Talk:Israel/Archive 3

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Israel vs Northern Ireland

I'm going to make one final attempt to explain why you are completely wrong about this. You seem to have a very hostile attitude towards me (you never address me in the second person) - and I'm not sure what I've done to deserve it. Anyway - personal feelings aside, here are the facts:

The situation in Israel is nothing like the situation in Northern Ireland, as you described above:

Israel is an independent state, Northern Ireland is not, and will probably never be.
The Israeli Jews are not trying to force Israeli Arabs to become Jewish, They do not claim that because they hold Israeli passports they should be part of the Jewish People (what you keep calling the "Israeli Nation" - although I already explained that this term is used by nobody).
Similarly, Israeli Arabs are not trying to force Israeli Jews to become Arab (or Palestinian). They do not claim that because they were born in (what they call) "Palestine" they are, in fact, Palestinians. It is true that a very small minority of Israeli Arabs do identify with the goal to eliminate Israel completely. However, they mean to do so by killing or deporting Jews, not by "Arabizing" them.
Whereas in Northern Ireland each of the sides has a "homeland" which they wish the territory to be (or become) part of - Israelis (or Israeli Jews) do not wish Israel to be part of their homeland. It is their one and only homeland. Likewise, Israeli Arabs do not wish Israel to become part of the Palestinian state - both because such a state does not currently exist, and because they largely feel that they are much better off with the current situation (for various reasons).
Another difference is that while Northern Irelanders from both sides were deeply involved in violence against each other, there have been only few incidents in which Israeli Arabs were invloved in violence against Jews, and there were virtually no incidents where Israeli Jews were involved in violence against Israeli Arabs.

The Northern Ireland analogy you give, does, to a certain extent, apply to the situation in Judea, Samaria (collectively known as the West Bank), and the Gaza Strip - where mixed Jewish/Arab populations exists, each of them envisioning a different future for the area. Whilst the Arabs see these areas as the heart of a future independent Palestinian state, most Jews living in these areas would like to see these territories (or at least those parts of them whith substantial Jewish presence) incorporated into Israel.

So you might want to add your comments to the articles about these territories - where they are (somewhat) relevant.

The entire process of negotiation between Israel and the PLO (starting in 1993 with the Oslo accords) was about the future of the West Bank and Gaza Strip). The status of Arabs living within the pre-1967 borders (as discussed in this article) was never brought up during the negotiations, and for good reasons. It is not a central issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and it certainly does not deserve a whole paragraph (and a confused one, too) on the top of the article discussing Israel.

Please feel free to verify the situation as I describned above with whatever independent sources you have. I hope you are honest enough to admit that you do not have a good understanding of the situation in Israel, and to limit your involvement in editing articles related to the subject until you gain such understanding.

uriber 15:34, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have already made the points over and over again. You constantly mispresent them, make POV assumptions and make extremely unconvincing rebuttals.

1. Israel IS internationally seen in the nature of some of its problems. As such it, Northern Ireland and some other states are studied en bloc in college courses called "Divided Societies".

2. You still completely and grossly mix up separate terms like people, nation and state, something anyone who has done any detailed work in political science would never do. But you simply ignore and definitions and manufacture your own.

3. Your claim that "Whereas in Northern Ireland each of the sides has a "homeland" which they wish the territory to be (or become) part of . . . " shows an incredible lack of understanding of anything to do with Northern Ireland. Both sides for decades have insisted they are already part of a homeland. Nationalists have insisted they are part of Ireland and that the British illegally set up a border on the island to try to set them up somewhere else. Unionists say they are already part of a homeland, the UK and resist anything that in their view weaken that. In Israel, Palestinians say they are already part of a homeland, Palestine, but that a foreign state was foisted on their territory. Israelis say they are already part of a homeland and won't accept any structures that in their view weaken that.

4. "there were virtually no incidents where Israeli Jews were involved in violence against Israeli Arabs" is such a patently absurd suggestion it beggars belief. Fearï¿½IREANN

Jtdirl's additions make it sound like the whole thing is a conflict between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. In fact Israeli Arabs have little if anything to do with the armed conflict. The central issue is NOT "how to adjust the Israeli state to accomodate the sense of identity of this grouping, without endangering the state's security or the sense of identity of those who identify with the Israeli nation". It is, roughly speaking "how to accomidate the national asperations of state-less Palestinians without endangering the security of the Jewish state", although that is a vast overgeneralization. In any case "History of Israel" is not an appropriate place to discuss these complex issues. - Efghij 21:10, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can we just say "see Israeli-Palestinian conflict?" and be done with it? The section under Demographics gives some more information as well. --Delirium 21:20, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

I still think the analogy with Turkey is the closest one. If you want an example of two groups fighting for the same land, take the Pontian Greeks vs. the Turks -- the Turks kicked them out of Anatolia and renamed their cities (Constantinople --> Istanbul, Smyrma --> Izmir, etc.). (Most of this happened in 1915-1922, though some of the city-renaming happened much earlier). Yet there's nothing in Turkey about this. And the situation with the Kurds is similar to the situation with the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- there are regions which primarily consider themselves part of another nationality. --Delirium 21:19, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

in reply to Jtdirl

Thank you for finally addressing me directly. Perhaps we are making some progress here after all.

1. The fact that Israel is "internationally seen" in a certain way does not mean the Wikipedia should endorse such an (erronious) POV. This article is for people who want to learn about Israel as it really is - not as it is "internationally seen".

2-3. I said "[people] wish the territory to be (or become) part of..." (notice the grammatical subject of the sentence). You attempt to contradict me by saying (twice): "[people] say they are already part of...". Someone is confusing territory with people here, but it's certainly not me.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that you probably do have a better understanding of the situation in Ireland than I do. That's why you don't see me doing much editing on the Northern Ireland page.

4. I dare you to produce a list of three such incidents. Please do not resort to the infamous list of "massacres" from 55 years ago. Without even getting into the credibility of these stories, I'll just say the Arabs involved were not Israeli citizens at the time. Also, please only include incidents in which violence was aimed at Israeli Arabs - not the few regrettable cases in which Israeli Arabs were caught in cross-fire, or were shot because they were mistaken for Palestinina (non-Israeli) terrorists (Jewiish Israelis have also been killed by the IDF in cases of mistaken identity).

And if "coterminous" is the standard word, please at least spell it correctly, so I can easily look it up in my dictionary. Thank you. uriber 21:44, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The user 64.236.243.31 has been blocked for vandalism of this article. (In fact blocked twice, once by me and also by another sysop. If he revisits under a new IP, leave a message on my talk page and if I will reblock him. Fearï¿½IREANN 23:45, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How to adjust the Israeli state to accomodate the sense of identity of this grouping, without endangering the state's security or the sense of identity of those who identify with the Israeli nation, is the central issue at the heart of modern-day Israeli-Palestinian relations.

This is the controversial sentence? I'm baffled that anyone would quibble over it. 172 18:07, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There is a POV that human beings should not be arbitrarily (and forcibly) classified into religious or ethnic or racial "groupings". Most advanced democracies (which Israel claims to be) ban any such classification.

Keith from Calgary 08:31, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)Keith from Calgary

I see nothing wrong with the sentence. Why was it "agreed" to take it out? --Uncle Ed 13:33, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See the above comments by RK, Uriber, Delirium & myself. The consensus seems to be that it distorts the nature of conflict. - Efghij 17:07, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ah, then maybe it's somebody's view of what the central issue is. And somebody else considers another thing to be the central issue. This is good stuff and should be in the article! --Uncle Ed 16:00, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We shouldn't get into a long discussion like this in the "History of Israel" section. I think Delirium had the best solution; just stick "see Israeli-Palestinian conflict" at the end of the paragraph. - Efghij 16:05, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It isn't a long discussion; it is one line. And it belongs in the main article. Fearï¿½IREANN 19:30, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I know its one line, but if made it NPOV by considering other viewpoints (as Ed sugjests), it would be a long discussion. We already have several articles about the intricacies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; why do we this perticular analysis in the "Israel" article? - Efghij 19:49, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think you have to say something on the issue on the main page, just as we cannot avoiding saying something about problems on other pages about other countries. Fearï¿½IREANN 21:28, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You still miss our point. We agree with you that we should say something about this issue on the main page, and we do say something about it. The problem is that you keep bypassing the entire peer-review process by pushing your own point of view into this article. We must not do this, not for you, I or anyone else. Instead, this main article mentions many issues, and directs readers to a fuller peer-reviewed set of discussions on them. Please stop ignoring the consensus, stop reverting our work, and stop restarting all the old controversies on these subjects by starting yet another article on the same set of issues. Let us deal with the many articles we already have written. In any case, there are several serious problems with your recent proposals, as your analogies and examples are misleading. RK 21:43, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As usual, RK, you presume that your side of the argument is invariably right and represents the consensus. I, Erid, 172 and others respectfully disagree. As a compromise I have changed the sentence to make clear that though this is the analysis held by some (aka most academics, though I haven't said that) others disagree.

On a separate issue, on anonymous user keeps deleting the paragraph on demographics, or rather severely editing the paragraph. The current paragraph seems fine and factual and I don't know what their problem is, though they have edited other Israel-linked pages and their editing seems to involve removing detail and replacing it with less detailed bland material. I have reverted their changes twice but they seem determined to want to dumb-down the paragraph. Fearï¿½IREANN 15:01, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Page protected

This page is now PROTECTED -- at JTD's request. --Uncle Ed 15:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Note: This protection is NOTHING to do with our dispute. It is to do with one anonymous user's continuous rewriting of the demographic section. I think the change should be discussed by everyone, as it does substantially change the meaning of the paragraph (which, BTW was not my work.) As I was involved in other edit wars I thought it imprudent to impose the protection and asked Ed to do so. It should only be a temporary measure and as soon as the 'team' here return to our squabble :-) it can be unprotected. By then the issue at the heart of the anonymous user's rewrite can be discussed. (BTW, Ed inadvertently imposed the protection on the IP user's version rather than the community one, so I unprotected it, reverted to the community version of that paragraph then protected again. So it is Ed's protection, corrected by me.) Everything is above board. (And Ed can feel free to unprotect my protection that followed an unprotection of his protection to install the correct version, then impose a protection again. At least I think that was it. Even I am confused now. :-) Fearï¿½IREANN 15:45, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Israeli nation

Quick question.

I recall that someone, perhaps not even on this page, stated that "of course Israel has a right to exist as a nation". I'm not sure what that statement means. I'm not disagreeing that Israel should exist, but I'm not sure how to define the "right" for any nation to exist. Does Israel have more or less of a right to exist than, say, Kenya or Tuvalu? Does this concept of "right to exist" (exclusive of the I/P conflict) have any bearing on those states that are not recognized at present but seek such recognition? It seems that this question of "right to exist" as a nation state could impact our discussions of various topics (I/P conflict, Tibet/China conflict, UK/Ireland conflict, and many other land disputes). Anyone care to weigh in without starting any kind of unpleasantness? --Dante Alighieri 20:45, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dante, I think you totally are correct. In the proper sense of this term, I doubt that any nation has a right to exist. I think when people say that Israel (or nation X, Y or Z) has a right to exist, they might intend a lesser claim, such as "Israel has the same level of a right to exist as other nations, such as nations X, Y and Z." If they don't mean this (and this is my POV), then maybe they should mean this. Otherwise we get into religious disputes about how "my nation was given this right by God!", which is then always followed by "But God took that right from your nation, and gave it to our nation!", which usually is followed by "But then we who worship the true God all along were given this land before either of you!" And that's always fun... RK 20:53, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Page unprotected

I see no reason to keep this page protected. --Uncle Ed 14:35, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've just unprotected it. The user in question did come back to wiki to change other articles but seem to have gone now. Fearï¿½IREANN 18:40, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Definition of "Jewish"

To anon: the bit on what "Jewish" means is important here. Israel is often called the "Jewish state" - it's highly useful to know what sense of "Jewish" this means. Does it mean adherents to the Jewish religion? The answer, as you can tell from the bit you want removed, is no. Evercat 18:46, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah. An important distinction exists in a state that is largely of one faith between those for whom that religious identity is largely religious, and those for whom the identity is cultural, heritage, history, etc, ie., someone proud of their Jewish heritage and history but themselves is not a practicing religious believer. They tend to be more liberal and attach less importance to biblical references to the 'land of Israel'. The Republic of Ireland for example is 93% Roman Catholic, but many of them are cultural catholics, not actual religious believers. They hold quite liberal views on divorce, abortion, homosexuality, inter-church marriage, etc. Religious Catholics (ie, actual Mass going religious believers) only account for 48% of people. Ireland culturally is a Catholic country, but religiously it isn't, having for example provided for a same age of consent for gays and straights unlike supposedly more secular England. Fearï¿½IREANN 19:03, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the default interpretation of the term "Jewish" is "a member of the Jewish people" (regardless of religious belief) - so I don't think it is necessary to elaborate on the issue when listing the demographic breakdown of the country. Israeli Jews vary in the extent of their religious belief and their following of halacha - from the ultra-ortodox to the completely secular (some of which [such as myself] even define themselves as "atheists"). It would be interesting to have a breakdown of the Jewish population according to their adherence to the Jewish religion (I'll try to find the statistics). However, this shoud, in my opinion, be in a separate paragraph - and not mixed into the Jewish/Arab breakdown. uriber 19:48, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I updated the demographics section with data from the 2002 Statistical Abstract of Israel. I used the term "Jewish nationality" which I believe is unambiguous. I also added a paragraph on the religious beliefs of Jewish Israelis (based on a different source). I hope you find this satisfactory (I'm sure you will revert it otherwise). uriber 20:45, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It should be noted that the population figures include settlers.

Keith from Calgary 06:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I find the use of "Jewish nationality" actually a little bizarre. I presume what is meant is ethnicity. Nationality has to do with belonging to a country (e.g. "Israeli nationality"), whereas ethnicity has to do with belonging to a people (ethnos) or culture. I know nationality is sometimes used in the US to talk about distinctions like Italian-American, Mexican-American, but such use is loose and informal, and not really encyclopedic. Here, "ethnicity" would do the job better (if the job is referring to people of Jewish "origin", including those who are not religiously Jewish). BrendanH 11:33, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

I've made the change from "Jewish nationality" to "Jewish ethnicity". If you object, please look at the nationality and ethnicity entries. BrendanH 10:04, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Actually "Jewish nationality" is closer to the correct meaning. This is a category that is listed as "nationality" in official documents (incl. ID cards). It is not the same as "ethnicity" since Jewish converts of arbitrary origin are included. Nor is it the same as "citizenship" since non-Jewish Israeli citizens are not included. There isn't a precise translation into English so really the article needs an expanded explanation. There is a group of people who have been fighting unsuccessfully for years for the right to list their nationality as "Israeli". This is all connected to the way Israel defines itself as the state of the Jews rather than as the state of its citizens. --Zero 11:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I can see this is more complicated than I thought, particularly because we have a country-specific usage of "nationality". However, I still think ethnicity is the better word UNLESS we are using "ethnicity" as a euphemism for race. In that case, clearly converts don't fit because they can't change their DNA, but I don't accept that ethnicity means race. Rather, it's belonging to a people or culture, and converts can be seen as joining a people by taking on its religion, a huge part of its culture. On the other hand, people don't leave by becoming non-religious, because religion is not all there is to the culture. Re citizenship: the Wiki suggests nationality is a superset of citizenship (possible to be a national without being a citizen) and not vice versa as you suggest.

So I still think I'm right, but I understand a bit more of the complexity, and don't object to being reverted. BrendanH 12:15, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Very good rewrite. Well done. Fearï¿½IREANN 21:52, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad we are not always in disagreement. uriber 07:50, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So am I. I do respect your opinions and take them seriously. Fearï¿½IREANN 02:35, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

According to the 2003 CIA World Factbook (the source of the original statistics), in 1997, 32.1% of Israel's population was born in Europe or the Western Hemiphere & only 20.8% were Israeli-born Jews. This works out to 40% & 26% of the Jewish population. I'm curious as to why there is such a discrepency between the CIA numbers and the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics numbers. - Efghij 00:44, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It seems like the CIA factbook took the "continent of origin" figures (defined as "continent of birth for people born abroad, continent of birth of the father for people born in Israel") and interpreted them as "continent of birth". This is not the only mistake made by the CIA in recent years, and probably not the worst one :-) uriber 07:43, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Their entries about Ireland are similarly dodgy. I'd suggest including a footnote recording that the CIA factbook suggests something different, and then giving the explanation above. Otherwise what is likely to happen is that someone who knows the CIA figures will see the SAI ones and presume they are wrong and replace them by the CIA ones, triggering off an edit war. The footnote should avoid that. Fearï¿½IREANN 19:04, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Controversial material in demographics section

Highly POV stuff moved from the article, was contributed by http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&_target=67.30.99.94
Kosebamse 10:18, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In 1950 statistics, the population of Israel was 18% Jews 82% non-Jews (nearly all Arabs). However, there was a systematic ethnic-cleanising process in Israel, which many Zionists prefer to call "transportation" instead of ehtnic-cleansing. So by year 2000, the demography was almost exactly reversed. Today it is nearly 80% Jews and 20% non-Jews (who are generally called Arab-Israelis).

The Israelies engaged in ethnic cleansing since the 1950s? This is a bald-faced lie. No such event ever happened. No historian in the world believes this. It is anti-Semitic hatespeech, and a total fiction. There should be no debate about whether total works of fiction should be shoved into an encyclopedia. RK

So did millions of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Kuwait and other lands, fall from sky? They were transported out of Israel by force. If this is not ethnic cleansing, I would like to know what is your definition of ethnic cleansing? By the way, these are the same Palestinians that Israel adamantly states that they shall never have a right to return to their homeland !! You zionists are shameful hypocrites.

There was a comparable number of Jewish refugees from each of those Arab countries and more. If it is against Arabs, it's "ethnic cleansing", and if it's against Jews, it's not?

Furthermore, in Israel Jewish citizens are first-class citizens whereas non-Jews have less civil rights. For example, it is the law in Israel that if a Jewish citizen of Israel marries with a foreinger and the foreigner is also a Jew, then that person can become a citizen of Israel; but this law does not apply to non-Jewish citizens of Israel. Millions of former citizens of Israel who have been subject to ethnic-cleanisn (or "transportaion out of Israel") live in diaspora in surrounding Arab countries, such as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt as well as other Arab countries.

I think we can salvage some of the disputed text above, which "67" and Kosebamse have been tussling over. The easiest part to deal with is the issue of "second-class" citizens. If there are indeed situations in which Jews have superior rights than non-Jews, this really ought to be in the article. On the other hand, we also ought to list any major ways in which Jews and non-Jews have equal rights in Israel. Are there Islamic universities there? Can people who are Arab and/or Muslim vote, hold political office, serve in the police or army? Can non-Jews legally practice religions other than Judaism, such as Christianity or Islam, without fear of expulsion, prison, mutilation or execution? --Uncle Ed 15:01, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We can't salvage any of it. It is a series of lies on top of some fact distorted and misleadingly out of context facts. By the way, to answer your questions about the State of Israel: Yes, Israel allows Islamic universities. However, all Arab nations forbid Jewish universities. Yes, Israel allows people who are Arab and/or Muslim vote, hold political office, serve in the police or army. Sadly, most Muslim countries forbid this. Many Muslim nations forbid even Muslims to have such rights. Yes, all non-Jews legally practice religions other than Judaism, such as Christianity or Islam, without fear of expulsion, prison, mutilation or execution? Sadly, this is not true in many Muslim nations. RK

Whether or not the facts are correct, language such as "ethnic cleansing" is not tolerable, and that is why I removed the addition in the first place. Kosebamse 16:57, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Millions of Palestinians have been systematically transported out of Israel over the years, and on the other hand millions of Jews from all over the world have taken their place. If this is not ehtnic cleansing, what is ethnic cleansing? Are you saying that when the perpetrators of evil acts are the Jews, people should be more careful with their vocabulary not to offend God's Chosen People?

"Ethnic cleansing" is, to my knowledge, an euphemism for mass murder and forced expulsion which has most often been associated with the atrocities of the Jugoslawian wars of the 1990s. The phrase is charged with connotations of hypocrisy and disinformation. If you speak of murder, call it murder, and if you speak of expulsion, call it expulsion (provided you can prove your claims), but don't use imprecise propaganda terms. By the way, you might wish to sign your comments. Kosebamse 13:08, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing is a general term (considered by some to be a euphemism) used to describe the forced removal of an ethnic group from an area, in order to create an ethnically homogenous state.

I agree with Ed. There are some cases were Jews have superior rights to non-Jews (Jews can have dual citizenship, only Jews can live in certain areas). These need to be balanced against the cases were non-Jews have equal rights (voting, running for office, practicing their religion). - Efghij 17:11, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oh, please. Cases where Jews have superior rights need to be balanced against cases where non-Jews have equal rights? Sounds fair to me.

For the specific subjects that Efghi mentions, this is already discussed in great deal in our different parts of Wikipedia articles. Perhaps we should look back and find those articles, and create a summary of what can be said. Also, we really should keep this issue in context, and show the parallel rules in Muslim countries, such as Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. These rules make Muslims have superior rights to all non-Muslims, and since there are hundreds of more Muslims than Jews, this would seem to be a large phenomenon worth discussing. RK 18:52, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why is the context Muslim countries? You sound exactly like the segregationists who compared the situation of American blacks to African countries.

Keith from Calgary 06:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of this topic also exists here:

Minorities, NPOV, and more

Interpretation of the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict depends on how one interprets these events. D'uh! That's deep. I am sure this phrase replaced something even deeper, but it certainly needs rephrasing. Cema 03:55, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Need more items in the media reference section? Like, non-English sources? Human rights organizations? Et cetera. Cema 04:01, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the list of minorities, where do the Beduins go? Do we count them as part of the Israeli/Palestinian Arab population, or separately like the Druze? Cema 04:04, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I remind everyone: please try and keep to NPOV! I understand that the topic is loaded, but it is loaded on both sides. No need to pile up bullshit. Cema 09:01, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In 1950 statistics, the population of Israel was 18% Jews 82% non-Jews (nearly all Arabs). However, there was a systematic ethnic-cleanising process in Israel, which many Zionists prefer to call "transportation" instead of ehtnic-cleansing. So by year 2000, the demography was almost exactly reversed. Today it is nearly 80% Jews and 20% non-Jews (who are generally called Arab-Israelis).

Furthermore, in Israel Jewish citizens are first-class citizens whereas non-Jews have less civil rights. For example, it is the law in Israel that if a Jewish citizen of Israel marries with a foreinger and the foreigner is also a Jew, then that person can become a citizen of Israel; but this law does not apply to non-Jewish citizens of Israel.

Millions of former citizens of Israel who have been subject to ethnic-cleanisn (or "transportaion out of Israel") live in diaspora in surrounding Arab countries, such as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt as well as other Arab countries.

Anon look, there are definitely seeds of truth in your additions but you have got some facts totally wrong. It was in 1931 the population was 18% Jews 82% others. The ethnical cleansing you are talking about happened in 1947-48 and involved some 600,000-800,000 Palestinians. Now I have no objections to calling it an "ethnical cleansing" because it was a concious effort made to remove as many Arabs as possible from the Jewish "homeland". The facts you are presenting definitely has merit to be included in the Palestinian Exodus article which is devoted to the subject. More links to that page would be good because those paragraphs you want to insert just does not belong to such a sterile topic as "demographics of israel". BL 14:16, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

68.120.204.62 has now been blocked. Fearï¿½IREANN 15:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The user returned and threatened to return to this page with his 'friends' to insert POV stuff. I have blocked their new IP and reverted the page to the previous edit, which was by RK. To protect the page from this threat, and because the user is clearly going to keep returning with different IPs and may bring others with him or her, I have temporarily protected it. It is a pity the whole community has to be inconvenienced to stop the behaviour of one person. Fearï¿½IREANN 15:52, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, at least it's only words, not bombs.

As for ethnic cleansing, yes there were about up to 800 000 (accounts differ) Arabs moving out of the parts of Palestine that became Israel, though many stayed. And there were almost as many Jews moving out of Arab lands at that time, few stayed. Very much in line with the other conflicts, Indian subcontinent in the late 1940s comes to mind, so does Eastern Europe after WWII. This only belongs here if we are going to talk about the ethnic makeup of Israel at length, there must be more relevant wikipedia entries. Cema 22:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think that anyone objects to someone writing about this here, or mentioning this briefly, and linking to other entires more appropriate for that discussion. We are only concerned with blocking the anonymous and false claim that Israel expelled millions of Palestinian Arabs sometime between 1950 and 2000. That's just wacko, and not even stauch pro-Arab advocates hold such a view. RK 03:13, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Will this page be forever protected????! BL 10:58, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

One day is not a long time, BL. And this is a special case, because we have a very determined vandal who has threatened that he will bring in other people to hep him attack this article. I'd say we need to keep it protected for another day at least, and then we should keep a close watch. RK 12:07, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Which part of the facts that I added to the article were "vandalism"? (Anon, Edited)

Look, there are lots of facts in the world. It's a fact that the Israelis assassinated Muhammad Sadr, the Islamic Jihad leader in Hebron. It's a fact that afte that, two Palestinian militant groups, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, claimed responsibility for a deliberate attack on a civililan bus that killed quite a few people, including many children. It's a fact that the Israelis then killed Abu Shanab, one of the founders of Hamas, in the Gaza strip.

What this all means is subject to debate. But adding clearly erroneous claims like "1950 statistics, the population of Israel was 18% Jews 82% non-Jews (nearly all Arabs)" isn't doing any good.

E.g. You have an interesting point abou the marriage thing (which I have previously heard of, it is a fact as far as I know), and the "Demographics" section - or perhaps a new article, Israeli immigration policies - is a good place to note it.

But your whole edit was reverted, because people don't have the time to go sort things out. If you stuck to real facts, put in the appropriate case, you wouldn't have a problem. Noel 21:11, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Israeli marriage laws are extremely outdated. As in some other cases, the status quo approach (keeping the legacy law from the previous Palestinian regimes) is inconsistent with the modern times. It's too bad Israel constantly has to fight off its enemies instead of taking a better care of its own house. Similarly, we here have to fight off this, er, gentleman instead of putting together a better version of the article. At least nobody is physically hurt... Cema 03:47, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with protecting the page in this instance -- but only for the tone and demeanor by which the anon user chose to approach this entry. The users edits were all genuine and legitimate demographic information -- most of it properly attributed -- even to Israeli government sources. RK once again has demonstrated how unreasonable and unilateral he can be in choosing to revert material and blanking it out instead of improving upon it or moving it to a proper place. Still, its hard to deal with persistent anons, and I respect RK's reverts, although I have little patience for childish behaviour from grown adults. -戴&#30505sv 19:49, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

Stevertigo, what are you talking about? "genuine and legitimate demographic information -- most of it properly attributed? ?! This anonymous vandal was making up fiction off the top of his head, with no attribution at all. The agreed upon historical facts is that there were between 400,000 and 800,000 Arabs who left the parts of Palestine that became Israel, from the late 1930s to the 1940s. No one here is denying the existence of Palestinian refugees, or for that matter, of Jewish refugees. In stark contrast, this anonymous person made undocumented claims that Israel addditionally expelled millions of Palestinian Arabs sometime between 1950 and 2000. That's just wacko, and not even stauch pro-Arab advocates hold such a view. Why are you supporting these fictions as if they were factual? RK 18:24, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Agreed, except the lower estimation of the Palestinian refugees was 600,000, not 400,000. The upper number is right. Cema 03:47, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was about unprotect the page, but I see the vandal has come back to talk about you fucking hypocrite and call people ugly baboons. I've blocked his latest IP. I think this user may be a more serious problem. I am going to raise their behaviour on the wiki list. In the meantime I think the safest thing to avoid problems is to leave the page protected. Or anyone else have a different suggestion about how to handle this? Fearï¿½IREANN 18:08, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I can use whatever language I want in the discussion pages. (Anon, Edited)

And I can edit said language. Isn't wiki great? Martin 13:41, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You do not know how to move forward your case, do you? Cema 03:47, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have reported the above nutcase's comments and abuse to the w-list, and also blocked his latest IP. In view of his behaviour any more IPs he uses will be blocked and all edits anywhere reverted. Fearï¿½IREANN 18:46, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Irony of protection

It just occured to me the irony: That Israel, the state, and Israel the Wikpedia article, both have to be artificially protected. -戴&#30505sv 21:15, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

They are not artificially protected. They are quite naturally protected by the very same people who created them. Cema 03:47, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the joke was that neither Israel the state nor Israel the article can defend itself. Israel the state receives much support from the U.S., and Israel the article receives much support from interested Wikipedians. --Dante Alighieri 03:53, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think I understand the joke, but I also understand the reality: Israelis can and do defend the state of Israel, and so do wikipedians defend the integrity of the article. Cema 04:56, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

unalterability of talk pages -> Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page

Refactor notes

I'm reverting Martin's deleting of the obscenities of the anonymous user. Normally I would support such an act, but this user's abuse is the subject of debate on the wiki-list. As such, for evidence it is important that it be left in situ for people to read. Censoring the comments simply ensures that people do not realise the nature of the user's conduct and hinders everyone's ability to form fully informed judgments as to the nature and agenda of the user in question. Fearï¿½IREANN 21:23, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's cool. I'll probably reinstate my obscenity-edits in a month's time, once everyone has had a chance to make an informed judgement. OK? Martin 21:41, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

NP. I appreciate what you were trying to do. This context is a little bit more complicated. I did remove a comment the user made that was merely an attempt to pick a fight with someone by pretending to hold an extreme view, as it was simply provocation. But their other comments were reactive and abusive and worth keeping for the record for the time being. lol Fearï¿½IREANN 21:59, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reinstated. Martin 13:41, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Rights of Israeli Arabs/Jews

Efghij, you have stated that "There are some cases, however, in which the rights extended to Jews are not extended to Arabs". This is simply untrue. The only right which is extended exclusively to Jews under Israeli law is the right to obtain Israeli citizenship (the Law of Return). This, naturally, applies only to Jews which are not Israeli citizens, and thus does not consistute discrimination of Arab citizens vs. Jewish citizens.

In fact, the only other issue in which there is a (semi-)official discrimination is that Israeli Jews must serve a 3-year military service (2 years for women) whereas Arabs are generally exempt from this duty.

The claims in the article you linked to either:

do not amount to denial of rights (such as the education budget issue - which is simply a factor of political power - not all Jewish groups get equal funding either)
do not consist of any kind of nationality-based discrimination (the civil marriage issue)
are unsubstantiated, and rely on misleading "evidence" (The passage quoted from the human rights violation report referrs to the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not in Israel).
are simply false (non-Jews being unable to buy property in Jerusalem, "laws" which give special privileges to Jews - implying there is more than one).

Given this, I see no justification for leaving the sentence I quoted at the beginning in the article. uriber 20:06, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Crusades?

I think the Crusades deserve a mention in here between the Roman occupation section and 1947. Given the hotbed around this article, though, I figured I'd bring it up in talk before adding it. --ObscureAuthor 19:38, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Template pages on countries tend to be quite narrowly focused. I think we should have no more than a line or two on the issue here but it could make a very useful and interesting linked article. lol Fearï¿½IREANN 19:53, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Name of Israel?

On the Israel page, it is mentioned Israel's name in Hebrew, transliterated in Roman alphabets and its translation in English. However isn't Israel's official name in Hebrew Medinat Yisrael while in Arabic isn't it Dawlat Isra'il? I can't type the word without a Arabic keyboard, neither could I edit the page.. --- Sorry, mispelled again. Dawlat al-Isra'il. Besides, speaking of Israel, since there is a lot of states not recognizing Israel, mostly Muslim nations (3 out of 22 Arab states recognize Israel, countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Malaysia don't either).

Personal Opinion of Ariel Sharon

I think Mr. Sharon is a tough-guy wannabe, and he likes fighting Palestinians for the heck of it. In other words, he's a boy ninny. Go figure. Rickyrab 02:17, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Your the demographics guy eh? Good job sneaking em in. :-) In this case I guess an edit is needed instead of a full revert. BL 02:20, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nope. I'd need to do a lot more research to be the demographics guy. Rickyrab 02:22, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Protection "just in case" is a bad idea imho. Anthï¿½re

I absolutely agree, and I've unprotected it (don't know who protected it to start with). --Camembert

Especially since this whole edit war was probably silly and foolish to begin with. Rickyrab 23:23, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So any of you can anonymously protect a page, and it isn't logged?! I didn't realize that. Pakaran 23:41, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes, a sysop CAN protect a page without telling anyone. No, they are NOT supposed to do that: they're supposed to list it as a Wikipedia:protected page. I will ask user:Brion Vibber to look into automating the listing of protected pages. --Uncle Ed 23:49, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Rickyrab. I hesitate to get into any conversation about this page, but Jerusalem is known by several names, according to language. Are we going to list them all in the table? Wouldn't that info be better on the Jerusalem page? DJ Clayworth 02:37, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok, do that. I don't mind. Rickyrab 02:39, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I mean, put it on the Jerusalem page Rickyrab 02:40, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I think many of us might be able to agree that a holocaust denier like Roger Garaudy is not the source of a website that we should be linking to. A quick check on Google shows that his work is accepted as factual only on neo-Nazi and radical Islamist websites. The virulently anti-Semitic "Institute for Historical Review" pushes his work. This speaks volumes.

Holocaust Denial: David Cole and Roger Garaudy. From the ADL

I've had a few beers and I'm feeling bold, so I have changed

"Interpretation of the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict depends on how one interprets these events."

to

Israel independance - date conflict

The date listed in the entry "Israel" for its independance is May 15 1948, while this event is not recorded on the entry "May 15". OTOH, the entry "1948" the date of Israeli decleration of independance is listed as May 14 and this event is also listed in the entry "May 14". unless I'm grossly mistaken, shouldn't the entry for "Israel" be ammended ?

Also - in many country enteries, the listing denotes from which other country independance was declared. IIRC Israel was under a british mandate at the time - shouldn't the entry reflect that ?

Well, independence was declared on May 14 to come into effect at midnight, so the first day of independence was May 15. --Zero 15:29, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Much of its Arab population subsequently ceased to reside within this area;"

The uninformed but astute reader would assume there is something being covered-up here. I am going to add a link to Palestinian refugee and change "subsequently" to "at this time".

"at the same time,"

Should be changed to "in the following years".

"many Jews were made refugees from the surrounding Arab nations."

This has no explicit relevance to Israel. It should be deleted unless someone wants to write an explicit statement such as "The persecution of Jews in Arab nations after 1948 justifies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine". Keith from Calgary 08:31, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)Keith from Calgary

This is extremely relevant to this subject; your anti-Jewish refugee bias is clouding your ability to discuss the issue, and is ethically disturbing. Since Palestinian refugees a lot to do with Palestine, then Jewish refugees who became Israeli have something to do with Israel. This isn't rocket science. RK

The relevance should be explained, or some reference given - how is the uninformed reader (presumably our _target audience) supposed to know this? And as for "bias", the Arabs "became" refugees but the Jews were "made" refugees. But let's go on to the next bit: "As with many states, Israel has minority ethnic groups that do not feel themselves properly part of the 'Israeli nation,' though they do hold Israeli citizenship. Prominent among these are the Israeli Arabs, many of whom consider themselves as belonging to a Palestinian nation. How to adjust the Israeli state to accommodate the sense of identity of this grouping without endangering the state's Jewish character, is an important issue in modern-day Israeli-Palestinian relations." True. There are states that welcome ethnic diversity and states like Israel that consider it a threat to ethnic purity.Keith from Calgary 06:38, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Even the map, which is produced by the CIA, says "occupied"... Besides, it is only the Palestinian population in the occupied territories that is not counted. *sigh* BL 00:45, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Israel's Geographic Location

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On the Israel wikipage it states that Israel is located in Asia, Is this correct? I was always under the impression they were in Africa since they are in close proximity to Egypt and Jordan which according to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook 2003 and their Wikipedia pages both of those countries are part of the African continent. I would appreciate some clarification on this entry. Misterrick 08:30, 06 January 2004 (UTC).

(Please note that new items on Talk pages go at the bottom of the page.) Israel and Jordan are always considered to be in Asia as far as I know. Egypt is in Africa. I can't see your claim about Jordan either on the wikipedia page for Jordan or in the CIA factbook. --Zero 09:14, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I apologize, After checking you are right about not finding anything about my claims, I was sure I saw something about continents but after seeing your post and double checking I see that I was wrong. Misterrick 21:32 07, Jan 2004 (UTC)

Politically, Israel is in the Middle East. In pure geographical terms, of course it is in Asia while Egypt is in Africa -- the Asia thing only matters if you're considering continents. Most discussion of Egypt, Israel, Jordan etc. focuses on cultural, political and historical aspects. --Uncle Ed 16:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

6 day war: why is golan not listed?

I think Golan_Heights should be listed in the line: "In 1967, the Six-Day War resulted in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Sinai becoming occupied by Israel." I won't add anything here because this is a controversial page. Martijn (usurped) 20:17, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've added it, as well as a one-sentence description of what's happened to the various territories since then, and a pointer to the Geography section where more details can be found. --Delirium 20:49, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

In a Haaretz interview (Jan. '04) historian Benny Morris states:

"Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."

Searching for this sentence on Google (web, news and groups) turns up some discussion of the interview but nobody seems to have a problem with this particular statement.

Keith from Calgary 23:00, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So can we agree that this statement is not controversial?

Keith from Calgary 06:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Still at war with Iraq?

"Israel is technically at war with Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, with previous declarations of war never being repealed by either side. "

Erm, now that the Saddam government is gone, isn't Israel no longer at war with Iraq? WhisperToMe 02:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good question! Actually I'm not sure of the accuracy of the sentence at all. Those countries fought a war but I don't remember any formal declarations of war. No Arab country would have formally declared war against Israel because they didn't recognise that Israel even existed. The UN documents I recall use the phrase "state of belligerence" and maybe in international law (I'm no expert) this is a state that has to be formally ended even if it isn't formally started. --Zero 02:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've read several times on Israeli newspapers that Israel is still in an official state of war with Iraq (only Iraq, not Lebanon or Syria), because the Iraqis, who participated in the 1948 Israeli War of Independence, refused to negotiate and sign an armistice agreement with Israel at the end of that war, unlike all other countries which participated in it.

In any event, even if true, this seems to be no more than an anecdote. I don't believe it has any actual implication on current Iraqi-Israeli relations (as opposed to, say, Syrian-Israeli relations). -- uriber 19:41, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"territories held only since 1967"

How is this a POV? I don't get it all. I don't even see why "disputed" is a POV. I rather suspect that the alternative version is someone's strong POV. -- V V 02:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm even more puzzled by the removal of the word only, on the grounds that it's "justifiable to Israel". It serves to indicate that they did not hold those territories before 1967. Is there some dispute about this? -- V V 04:12, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The thing is this: the word 'only' adds an unnecessary emphasis. And it also sounds bad. --Cantus 04:24, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TO VERYVERILY: The phrase: and other territories occupied since the 1967 war only refers to the NUMBER of territories seized militarily SINCE the 1967 war, NOT that the territories have been held militarily since then, which would still be true, but less neutral. Can the phrase be ambiguous? Yes, if you are a casual reader. --Cantus 06:41, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The tone of your language, particularly in the edit summary, should be a bit more productive. Anyway, "occupied since" is ambiguous, it might mean the act of occupying them took place after 1967, or it might mean they have been continuously occupied since 1967. Also, saying the territories are occupied is not neutral; e.g. see [1] [2]. -- V V 08:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh yeah, like I should treat pro-Israeli web sites as neutral sources. Try again. --Cantus 08:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Duh, read the neutrality policy. The fact that many do not agree with something means that it is not neutral. Even if they are pro-Israeli, their opinion counts. -- V V 08:17, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course their opinion matters little when over 90% of the world thinks differently. --Cantus 08:28, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AGAINST PRO-ISRAELI PARTISAN EDITING Very nice try by the pro-Israeli group, who have waged a constant struggle throughought the history of this article to ensure that it is as sympathetic as possible to Israel (recently including a bizarre and slanderous falsification of history, in which the UN Security Council Resolutions were declared to have been created by "anti-Jewish" Muslim and Soviet satellite countries). There can be no dispute over the term "occupied". Practically the entire international community refers to the "occupation". UN Security Council Resolution 242 declared that the West Bank and Gaza were "occupied" by Israel. But - and most importantly of all - Ariel Sharon, figurehead of the Israeli Right, declared on the Tuesday 26th May 2003, that it was - as we all know it is! - an "occupation". Indeed, he declared that:

"We don't like this word the word, but this is occupation. To keep 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is back for Israel and bad for the Palestinians."

Given practically the entire human race, including the current hardline prime minister of Israel, refers to this state of affairs as an "occupation", why oh why are we prevented from using it? We are using the vocabulary of the most rightwing elements of Israeli society, who frankly in the general panorama of world opinion are an obscure fringe element, instead of a term recognised by the entire international community, the United Nations and even the Israeli government. This is absurd, and testament to the lengths that militantly pro-Israeli Wikipedians will go to in order to secure as strong a bias as possible in favour of Israel. Now, leave "occupied" well alone. Jonesy 13:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

USING ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT There actually is a dispute over the term "occupied" (which kind of disproves your claim that "there could be no dispute" over it.) "Practically the entire international community" is not the same as "everybody". UN Security Council resolutions reflect the political interests of UN Security Council members, and nothing more. Ariel Sharon is not "figurehead of the Israeli Right" (whatever that means), even if he used to be that. He is currently facing a strong opposition from the Israeli Right, since he it practically implementing the traditional policy of the Israeli extreme Left. Anyway, his quote (which was very controversial inIsrael) does not imply that he believes all of the West Bank to be "occupied territory". It is quite clear that he does not believe that. In any event, the fact that Sharon's POV on the subject supposedly coincides with yours, does not make it the POV of "practically the entire human race".

The term "occupation" is not used by the Israeli government when referring to the West Bank. Israel's system of government is not Presidential, and the power to make policy is in the hands of the government, not the PM. The government never made a statement regarding the territories (or part of them) to be "occupied".

This page from the Israeli Foreign Ministry outlines the official Israeli position, and gives several reasonable arguments for why the territories in question are not "occupied".

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once refrred to the territories as the "so-called occupied". While this might not reflect the official position of the US, I'm pretty sure it reflects the sentiment of many Americans. To the best of my knowledge, he was never required to step down or apologize for saying what he did.

To conclude, "occupied" is not an NPOV term in this context, and I, for one, will not leave it well alone -- uriber 19:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Uriber. Occupied is not neutral, regardless of your opinions. Ariel Sharon is one man with a position in government he may not have much longer; his status as a hardliner is doubted by many. And 90% or 99% of the human race believing something does not make it right, much less neutral. -- V V 22:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why does the Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the term occupied in their Israel article, then? --Cantus 22:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't have a policy of writing in a neutral point of view, as far as I'm aware. Thus they care less about subelties than we do. Martin 22:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Look, it's true "occupation" has negative connotations, but that's exactly because of what it entails! You're steering dangerously close to newspeak here:

It's a fact that the Israeli army are controlling the Palestinian territories.
It's a fact that the vast majority of inhabitants are not Israeli citizens.
It's a fact that the Palestinians don't want the Israeli army there.

Frankly, not wanting to call this (military) occupation is cognitive dissonance. -- Dissident 22:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm solving the problem by not calling the occupation anything in the intro. The exact square mileage is scarcely the most interesting thing about Israel, anyway. Martin 00:55, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of looking up "occupation" in the Oxford English Dictionary, which as far as I am aware is not co-authored by Hamas:

1. a. The action of taking or maintaining possession or control of a country, building, land, etc., esp. by (military) force; an instance of this; the period of such action; (also) the state of being subject to such action.

It's really that simple. The argument that this is not the situation in Palestine holds as much water as the Earth being flat.

In fact, Israel has abandoned large portions of the West bank and Gaza strip to Palestnian self-control and government. Therefore, the applicability of the word occupation is a matter of legitimate argument. I think, however, that the word can be used, but needs some explanation, perhaps in the introduction, that while there is a controvercy here, the conventional and diplomatically accepted way is to refer to occupied territories, or sometimes administered territories. Cema 05:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Those who argue against the use of this term respond with indignation at that fact nearly all of humanity regard the state of affairs as occupation. Indeed, they regard this as little more as a dictatorship of the majority over the minority, when Wikipedia is meant to impartially straddle the debates, regardless of however many people subscribe to a particular argument. The problem, however, is that the use of any term but this one refutes the idea that there is an occupation, i.e. it upholds the argument of a tiny minority over the overwhelming majority. I am truly baffled by the idea that this could be construed as a "neutral point of view". The exercise of control over non-Israeli land through a military means and presence is, simply put, occupation.

Again, since large portions of the non-Israeli land are not under control of Israel, military or otherwise, calling all these territories occupied stirs controvercy. Cema 05:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

International law decrees so. The United Nations Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly have all described the state of affairs as an "occupation". Ariel Sharon - who has both directly participated in and led wars against the Arab nations and the Palestinians - has described it as an "occupation". Only the very rightwing of the Zionist movement chooses to use (as Dissident pointed out) this misleading doublespeak. To use a word that denies occupation is a capitulation to a fringe opinion.

That we are dealing with ideologically committed people with extreme opinions is shown by the association made by Uriber of the policies of Ariel Sharon with the Israeli extreme Left. Only an individual on the rightwing fringes would have made this comparison. It is vital to continue to defend truth from those who distort it for political ends. Jonesy 01:12, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Under the "Geography" section, we use the word "occupied". I hope this reassures you on the matter. Martin