position papers. The Israeli position papers are better researched, better written, and more convincing, and this does lead to improvement in the article, but at the same time I think it leads to a subtle but persistent Israel bias in a lot of articles on this topic. I apologize if I implied that you were an extremist (and I imagine I probably did). I should probably have just said "partisan," which I imagine is more accurate. These articles tend to be dominated by people whose sympathies are decidedly on one side or the other, and often by people who are themselves parties to the conflict. When these people are evenly matched in rhetorical ability, this can work out okay. I think it's a problem when one side does a clearly better job than the other, but the other side refuses to give up. This just leads to constant talk page arguments without any bias in the article actually getting ironed out. john k 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the writing skills are the issue here. Maybe reasoning skills. The writing skills of the arab-supporters on this page seem quite on par with the Israel's supporters. The problem is with unbased claims, falsehoods, and ingnoring the references, including articles on Wikipedia. okedem 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the average Israel supporter working on this page tends to be clearer about what he is saying, and to argue in a more concise and focused way. This, I think, can be said to be "better writing," even if grammar and spelling are similar. I think both sides are often repeating propaganda, but the Israeli side does so more effectively by bringing up sources and making clearer arguments on its behalf. Which is certainly better than the alternative, but is still not all that good. john k 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It actually is a crying shame. You see, if the Arab supporters would tone it down a bit, and focus on facts, not unbased claims, they might actually find some support - even from Israelis. Maybe they'll find out that Israel isn't some monolithic culture, that there are disagreements here, that not every Israeli agrees with every action his government takes. For instance, I'm actually on the left side of the political map in Israel. I don't think "Israel was given to us by God" (I'm an atheist), I think our occupation of Judea and Samaria (and previously, Gaza) is wrong. I think the settlements in the west bank are a horribile mistake, causing a lot of suffering to the palestinian population, and wish they would be dismantled already. I support a palestinian state in the west bank. But when my country's very right to exist is under fire with balant lies, I feel obliged to answer those claims. okedem 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's understandable. I just wish we could separate out the writing of an encyclopedia article from all the emotions of currently outstanding political issues, but I suppose that's impossible. I think one of the best starts, though, would be to just ignore obvious hateful trolling. Responding in kind only exacerbates. john k 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussions may be fruitless in trying to sway the sides from their opinions, but they do let the people reading these talk pages learn something about Israel (both history and present), mainly through references, which I, for one, try to bring to support my claims, as much as possible. okedem 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, but we should try to remain focused on improving the article itself. In this case, most of the discussion seems to consist of 1) pro-Palestinian advocates making wild and frequently anti-semitic claims; and 2) others refuting them with Israeli talking points. I don't think this is going to improve the article. john k 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"John K" did nothing but blurt out a stereotypical statement, as if all people who criticize Israel are knuckle dragging, primative apes. 65.30.45.235 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I myself am quite critical of Israel (as I think any reading of my involvement in articles on this subject on wikipedia will reveal), and there are certainly some users who have contributed to this article who are critical of Israel and also make intelligent, articulate arguments. But there's also a lot who don't. john k 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, maybe it's not improving the article, but I think it prevents it from deteriorating - people make unbased claims ("Israel did so and so"). If someone isn't there to refure the claim, it'll just stay there, and give readers of the talk page the impression these are facts, and give legitimacy to rewriting the article based on false statements. okedem 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it prevents it deteriorating in one direction. Which is, I suppose, good. john k 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

War POV

This article makes no mention of the innocent civilians that have died as a result of blind Israeli bombings, and the entire section on the current war makes it seem like Israel is striking the country of Lebanon as retalitation. It has a very pro-Israeli POV on the current war and should at least make mention of the criticisms of Israel's attacks. (unsigned, written by 65.30.45.235)

The section on the current conflict is very short, and lists nothing but facts. It also doesn't mention the Israeli casualties from rockets fired intentionally on civilians in towns in northen Israel. For more information one can read the main article about the conflict - 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. okedem 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hezbollah has since declared "open war" on Israel. As a result Israel has exercised a strong retalitory front including strikes on Lebonese bridges, power plants, and army bases." -This is not a neutral statement, since it claims that Israel is acting in retaliation. While many may believe that this is the case, bias such as this should not be allowed in an encyclopedia entry.Smitty Mcgee 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest making this section much briefer here. Mention the capture of soldiers, Israeli incursions, and Hezbollah counterstrikes, and send people off to the other article. john k 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The facts in this case are quite simple. Israel did not initiate aggressive actions, and was not in any way, according the the UN, an occupier (since 2000). Hizbollah attacked and abducted two soldier, killing 8 others. Israel attacked sites in Lebanon. Seems quite obvious this is retaliation.

But how would you phrase it? okedem 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this should be kept as short as possible in this article. Basically just say a) Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers; b) Israel retaliated by launching attacks against Lebanon; and c) Hezbollah has counter-retaliated by launching missile attacks in Syria, and then link to the main article. I think given that a) this is an ongoing event, which we don't really know the ultimate significance of yet; and b) any attempt to provide more detail is bound to get into sticky areas where there will be POV disputes, we should try to keep as little material here as is practicable. It should obviously be mentioned, but we should keep it as brief as possible. Note that, for instance, there are only three sentences about the 1973 war (vaguely misleading ones at that, I think). john k 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think trying to figure out who is retaliating against who is an impossible argument as i would guess Hamas would argue that the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier was in retaliation for the detainment of a thousand Palestenian "soldiers". Also Okedem, your bias is that Israel did not initiate aggressive actions, but any conclusion could be drawn based on where you start looking at history. Any mention of retaliation should be left out of the article, and the 2006 conflict should only be described as a sequence of actions: hamas kidnaps Israeli soldier; Israel sends troups into Gaza; hezbollah kidnaps 2 israeli soldiers and launches rockets into Israel; Israel sends troops into Lebanon and continues to bomb the region. --Axgoss 02:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems sensible, although I'd suggest we try to keep it stylistically smooth. john k 02:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Axgoss and John K.Smitty Mcgee 03:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well, let's avoid words like "retaliation", and just describe the sequence of events. The readers can draw their own conclusions. However, I don't think it's my bias, as Israel didn't attack any sites in Lebanon for a long time now, the Hizbollah attack did come after a long period of "peace" on that border. Remember, most of Hizbollah's past attacks (perhaps all of them) were justified by Hizbollah as being against Israel as an occupier of the Sheba area, while the UN confirmed it is not part of Lebanon. okedem 11:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Shebaa issue is complicated. The UN does indeed consider it to be part of, er, Syria, but that doesn't make it so. john k 16:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Find Consensus TO ADD POV TAGS ON Israel PAGE

Vote to Add {{POV}} tag to Israel ( will expire July 22nd @ 17:00 (UTC) ) - and is now closed, with the result being a majority that is opposed to adding the tags.

VOTING IS CLOSED * 14 SUPPORT * 17 OPPOSE

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support The article is sympathetic to the Zionist cause, overlooking the plight of the Palestinian people.Smitty Mcgee 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)1
• Question/Comment Isn't the proper place for the plight of the Palestinian people vis a vis the geographic location in question, the article Palestine? -- Avi 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Answer Yes, but an article on Israel which fails to mention the Palestinians apart from associations with terrorism cannot claim to be neutral.Smitty Mcgee 16:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Only one side of the picture is painted; It is one sided and doesn't give a neutral perspective. Does not display the viewpoint of many Israeli citizens who are not pro-Zionist--Oiboy77 16:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)2
• Support It lacks the mention of Palestinian view point on the whole issue of the legality Israel existance, and picture Palestinians in a stereo-typical way. 195.229.241.183 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)3
  • The State of Palestine article does not have a section on the legality of the PA's existence in the eyes of Zionists either. If you add a POV tag here, I add one there too. --Daniel575 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is not in violation of WP:NPOV simply because it neglects to include Anti-Semitic and Anti-Zionist propoganda. See WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:AGF and WP:V. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)1
• Oppose per Karimarie. I see Pecher's comment below that this is a silly excercise, and I agree, but I have also learned that you never know what kind of silly poll is going to be claimed to support a "consensus," so I might as well give my opinion in this form. 6SJ7 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)2
• Oppose - per Karimarie; also, there are plenty of links from the article to the controversial issues. No reader will walk away from this article deluded about the conflict. --Leifern 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Kari, 6SJ7, and Leifern. It is not as if there isn't plenty of exposure in the proper places. -- Avi 18:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)3
• Support Main page should at least mention all view points, not just that of the Zionists.IConform 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)—Note: This is user's first edit: IConform (talk · contribs) -- Avi 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) 4
• Support - I find this article non neutral. Adam777 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)5
• Oppose - It should not be labeled POV simply because of radical anti-Israel users. - MSTCrow 21:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)4
• Oppose per 6SJ7. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)5
• Oppose. You must be joking. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)6
• Just in case, oppose, mostly per 6SJ7 and JFW, as well as per Kari. Tomer^talk 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)7
• Support - it does not present the main viewpoints in a balanced way.Itsmejudith 16:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 6
• Oppose - It contains plenty of criticism of Israel and I will remove this tage because you have only (4/12) 33% to include this tag ignoring IPs and socks. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)8

This discussion is about the POV tag and NOT a unbalanced tag. 3 Revert rule applies to you too.

• Oppose another attempt to delegitimize Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)9

• Question/Comment How does adding a {{POV}} delegitamize a whole country? A little extreme I think.--Oiboy77 18:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Umm, What? Who's ever heard of adding a POV tag by a majority vote? That said, I'm not sure I understand where the POV problem supposedly lies - the article discusses the refugee issue and the occupation. I think a small section about Palestinian/Arab views of the State of Israel and its legitimacy would be appropriate, though. john k 09:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - for reasons outlined by john_k above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boldymumbles (talk • contribs) .7
• Oppose per all the above. --TheYmode 15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)10
• Oppose per all the above. --Daniel575 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)11
• Support - clearly unbalanced and favoring Israel. --ChrisLott 20:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)8
• Support - reads like a tourism brochure for Israel. No information on human rights violations, human sex traficking, or UN Violations (more than Iraq). All conflicts are relayed from Zionist POV. I second Smitty and others. This article is in dire need of balancing to remove the POV throughout Sarastro777 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)9
• Oppose - Tired of vandalism from anyonmous IP addresses and Smitty going against admins on this one. - MSTCrow 23:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't vote twice.Smitty Mcgee 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you voting twice?--Oiboy77 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I have tried editing (adding to) this article several times with factual information only to have it removed and my IP banned because the Moderator does not want any information displaying Israel as anything but a Utopia, assuming it is flawless unlike any other society. Any discussion or post of information I make that fails to display Israel in the brightest light, gets me labled as an Anti-Semite by the Moderator, despite my Jewish heritage. I am told my Rueters backed information is truthless; that my information from the Times is defamatory. We need a more balance page on the great state of Israel. Also, about MSTCrow's post, since when is it vandalism to express one's opinion? Also how is it that anything from an anonymous IP is invalid? There are no requirements to get a Wiki username so this is illogical.Bridarshy 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC))—This is the user's first edit Bridarshy (talk · contribs) -- Avi 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)10
• Support - This is a very bias page. I think POV tags would be a splendid addition, without censoring any particular point of view.79stet 00:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)—This is the user's first edit 79stet (talk · contribs) -- Avi 17:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)11
• Support - This article is completely biased in favor of Israel. Just to give one example: The state of Israel was created with the help of the United Nations ... using the term "indepedence" to decribe the creation of a state is outrageous. AllTalking 00:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)12
• Oppose per MSTCrow. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Humus et al.12
• Oppose. Again. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)13
• Oppose the article does not "overlook the plight of the Palestinian people" any more than it overlooks the plight of the Tibetian people. It is an ariticle about Israel it talks about palestinians as they relate to the state of Israel. Jon513 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)14
• Oppose this shenanigans. Nesher 20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)15
• Support - I'm sure the people who are opposing this are Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.1.98 (talk • contribs) 13
  • Then I propose that all Muslims are to be forbidden from editing articles about 'Palestine'. [p.a. removed (no, not palestinian authority, lol) - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)] --Daniel575 10:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Suppose/Opport I hate politics, and object to this vote taking place, period. WP is not your soapbox. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support67.174.95.24 01:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)14

VOTING IS CLOSED * 14 SUPPORT * 17 OPPOSE

Too bad Smitty, you lost. --Daniel575 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I strongly suspect many of the support votes are sockpuppets. They are from either anonymous IP addresses or completely new users, and are within posted within short periods of time in clusters. Users who have just created accounts are not going to zero in on a poll on a single page on Wikipedia and start voting on things. They wouldn't know how or why yet. - MSTCrow 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's always the excuse when people disregard polls to push their POV. How do you know the "sock puppets" aren't really perusers that follow the article and were moved enough by its state to register and make their voices heard in the poll? I'm seeing a lot of baseless accusations without any real evidence to back up these grand conspiracies. As Bridarshy pointed out, registration is not a requirement... so you certainly can't use that to invalidate/ignore people. Sarastro777 03:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, how do you know that they are? In cases like this it is IMO better to implement HebWiki rules that anyone will less than 100 edits cannot vote. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

#1 this is not HebWiki, #2 If you can prove people are sockpuppeting you feel free to do so; if not stop discrediting users without factual proof.--Oiboy77 18:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I might add the user originally objecting to sockpuppets voted twice in the poll. In Psychiatric circles this is called projection. Sarastro777 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I voted once in each poll. First in the poll that was archived, then in this current poll. If you'll notice, there are a lot of people "voting twice" in the poll. - MSTCrow 22:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

---