Talk:Israel

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

Featured article Israel is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008.
This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Countries      (Rated FA-Class)
Geography portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
Archive
Old archives
  1. Israel and the Occupied Territories
  2. Jerusalem as capital
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Historical phrasing for 'occupied territories'

It would be more accurate to replace the phrase "occupied territories" with "territories occupied", in the sentence "Most negotiations relating to the territories have been on the basis of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which calls on Israel to withdraw from occupied territories in return for normalization of relations with Arab states, a principle known as "Land for peace".[130][131][132]".

"Territories occupied" is the specific language used in the resolution itself. The proposed phrasing also reflects that the modern usage of the phrase "occupied territories" is a proper noun (The Occupied Territories). This term did not exist when the resolution was created. For example, the Sinai Peninsula is not considered part of The Occupied Territories, however, it is one of the "territories occupied" in consequence to the 1967 war.

Acknowledging this difference best denotes the span of the war, the resolution, and all parties involved in the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.237.70.103 (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on the meaning behind the "State of..."

Why is Israel officially referred to as the State of Israel and not just Israel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.106.153 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it United States of America and not just America? Why is it Bundesrepublik Deutschland and not just Deutschland? Who cares? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"Israel" is the name of the Jewish people, not of a land or a country. So the State of the Jewish people is called "The State of Israel". That's why. Benjil (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Israel is the name of one of Prophet Jacob's sons, and the name of Israelites in Arabic is Bani Israel, meaning Sons of Israel... So Israel is not the name of the people if you want to be specific... Besides, it doesn't really matter... but I'm up for Israel, as Israel isn't a state or a tribe now... it's just a hazy word... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walid Osama (talk • contribs) 05:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Israel is not one Jacob's sons, but Jacob himself-a name given to him by God after his battle an the angel. Jews will often consider themselves "Am Yisrael" or the Nation of Israel. The "State of Israel" is correct in this context.Torontoguy37 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2008

"The State of Israel" is the official name of the country. However, "Israel" is the shortened form. This is confusing given the historical and biblical contexts of the "Land of Israel". In order to add clarity, academics and newspapers often write something akin to "modern Israel" or "The Jewish State". It should be noted that the ancient kingdom of Israel was known as such, even in Hebrew. So, technically, there has never been a country called Israel before. The land where the Jews presided and had sovereignty was more like a federation, known and ruled by tribal affiliations (Kingdoms of Judah, Benyamin, etc--Kingdom of the Jews), not exactly the one large state with which we are familiar.

I would equate this type of designation to what the Palestinian Arab population hopes to achieve. That is, they would probably call their new state The State of Palestine or the Arab Republic of Palestine, and so forth. In short form, however, we would all probably still say Palestine. We would need to be careful not to confuse this, much like we must do with Israel, with the Roman designation of Palestine, the British Mandate of Palestine, or the various maps of Palestine in the past half century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondf36 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the main question here was more along the lines of "why 'state' rather than 'country' or 'nation'?" or something. Tyciol (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the founders of the Israel, but I am unaware of other countries that have the word "Country" or "Nation" in the official title. Usually, I believe a title has to do with the type of governance (Kingdom of/Democratic Republic of/Commonwealth of/ and so forth). State is a commonly used identifier to connote a modernly formed country (United States of America, United States of Mexico). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondf36 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian people were original settlers 20,000 years ago

According to "Traces of a distant past" by Gary Stix, Scientific American, July , 2008, the Palestinian People were the original settlers of the region 20,000 years ago. This should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph beside the statement about the jews being there 3000 years (this seems to be purely a religious belief - no sources other than the jewish bible are given). We really need to work on getting all this religious mumbo-jumbo out of Wikipedia Fourtildas (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Traces of a distant past" does not mention the Palestinian People anywhere. The only mention appears in an artist's graphic illustration of the common ancestor lineage tree, referring to the group simply as "Palestinians". Nowhere does the author suggest that people whom we call palestinians today (or, specifically, Palestinian arabs) are the same people refered to by the illustration. There is also no statement anywhere in the work connecting this group to a specific period of time, and the only mention of 20,000 years appears in another illustration, which illustrates, vaguely and without any specifity, ethnic or geographical, migration paths of various groups and periods. Considering that, a statement that "the Palestinian People were the original settlers of the region 20,000 years ago" is not supported by the source you provide. A simple google search reveals that no one else has produced an interpretation of this work that is similar to yours. Zombiestan (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: According to the BBC "Recent DNA research shows that the Canaanites and Israelites were not just similar in their cultures, they were genetically identical" (Unfortunately no source provided). So we can say that the jewish presence also goes back 20,000 years (assuming that ancestors of jews are jews). Fourtildas (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Too true, but then again if you're dealing with the subject of a group of people saying 'We now own all your land because our religion says we do' Logic pretty much flys out the window. I hope this comment does not get deleted for being too truthful and if i am wrong please feel free to tell me why.--78.145.193.160 (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what is totally disgusting about these people is that they claim to have such high standards of honesty and intellectual integrity but they try to pass off superstitious rubbish like Land of Israel as historical fact. What a (sad) joke. (And I stand behind my use of the words "superstitious" and "rubbish" if any zionistas need them explained). Fourtildas (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, why beat around the bush. Why disguise your racist views? Everyone can see where you're coming from. Just blank the page again with 'Fuck Israel, as brief and clear as that.' --Gilabrand (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There's good archeological evidence for Jewish kingdoms in the region for close to 3,000 years.
No, there is not, because the "Jewish" did not exist 3,000 years ago. There is archeological evidence for something there, but you cannot simply call it "Jewish." 128.59.143.41 (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
And... That's not what that articles says. But don't let that confuse you. Facts are over-rated. Forget it. You've shown already you're nothing but a hateful POV-pusher, bent on spreading propaganda against Israel and the Jews. Your personal attacks show you're not close to being a contributor. okedem (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this "good archeological evidence" cited in Wikipedia? In "Early Roots" there is a "traditional view" (which I take to mean "hebrew bible story") that "Israelite kingdoms and states" existed (there is no definition of Israelite in the article). In the next paragraph we have "Between the time of the Jewish kingdoms and the 7th-century Muslim conquests ..." implying these actually existed. Does "Jewish" = "Israelite"? We are supposed to avoid cultural bias. How is a reader from China with a secular education supposed to make sense of any of this? I have not made any personal attacks. I may be guilty of using slightly uncivil language, but not as bad as the above 2 comments. Fourtildas (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article bothering fourtildas is this one. However this related largely to stuff in the first 5 books, the later biblical stuff has more coroboration. This debate does not belong in this article but I hsould point out that if you go to a later period, about 800 BC, the evidence for the aauthroity fo the bible is not so bad: see Hezekiah Tunnel and Sennacherib#War_with_Judah and that aspect of biblical history is not discussed in the article. The return decree of Cyrus is also interesting Cyrus (Bible), although its hard to provide full coroboration, it clearly agrees witht he evidence. The same can be said for David's kingdom: maybe they had an over-inflated sense of themselves and perhaps it got exaggerated by later scribes but the basic information agrees with the facts on the ground. The bible is a mixture of history, myth and all sorts fo stuff and it is certianly authentic writing from the period. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall reading that article. I would be interested to read an article by a historian who argues for the historicity of the bible (preferably currently employed doing teaching and research in the history department of a university, not just a bible scholar please. I mean someone who is putting their professional reputation as a historian on the line.)
The Wikipedia article Hezekiah Tunnel is a good example of what I'm complaining about. With the exception of the existence of a tunnel and a fragmentary inscription with controversial translation and unknown date, the article is entirely bible story. Is there even any evidence that the people in jlam at that time were ancestors of the jews? Are ancestors of jews automatically "jews"? (Again, cultural bias - remember the poor reader from China, they don't teach this stuff in school there). And were these alleged jews the first people in 3000 years to think of digging a tunnel to the nearby spring to provide water in case of a protracted seige? The Hebrew bible says so, but it tends to inflate as you say. Fourtildas (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The way Wikipedia is supposed to work is that historians study the primary sources and make interpretations and judgments about their authroity, coroboration and authenticity. Then we encyclopedists base our articles on the historians' writings ("reliable secondary sources"). We should be citing historians who have made a case for the authenticity of the bible. We should not be playing amateur historian by trying to make these interpretations and judgments about primary sources ourselves. 24.64.165.176 (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have hard time to understand why you are even bothring to discuss with Fourtildas, he is undoubtly a racist-and has proved it here many times. He clearly has a POV, even that he is trying to look as he is speaking "in the name of science". Just don't let him change anything in Israel's article contant.--Gilisa (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article mention that since 1948 the Zionists have used violent means to prevent the native Palestinians from returning to their historic homeland? This is the "root" and "essence" (if you like these silly metaphorical terms) of the conflict in the region. 24.64.165.176 (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC) (something is broken - only my IP appears here. Supposedly we have more privacy if we login but my IP appears here anyway) 24.64.165.176 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The so-called Palestinians are Arab occupiers who infiltrated the area or were brought by the Turks and British within the last 150 years. The Jews have had a continual presence since they first appeared around 4000 years ago as an outgrowth of the earliest inhabitants of the region dating back at least 20 000 years and Jewish descent from these pre-historic cultures is something known from genetic evidence. Claiming the Palestinians were there for 20 000 years is a rather stupid lie made up by inverting the truth that it was in fact the Jews who have had ancestors in the land for that long. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


All right, sports fans- let's try to keep it civil, please. There's already been an AN/I report on User:Fourtildas. If he continues his behavior, he will eventually be blocked. It would be great if we could move on and stick to constructive discussion, please. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

These accusations are offensive. I do not believe in any form of religious mythology and I object to people trying to represent their myths as facts (e.g. "Jewish kingdoms" - Dever has decreed that the bible is "history" so these religious beliefs get morphed into factual statements in Wikipedia).
Also I am opposed to ethnic nationalism and religious nationalism, and I think in Wikipedia we are not supposed to be promoting nationalism. I would have no problem if the article said something like "Zionism, an ethno-religious nationalist movement, claims that the modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), a concept central to Judaism for over 3000 year". But I have a problem with stating the bolded part as fact - it is just a zionist slogan. Fourtildas (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Do not feed the troll. Do NOT feed the troll. DO. NOT. FEED. THE. TROLL. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population figures, and other matters

Does the 7 million figure, as a population of Israel, include the West Bank or Gaza Strip? If it does not, please indicate that. This is especially confusing, because you do indicate that some of the Israelis live in the West Bank. So the Israelis in the West Bank count, but not the Palestinians? Please specify that the count refers to citizens of Israel, but not others subject to its military and political control. Indeed, the occupied territories are conspicuous in their absence from this article. Israel controls them militarily and politically and has hundreds of thousands of settlers in these areas. Why are they not included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.141.103 (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The population figure includes Israelis, living under Israeli control. This means settlers count, but Palestinians don't. The territories are discussed in detail under "Occupied territories" (in "Government and politics"). okedem (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
If Israel was to include the West Bank and Gaza then the number would be well over 11 million. The 7 million include citizens in Eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights that might be considered occupied by international law but not that of arabs in the West Bank or Gaza. --Krotx (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why were my suggestions erased, I can't find them anywhere?

Hello I came here a few months back suggesting that Israel did not 'Intervein' in the lebanon civil war, but instead 'Invaded' Lebanon. I thought that this was valid, because any other credible source of literature that I have read, in fact, says that Israel invaded Lebanon. I would like the change to be made because it is more accurate. Further, if Israel was occupying Lebanon for the time being until the PlO left, why stay there after they left? Why implement a president that is 'Pro-Israel' afterwards? Why not fully withdrawl until many years later?

Again, as I expressed before, this is a hot button issue, but non the less these are relavant concerns. Can someone answer my questions as to why the language in the article is so underplayed?

--Starchild12345 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If it was made months ago, its probably in the archives. This talk page has 27 seperate archives, if all discussions were maintained on this page forever, it would get unusably long. Check the archives, or alternately check the page history (click the history tab at the top) around the date you asked the question the first time, and you may see what happened to the original discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eretz Yisrael

This is not merely an abstract concept. It has a clear geographical referent, which is the region known in modern English as Palestine. One important example is the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which the name Palestine, but it clearly refers to the geographical concept of Eretz Yisrael (and this is how it is translated into Hebrew). Also, the official Hebrew name of the British Mandate over Palestine was "Palestina (E.Y.)" (E.Y = Eretz Yisrael). If we go back to the 2nd century CE, we have historical evidence that the name Syria-Palestinae replaced the name Judea in the official Roman Empire records. Judea is a concept closely related to Eretz Yisrael. DrorK (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are completely right in what you said, but wrong on the actual article edit. The reason is that the definitions for "Palestinian" have changed significantly since the British Mandate, and especially since 1967. Today, Palestine usually refers either to the Palestinian Territories or the area of Israel and the territories together, while Eretz Yisrael in that context referred also to what is today Jordan (and in other contexts without Jordan). In other words, Eretz Yisrael is not such an abstract concept, but today Palestine is, so there's no reason to insert that phrase in the lead. Maybe it can be elaborated on further down in the article (or rather, anyone actually interested, can just click on the Eretz Yisrael link already in the sentence). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. One question is whether the term "Eretz Yisrael" has any geographical meaning to the common English speaker. For example, if I'm referring to a certain plant or animal unique to this region, I'd say "Palestinian X" in English and "X Eretz-Yisraeli" in Hebrew. I doubt if I can say "Eretz Yisraeli X" or "Land of Israel X" in English. In Christianity "Jerusalem" may refer to the actual city or to a religious concept. I wouldn't like English speakers to think that Eretz Yisrael in Judaism resembles Jerusalem in its Christian abstract sense. There is a very concrete geographical reference here.
  2. Another question is whether the adjective Palestinian derives directly from the name Palestine. As of today, the answer is no. A Palestinian person does not mean "a person who comes from Palestine". Before 1948, a Palestinian was a resident of the British Mandate over Palestine, and since then, this term has been used almost exclusively to Arabs who live, used to live, or have origins in this region, while Jews are not called Palestinians. Nevertheless, the geographical unit is still called Palestine, regardless of the population.
  3. The boundaries of Eretz Yisrael are very vague. In today's Hebrew it almost always refers to the former Mandate territory (maybe plus the Golan Heights). This is how political moves influence the language. DrorK (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The exact boundaries of the Jewish concept of a "Land of Israel" are fairly vague, as is the concept of the region of "Palestine". Thus one should not try to equate the two, particularly when one lacks reliable sources that do. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
When Lord Balfour wrote "Palestine" he clearly meant: the land which the Jews call Eretz Yisrael. We know that from the letters he exchanged with the Zionist leaders. When Hebrew was declared an official language of the British Mandate, the name of the territory in Hebrew was written: Palestine-Eretz-Yisrael on every stamp, coin, banknote or official document. In the Israeli law, whenever the term Eretz Yisrael is used, it means the territory of the British Mandate over Palestine (this is an obligatory legal interpretation, which was made clear in 1981, when the Golan Heights law was enacted. The government legal adviser ruled that the government has the right to issue an order which applies the Israeli law on every territory within Eretz Yisrael, i.e. B.M. Palestine, thus the Golan Heights territory requires a special statute). Here you have at least three sources to support the claim that E.Y. is a similar if not identical to Palestine as a geographical concept. DrorK (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, you are right in the context of the Balfour Declaration and the mandate. However, the article is about modern Israel, therefore this is an anachronism. In the past, Jewish towns in the Land of Israel were called colonies, and I can provide dozens of sources saying this. This obviously does not mean that we should call Tel Aviv, Petah Tikva, etc. a colony today. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Moreover, we're discussion a passage stating that the Land of Israel was central to Judaism. The concept central to Judaism does not refer to political borders and in that context Land of Israel could mean anything from Solomon's kingdom to the Hasmonean kingdom to the current borders of Israel. It is therefore indeed a vague concept (again, in this context specifically) that should not be compared to the word Palestine, which is just as vague. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
You are mixing up terms here. Colony is a polysemy. It can mean either a place inhabited by people, or a political entity subject to an empire. In recent years the former use declined giving way to words like "community" (which is also a polysemy). This is probably due to the fact that "colony" in the sense of a type of government has become a very unpopular term.
Now back to Eretz Yisrael - the Declaration of Independance states that Israel is a "Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael". A few sentences above it talks about the termination of the British mandate over Eretz Yisrael. It is very clear then, that Eretz Yisrael and Palestine were treated as synonyms (I hope no one thinks this is an original research, it seems plain and simple to me). Further more, whenever the Israeli law mentions the former British mandate territory, it calls it Eretz Yisrael (see the case of the Golan Heights Law I mentioned above, and there are other examples). There is no official Israeli text that refers to Jordan or southern Lebanon as Eretz Yisrael (even though these territories where considered part of Eretz Yisrael in ancient times). So, in the modern official Israeli context, Eretz Yisrael is certainly equivalent to Palestine in English or Filastin in Arabic.
The concept of Eretz Yisrael in Judaism (either as a religion or as a national ideology) is a geographical concept, and it has borders. It is true, that there were (and still are) disagreements about the exact borders of this entity. For example, Jews from Jaffa (Yafo) often prefered to be buried further north, because there was a disagreement whether Jaffa itself is within the borders of Eretz Yisrael. Jews of Acre (Akko) often prefered to be burried in some distance eastwards for the same reason. There are arguments whether fruits from the Arava valley are allowed in a year of Shmita (a year during which one shouldn't cultivate the land in Eretz Yisrael). However these disagreements prove that we are talking about a geographical concept which is supposed to have borders. It is also quite clear that this territorial concept is more-or-less in the same place where we locate Palestine. DrorK (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The above completely proves my point. There is no clear agreement about Eretz Yisrael's borders, and the act of equating Eretz Yisrael with Palestine is only valid in the context of the mandate (the Golan Heights Law also refers to the mandate borders and period). It is not valid in any context other than the mandate—neither in the context of ancient Eretz Yisrael (the concept central to Judaism), or Eretz Yisrael the way it is seen today by those who use the term (generally the mandate territory plus Golan, and sometimes also Sinai, or the ancient concept as used by the religious public).
The version you seek to insert implies that Eretz Yisrael and Palestine are synonymous in all contexts, which they are not. In other words, you are implying that the following text would be correct and NPOV:
The modern State of Israel has its roots in Palestine, a concept central to Judaism for over 3,000 years.
Is that right? I think Palestine has nothing to do with this, and it is certainly not central to Judaism. The term Land of Israel is frequently used in English and well-known enough that we don't need to elaborate (nonwithstanding the WikiLink present there). Lets just leave it the way it is. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, maybe the whole leading paragraph should be rephrased. The current phrasing seems very "clean" and non-disputable, and yet it doesn't say much. The English speaker might wonder what kind of concept Eretz Yisrael is (and if it is a geographical concept - where it is), what "having roots in a concept" means etc. I added the fact that the ancient Kingdom of Judah, whose subjects are usually considered to be the most immediate ancestors of the Jews, lied in Eretz Yisrael to make things more concrete and clearer, but I'm not sure it's enough. I would say that the basic principles governing the establishment of the State of Israel are as follows:
  1. Judaism is a national identity (and not only a religion or a remote origin)
  2. Jewish communities should be united in one place rather than scattered around the world
  3. These united Jewish communities should be independent in a Jewish state
  4. The Jewish communities should be gathered in the ancient homeland of the Jews, which is the land in which the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah used to be located, consequently the independent Jewish state should be located somewhere in the region known to Jews as Eretz Yisrael and to non-Jews as Palestine.
I think the leading paragraph should reflect these 4 principles in a concise and clear phrasing. Currently it is way too vague. DrorK (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving to left
I think it's a bit too much information for a lead section, but if you can indeed write it in a "concise and clear phrasing", please prepare a draft! I'm sure that if it clearly improves the reader's understanding of the topic without having POV elements, it will be approved by everyone. Otherwise the information belongs to the articles Land of Israel and Zionism. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo