Talk:Israel/Archive 5

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 3

→

Untitled

israeli football...........why do they play in UEFA?

Status of English as a language in Israel

English is not an official language in Israel. However if you do a poll, most people would think that it is one. English in many aspects is much more common than Arabic. Nearly all road signs are available in English and Hebrew, but only some are available in Arabic. Most governmental websites are available in English and Hebrew, but not many are available in Arabic. All 3 languages are written on all stamps and currency. You court statement deposed in English may be accepted by Court. Everyone has to study English 10 years in school while Arabic studies in school last 2-3 years and are sometimes optional. English is required for entering the university. I suggest adding "Other languages: English" (e.g. like in the Sri Lanka page).

Well, the Other languages idea is better than "semi-official", but I'm still not sure it should be included; if you look at countries like Germany or Sweden or the Netherlands, for example, the knowledge of English and years of study would likely be greater than in Israel, yet none of them list English as an "Other language". Jayjg 03:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From what I've heard In Germany English is optional (e.g. some choose French, etc.), I believe it's the same in Netherlands, and I don't know about Sweden and Finland. Again, proficiency isn't the only reason I mention it. Take a look at German coins http://www.euro.ecb.int/en/section/euro0/specific.DE.html , the writing on the side is only in German.

Take a look at the German Passport (only in German), http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/phd/PHD359/OS44003.JPG , and take a look at the Israeli one (in Hebrew and English, but not in Arabic). http://www.4law.co.il/701_files/i-1.jpe

In the CIA factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html , English is mentioned there, and in all the other countries mentioned above, it's not. I agree that "Other language" is a better idea, and I'm withdrawing the "semi-official" idea (because I think it's a confusing term, not because I think it's wrong).

English in Israeli passports/coins etc, can be explained by Hebrew using a unusual script. German languages can for example be quite easily desciphered by the English-speaking international community. Compare for example with East Asian scripts, whose countries' stamps etc, often have English written of them...

I think a short section on the Languages of Israel, including Hebrew, Arabic, and the information you've provided about English, would be quite interesting. Jayjg 02:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re: English in Germany and Scandinavia: The situation in Scandinavia is somewhat similar to the one in Israel, I think: English is a required study from the first years in primary school through at least two years of grammar school / highschool. (One can choose what other additional language (German, French, Spanish, Russian, etc.) to study, but English is default for all.) I believe things are similar in the Netherlands. My experience is that Germany is not really comparable here... Regarding a section on Hebrew/Arabic/English in Israel, I think this is a good idea. :) -- Olve 01:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is a good idea, and it sounds like you're the editor to write it. ;-) Jayjg 17:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What's an unsigned contributor? Israeli ethnic cleansing is a fact

Israeli ethnic cleansing forced 700,000 - 800,000 Palestinians from their homes during the Nakba or "disaster" or "catastrophe". This is a known fact. See 1948_Arab-Israeli_war#Demographic_outcome and [1] --Alberuni 06:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is for controversial changes to controversial articles to first be discussed on the relevant article's Talk page, rather than implemented unilaterally and sparking edit wars. The section you insist on re-adding was added to the article by 67.164.10.214, without any Talk page discussion at all, let alone consensus. Thus I reverted that contributors edit. If you wish to re-add it, discuss it here first. Impi 07:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am discussing the edit and providing evidence to substantiate it. You are censoring the information claiming it is "too controversial" on an already "controversial page" without providing any data to back up your reversions. Facts are facts. No point trying to conceal the truth. By the way, the page is not marked with the "NPOV" or "Controversial" tags. Maybe it should be. --Alberuni 15:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pro-Palestinian sites (like the one you brought) claim that ethnic cleansing occured. Pro-Israeli sites insist no such thing happened, and bring evidence as well[2]. That demographic change occured is not questioned; that it can be labelled "ethnic cleansing" is. Controversial edits need to be agreed to by consensus in Talk: first rather than being forced on stable articles. Oh, and I think by "unsigned contributors" Impi meant anonymous IPs. Jayjg 16:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The changes you reverted were accurate. An "ethnic cleansing" is AFAIK, a purging of some ethnicities from a piece of land. It is a fact that that happened during the war in 1948. I don't think Wikipedia should hide that fact. Palestine-info 11:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Considering that there are over 1 million Arab Israelis currently living as citizens of Israel, it's hard to understand which ethnicities you think were "purged" from the country. Jayjg 16:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant, what matters is that the section in question was stable for quite a long time before the anonymous user decided to modify it with what is a controversial statement. How can inserting a statement that a country was responsible for ethnic cleansing, a very loaded word, not be controversial? I reverted for the simple reason that on all articles in which viewpoints are often extreme or POV is inevitable from editors, recommended policy is for the proposed change to be listed on the talk page so all contributors can comment and perhaps modify the portion of text to make it more NPOV. If, after a few days, there are no objections or consensus is reached, then the section can of course be added to the article.

Alberuni, first of all your personal attacks are not helping much. Referring to me as a revisionist and accusing me of censorship and concealing the truth, when I quite plainly invited discussion on the talk page as per policy on similar articles, is rather insulting. In addition, to suggest this article is not controversial is laughable, because it's plain to anybody that it's controversial due to the ongoing conflict and the extreme views engendered by it.

Also, Jayjg is right, I meant anonymous IPs.

So, I'm going to place the two versions here, so others can compare them and consensus can be reached.

Version 1:

After the war, only 14-25% (depending on the estimate) of the Arab population remained in Israel, the rest having fled prior to and during the war. When Israel refused their reentry, they became refugees; see Palestinian Exodus for a discussion of the circumstances.

Version 2:

After the war, only 14-25% (depending on the estimate) of the Arab population remained in Israel, the majority (some 800,000 Palestinians) having been forcefully expelled by an Israeli campaign of ethnic cleansing. When Israel refused their reentry, they became refugees; see Palestinian Exodus for a discussion of the circumstances. Israel's refusal to acknowledge the rights of indigenous Palestinians and the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip remain the main causes of the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Impi 16:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To begin with, Arabs left for a number of reasons both before and during the war; some were actually encouraged to stay, but left anyway. Characterizing this complex situation as being "forcefully expelled by an Israeli campaign of ethnic cleansing" is a wildly POV slant on the issue. Next, Israel did not refuse their re-entry either, the situation is far more complex than that. Israel allowed 30,000 to return under a family re-unification plan, and offered to allow another 70,000 to return. Arab states did not want to negotiate with Israel, as in their eyes this would have given the country legitimacy. The impasse was not solved. Next, there was a lot of "refusing" going on at the time, including the "refusing" by Arab countries to admit the existence of Israel (or as they prefer, "the Zionist entity") in any form (which is also "continuing" in many cases). Again, the summary given is a wildly POV slant on a complex situation. Jayjg 17:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More hasbara propaganda. Sure, calling it the "Nakba", catastrophe, was just some kind of misunderstanding. The Israelis wanted Palestinians to stay! haha. I guess it should have been called the "Big Confusion" or the "Complex Situation". Give me a break. The Zionist policy of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the land of Palestine perpetrated by the Haganah and other Jewish terrorist groups is a known fact admitted even by Zionists like Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe. The only ones who deny it are the repugnant Zionist revisionists, akin to Holocaust deniers. See 1948_Arab-Israeli_war#Demographic_outcome [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] for the disturbing facts you would rather deny. --Alberuni 19:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are many sites and sources providing Palestinian hasbara that like to characterize it as ethnic cleansing. Others provide other views. Some Israelis did encourage Arabs to stay, these are simply the facts. Others encouraged them to leave. Some Arabs encouraged other Arabs to leave as well. Many left simply to escape the war zone, or because of fears of atrocities (both real and imagined). Regardless, the situation was complex, and simplistic POVing and demonizing doesn't represent the truth. Jayjg 22:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, you have provided ZERO evidence so far to back up your hasbara propaganda assertion that the Israeli government wanted Palestinians to stay. Even Rabin's memoirs quote David Ben Gurion callin for Palestinians to be ethnically cleansed, "Drive them out!" Palestinians generally do not engage in hasbara because the definition of hasbara is pro-Israeli propaganda/advocacy. I have provided links to Palestinian, Israeli and neutral historical sources, including Tikkun magazine, the premier journal of Jewish intellectual thought. The fact that you would dismiss all of these sources as propaganda reflects your extremist revisionist mindset and denial of historical facts that reflect poorly on Israel. You did touch on the truth, probably by accident, when you wrote "fears of atrocities (both real and imagined)". Yes, it was the very real atrocities, the massacres of Palestinian civilians by Jewish terrorist gangs that instilled fear in the Palestinian population, prompting many to flee their homeland. That's how ethnic cleansing works and the Israelis accomplished their goal to drive the Palestinians out. Why deny it? --Alberuni 23:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've provided a link, and can provide more if necessary; however, it's pointless right now, because when I've done so in the past, you dismiss them all as either "right-wing" or "pro-Israeli" or both. None of the sources you provided were neutral, including Tikkun, regardless of what it bills itself as. Palestinians have engaged in hasbara since the start of the conflict, and even moreso since 1967, and their hasbara has been far more successful than any Israeli hasbara, which is in fact a reaction to Palestinian hasbara. And the fact that Palestinian supporters do not actually call it "hasbara" is neither here nor there. Oh, and please watch the personal attacks, thanks. Jayjg 23:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So it appears that we have a situation where you have decided that you have the right to unilaterally decide what is acceptable for inclusion in this article. It doesn't matter how much evidence is provided from outside sources, you reject them all as biased and unacceptable. If you disagree with the content, you even reject sources who are Jewish, Israeli and/or Zionist, like Tikkun magazine, and authors such as Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Noam Chomsky, or Israel Shahak. You claim that everyone who disagrees with your extremist form of Zionism is not neutral. (NPOV requires that all points of view be expressed, not just yours Jayjg. You are once again violating Wikipedia:NPOV in an effort to push your extremist Zionist POV onto Wikipedia). You seemed to think you can base Wikipedia articles on your own personal biases with support from the Jewish Virtual Library, WorldNetDaily, Free Republic, and FrontPageMag. Now you claim that you don't even have to cite references because your sources are recognized as unreliable, biased, right-wing, pro-Israeli online blogs. Actual historical evidence with academic citation, references, witness testimony, UN reports, etc mean nothing to you simply because they contradict your narrow point of view. You seem to think you own Wikipedia articles and can edit them to suit yourself. This is unacceptable. --Alberuni 02:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, see what other people have to say about it. Read NPOV to get a full understanding of what it is. WhisperToMe 02:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If ethnic cleansing occured, Israel did a pretty bad job at it. I understand that Jewish people are generally held to a higher standard then Muslims. However, there are over a million Muslims with Israeli citizenship. Compare that figure with how many Jews or Christians live in Muslim countries. Masterhomer 05:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually many Arab governments like Westerners for the money they bring - people like OBL want to overthrow such Arab governments and kick the Westerners out. WhisperToMe 05:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's like saying Hitler did a bad job because there were still a few million Ashkenazi Jews left after the Holocaust. Lacks logic. If 800,000 Palestinians were expelled in 1948, that's ethnic cleansing whether there were 100 or 1,000,000 survivors. --Alberuni 05:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not. Hitler lost. Israel has had 56 years to eliminate the Muslims from the country. And they have ïfailedÍ to do so. Masterhomer 06:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The millions of Palestinian refugees forced from their homeland and the tens of thousands of civilians slaughtered by the peaceful civilized Zionist invaders are grateful for Israel's self declared moral superiority. --Alberuni 02:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recheck your facts and post again. Masterhomer 05:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did want to add this in. http://www.mideastweb.org/haifa1948.htm It's a copy of a 1948 British police report. Though the site appears unsympathetic to the "traditional Zionist POV", it does mention that the report suggests that in Hiafa at least, Arabs were asked to stay. I am not arguing that there were no instances of Palestinian evacuations, but a systematic, organized ethnic cleansing among "Zionist revolutionaries" throughout the entire mandate is historically inaccurate, though no doubt this intention existed in some areas. As for the historians cited, I would like to humbly suggest to Alberuni that there is a major difference between Benny Morris, and Benny Morris as cited by Noam Chomsky. Chomsky takes Morris' data to reach different conclusions than Morris himself does (I have no problem with this, though when Daniel Jonah Goldhagen did the same thing with Max Boramus' source material, Chomsky's bosom buddy Norman Finkelstein flew off the handle, but I digress). Morris' assertion was that historical evidence points to the likely possibility that, realizing the calls by Arabs for Palestinians to leave and the spread of stories of Israeli soldier triumphs instilled fear in the Palestinians, the Israelis played into it to exacerbate the exodus. This is Morris' theory, which is different from Chomsky's. Chomsky claims simply that the Israelis engaged in a concentrated and organized ethnic cleansing and that the Arab leaders did not tell the Palestinians to leave. While that might play on the University lecture circuit for the consumption of leftist rhetoric junkies, it is contradicted by Arab and British primary sources. Most left without seeing an Israeli soldier, I have not yet seen a historical model which can contradict this fact (though if you can point to one, I would be most appreciative). Since there is no historical consensus on the matter, may I suggest the entire section make mention of both accounts and attribute them to their respective political affiliation (someone I believe already suggested this)? Alphatrion 12:31, 18 Nov 2004

I would accept an NPOV version that acknowledges the Israeli campaign of ethnic cleansing that is not mentioned in the current Zionist slanted version of this article. --Alberuni 05:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters."

Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet - Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas.

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'"

Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."

Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"

"We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai."

David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff.

"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours."

Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves."

Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

User:Alberuni

It is quite evident that this issue is far more complex than some here will acknowledge, with many different factors being involved in the Palestinian refugee exodus, as no doubt discussed ad infinitum on the articles dealing specifically with that issue. However, the many quotes recently posted here deserve a response, if only to show another side of the issue:

"Even amidst the violent attacks launched against us for months past, we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent.
"We extend the hand of peace and good-neighborliness to all the States around us and to their people, and we call upon them to cooperate in mutual helpfulness with the independent Jewish nation in its Land. The State of Israel is prepared to make its contribution in a concerted effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."

- David Ben-Gurion, in Israel's Proclamation of Independence, read on May 14, 1948

(Judging by the rights of Israeli Arabs in Israel today, it would appear his promise in the first paragraph was kept).

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemmed to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable".

- by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976

"The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa."

- London Times, May 5, 1948

Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

- The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948

"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.".

- Time, May 3, 1948, p. 25

The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.

- Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949

We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.

- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah ("The Secret Behind the Disaster") by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952

The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. . . . He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. . . Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.

- Habib Issa, Secretary General of the Arab League (Pasha's successor), in the newspaper Al Hoda, June 8, 1951

Some of the Arab leaders and their ministers in Arab capitals . . . declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations.... It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands . . . and to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come in the hours between sunset and sunrise.

- Arab Higher Committee, in a memorandum to the Arab League, Cairo, 1952

"The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

- from the Jordan daily Ad Difaa, September 6, 1954

"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war."

- General Glubb Pasha, in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948

The Arab exodus from other villages was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews"

- Yunes Ahmed Assad, refugee from the town of Deir Yassin, in Al Urdun, April 9, 1953

[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel."

- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, according to Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949

Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe. [However] ...A large road convoy, escorted by [British] military . . . left Haifa for Beirut yesterday. . . . Evacuation by sea goes on steadily. ...[Two days later, the Jews were] still making every effort to persuade the Arab populace to remain and to settle back into their normal lives in the towns... [as for the Arabs,] another convoy left Tireh for Transjordan, and the evacuation by sea continues. The quays and harbor are still crowded with refugees and their household effects, all omitting no opportunity to get a place an one of the boats leaving Haifa.""

- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948

"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did."

- Jamal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, told to the United Nations Security Council, quoted in the UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14

"the military and civil authorities and the Jewish representative expressed their profound regret at this grave decision [to evacuate]. The [Jewish] Mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation to reconsider its decision"

- The Arab National Committee of Haifa, told to the Arab League

"...the Jewish hagana asked (using loudspeakers) Arabs to remain at their homes but the most of the Arab population followed their leaders who asked them to leave the country."

The TIMES of London, reporting events of 22.4.48

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return."

- Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, (Beirut, 1973), Part 1, pp. 386-387

This is a complex issue, and there was more than just one factor involved in the issue of the refugees. We should acknowledge that. Impi 08:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Before this degenerates into a useless flame war, may I suggest the following statement as NPOV?

--During the period of the War of Independence, the ethnic Palestinian population transferred out of territory controlled by Israel, the reasons disputed by historians. Some historians and advocates claim that the majority of Palestinians were removed by a concerted effort on the part of the Zionist forces to change the population balance in the territories under their control, while others claim that there was a premeditated decision on the part of the Zionist to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population. Other historians and advocates disagree with these assertions, claiming that the Palestinian population left at the behest of the Arab leaders to clear a path for their armies. Other historians claim that upon hearing of the Zionist victories, Palestinians became frightened, not wishing to engage the Israeli fighters. What is not in dispute is that after the war, the Arab population of Israel had reduced to 14-25% of its former size.

DonÍt know, but I thought we might at least start to get solution orientedƒ.

Alphatrion 00:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a good start except for the weasel words "some historians claim this" "some advocates claim that". The actual citations are very important for each depiction to establish who is claiming what, for what time period, and what location. Also, generalizations should be avoided. "Palestinian civilians from XX city." Not just "Palestinians" as if it applies to all. "Zionist paramilitary forces with Haganah under Rabin" not just "Zionists", etc, Thanks. --Alberuni 05:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alphatrion, I don't think we need to keep putting "some historians" etc. into the description; rather, let's recognize that there were a complex series of actions taken by both sides, sometimes contradictory, which led to the eventual outcome. Thus we should just describe the various forces mitigating for and against that outcome, and leave it at that. Also, we have to realize that this is a summary article on Israel, not an article on the 1948 War of Independence. Jayjg 18:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While highly controversial, it does not need to be that paradoxical, even if we have to create a sub-page/article which outlines the major historiographical currents and positions. It certainly can be made explicable to the reader in an NPOV way, and be made acceptable to all reasonable editors. El_C

I agree; I'm just saying that all this "some historians" stuff is not necessary. Outline the various factors, and the outcome. And that includes fears of atrocities, which I mentioned earlier quite purposefully (and not by accident as Alberuni stated), since some did occur, and this was one of the many reasons Arabs left, along with fear of war, encouragement from Arab leaders to do so, and a number of other reasons. And we must recognize that while some Jews encouraging Arabs to leave, others encouraged them to stay. And finally, we must keep in mind that 1) the Arabs were not an undifferentiated mass, and left for many different reasons, and 2) even individuals left for combinations of reasons. Jayjg 23:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is not necessary, it almost sounds ameturish (in an editorialized sense) and superimposed. Why we need to refer to the historiography is precisely because the extent of encouragment to stay/leave is under dispute. I would contribute to such a qualifcation myself, but it looks like I will need to expend a fair deal of time to protect the article I authored on racialism from the questionable revisions of Mr. Sam Spade. El_C

I agree that the references to obscurities should be cut out. It looks as though I wrote it from "the talk page" point of view. But the problem still exists that the cause is debated by historians, and any consensus that has been reached has only been in certain localised areas. If one is going to make mention of "an Israeli attempt at ethnic cleansing", then one must also mention that no evidence of a systematic and focused attempt on ethnic cleansing (which is why it is a bone of contention among the parties).

Maybe this isn't a problem; I have noticed the page's neutrality is no longer disputed...

Alphatrion 01:04, 21 Nov 2004

Look at the population of Jordan. The majority of Jordanians are from Palestine. The Arabs didn't vanish into mass graves. They moved to other countries.

If the Palestinians had not "voluntarily moved" and "abandoned" their property so that Jews could grab it for free there would be no Israel. Thank the IDF (formerly known as the "Irgun" and the "Stern Gang").

There are some good quotes here: [[13]]

Nuclear weapons?

Hi One question on a differnt topic

Is there any expert denying the fact that israel has nuclear wepons?

stone 21:00 21 Nov 2004

The Israeli Govt has admitted (some might say boasted) in the past that they have nuclear weapons. The IAEA has repeated called for their disarmament, never questioning their existance. I think we can safely say that Israel's nuclear weapons are a fact.

On the contrary, the Israeli government has never "admitted" Israel has nuclear weapons, much less "boasted" about it, though it is generally assumed that Israel has them. Jayjg 07:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A while ago I watched an interview with an Israeli spokesperson on British television. They were happy to say that Israel had not "introduced" nuclear weapons to the middle east, but refused to elaborate or say that Israel does not posess nuclear weapons - giving the impression that they have the stance of indirectly saying they have them when pressed, not denying the posession, but not directly and clearly stating that they have nuclear capabilities.

--Joshtek 03:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"minorities" in Israel

When searching Israel in wikipedia it should call the atention of wikipeadian community that the minorities mentioned as part of the population of Israel omit the word palestinians. It only refers to Muslims, Christians, etc (both of wich there are palestinias among, I understand) in the first paragraph.

Does this denial have to do with some reasonable academic argumentation, or is it simple negation to common sense. Common intelligent people -for whom wikipedia definitions are intended- would know that israel took on territory called palestine before they took it by war (I declare certain ignorance as to the exact dates of Israel state expansions), therefore it is obvious there are palestinians IN Israel, is it not?

Denying identity may be a prefered form of conquering an ethnicity by the concuerors as to make space forthemselves and eliminate bothering claims of nation or identity. But does not Israel check hundreds of "palestinian" passports every day to see if they can move arround in Israel or Palestine (ups!, is there a Palestine?)

Maybe its like thinking there are no Tibetans in China. Does history still (if ever) work that way? - winners get to supress identity of the conquered. That is in historical terms, not in here and now war disputes.

Finally, I must say I am probably ignorant of many academically sound arguments that might have taken place before, more or less desisions must have been made as to how to define the minorities inside Israel. It just called my atention what struck as denial worth of old political conflict, not a wikipedia definition whith an intent of neutrality - which by the way never exists, it is only an aspiration.

Bottom line: are there palestinians in Israel? (please dont answer that "palestinians" do not exist) And if so, is that presence worth mentioning in objective population terms?

A related question: Were there non-Jews in ancient Israel? We are told there were "Jewish Kingdoms" which implies a Jewish ruling class, but everything I have read on these pages suggests that the majority "people" of Israel were non-Jewish serfs or slaves ruled by Jewish overlords.24.64.166.191 07:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll weigh in with my interpretation of the issue. Others no doubt have better information on it.

The Christian and Muslim minorities referred to in the article relate specifically to citizens of Israel, most commonly Israeli Arabs. These people all hold Israeli passports and are eligible to vote in Israel's elections and have all the other benefits citizens have.

On the other hand, Palestinians is a term used to refer to inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza (otherwise called the Palestinian Territories by some). While Israel has forces in these two areas, it has NOT annexed them and incorporated them into the state of Israel. Therefore they are not citizens of Israel and are not mentioned in encyclopedic discussions of Israeli citizens.

So no, there are no Palestinian citizens of Israel. This isn't a denial of Palestinians, merely a recognition that they are not Israelis. Hope this helped clear it up. Impi 20:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It should also be added that the families of many Jews in Israel have lived in this area at least throughout several generations (in many cases, several centuries of documented presence), so a NPOV angle would have to include Jewish Palestinians as well as Muslim and Christian ones... I think it is best to avoid the problems that could lead to... -- Olve 01:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Some Israeli Arabs regard themselves as Palestinians - in fact, only 45% regard themselves as "Israeli Arabs"[14], although others, especially among the Druze, deny the identity. And pretty much all Arabs regard "Israeli Arabs" as Palestinians. Personally, I think "Israeli Arab" is just an awkward locution intended to allow people to talk about them without acknowledging who they actually are, but it does save on argument. - Mustafaa 17:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "It's not that simple" sums it up pretty well... :] An additional factor of awkwardness is that many Israeli Jews come from Arabic-speaking cultures too. It is difficult to find simple terms to describe a very complex reality, I guess... -- Olve 20:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep, it isn't very simple, I agree. What I had attempted to do was present it as succinctly as possible, because in simple terms we need some way to distinguish between citizens of Israel and those in the Palestinian territories. I was trying to make it easier to understand the distinction between the two. Impi 22:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Different Methods to evaluate majority

I think both sides should be mentioned with proper coverage. Here are the points which I think are agreed by all

Among Israeli recognized citizens 'Jewish population' is clear majority.
If we include Palestinians living in PA, majority is not there, or very difficult to prove.
If occupied areas are not considered and 'Israel acceptable citizenship' is not taken as standard. There is Jewish population in 'PA' (fourth largest jewish population in the world after US, Israel and France). Reducing number of jews in Israel.
If Palestinian refugees are counted, which had to leave their lands in current areas of Israel, Palestinian will make majority even in current Israeli areas.

Problem is that some editors think that method 1 is most acceptable, while others may advocate one of other three methods. I believe they should all get some coverage in this article. Ignoring other methods altogether is not NPOV.
Zain 13:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are also half a million "non-Arab Christians" (immigrants from the former Soviet Union - ie. Russians) who are included by the Israeli Census Bureau as "Jewish" but are not considered "real" Jews unless they convert to Orthodox Judaism. Very few have converted.

New "Israel-stub"

Hi everyone, welcome the new {{Israel-stub}} (Template:Israel-stub). IZAK 13:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I made a stub once, which consisted of a few external links. Apparently this was a Wikipedia no-no, someone deleted it. Unless you have something to say, forget it.

Tel Aviv and Jerusalem

If making edits on this issue, please read Talk:Jerusalem/capital

"Largest city"

In the article it is mentioned that Jerusalem is the biggest city of Israel but a very authentic original source of Jewish population [15] shows that Tel Aviv is bigger and not only bigger a loot bigger. So shouldn’t we mention Tel Aviv as biggest city of Israel?

Zain 14:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The source you provided only shows the Jewish population of those cities, not the whole population. Jerusalem has significantly larger Muslim and Christian populations than Tel Aviv. As well, under Tel Aviv it included a number of surrounding cities which are not actually part of Tel Aviv proper. Jayjg 17:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nope I checked the 'Jewish population' factor earlier on 'official Israeli website' [16] It says 70% is Jewish population. Assuming even 0.0% non-jewish population in Tel Aviv won't help because the difference in the population is not in percentage it is in times that population is several times bigger then 'Jerusalem.'

Zain 18:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you note I made two points? Non-Jewish population is one of them, the other is that under Tel Aviv it included a number of surrounding cities which are not actually part of Tel Aviv proper. Specifically, it includes "Ramat Gan, Bene Beraq, Petach Tikwa, Bat Yam, Holon, Rishon LeZiyon, Netanya and Ashod, all with a Jewish population above 100,000." Jayjg 18:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to this official site [17], in 1997 the population of Jerusalem was 622,000 and of Tel Aviv-Yafo 349,000. I don't imagine their positions reversed in the 7 following years. Jayjg 18:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand the problem is due to definition not due to figures. I am asking about 'Tel Aviv' as a whole not 'Tel Aviv-Yafo'. (Just by the why when I typed Tel Aviv-Yafo in MS word XP it gave me spell error!, ‘Tel Aviv’ it understands but ‘Tel Aviv-Yafo’ it doesn’t understand).

Zain 18:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tel-Aviv (or more correctly Tel Aviv-Yafo) is a city, with defined boundaries, a mayor, council, police force, municipal employees etc. Tel Aviv is surrounded by many other cities, each with their own defined boundaries and municipal infrastructures. "Tel Aviv as a whole" is a more nebulous concept, whose boundaries are arbitrary. Tel Aviv is also the name of the 6 governmental districts in Israel. Jayjg 20:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

your description also indicated that, distinction between Tel-Aviv-Yafo and Tel Aviv is a little tricky. I also gave a simple example from word processor which doesn’t recognize Tel Aviv Yafo and only recognize Tel Aviv. As you saw in the reference which I made (a very authentic reference with no question of anti-Jew bias) regard Tel Aviv not as Tel Aviv –Yafo but a larger Tel Aviv. I think you should mention some thing like ‘largest metropolitan area’ in addition to ‘largest city’ this will make information less objectionable and more informative.

Zain 21:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Objectionable"? Jerusalem is Israel's largest city, almost twice the population of Tel Aviv, as my earlier link shows, and there is nothing "objectionable" about that. The distinction between the city of Tel Aviv and the district of Tel Aviv is not "tricky", they are different entities, just like the distinction between the city of New York and the state of New York is not "tricky", as they are also different entities. The article talks about cities. Jayjg 22:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it is not 'tricky', Now in last post, why are u now using the word 'Tel Aviv' instead of 'Tel Aviv-Yafo'. As you know better then me that 'Tel Aviv' is bigger then Jerusalem. But Jerusalem is bigger then 'Tel Aviv-Yafo'. I think we both agree on it. The difference is that should we used 'Tel Aviv-Yafo' or 'Tel Aviv'. Zain 13:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Israel's biggest city is Jerusalem, period. Tel Aviv (formally known as Tel Aviv-Yafo) is a smaller city, approximately half the size of the city of Jerusalem. A city is a city. A district is not a city. By the way, did you know that there is a Jerusalem district as well, with a population significantly larger than that of the city of Jerusalem? Jayjg 16:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me quote you

"Tel Aviv (formally known as Tel Aviv-Yafo)"

I can't believe you saying this. please check facts again. it is not formal name. Please check the facts. Then we can continue here.

I am not asking for declaring Tel Aviv as bigger then other city. It is simply that I want you to make an entry of largest metropolitan area.

Which is factual
Which is NPOV
Which is related
Which is informative
Which helps in reducing confusion

Zain 04:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please See following [18]

"...census gives an approximate population of greater East Jerusalem of 328,600..."

Now can I edit it? (if you disagree please offer your stats)

Zain 03:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"so the census gives an approximate population of greater East Jerusalem of 328,600; a further 85,800 lived in the city itself". The quote is unclear; what is "greater East Jerusalem"? Is that the same as the part of East Jerusalem which has been annexed? In any event, East Jerusalem has been annexed, so its status differs from the West Bank and Gaza. Jayjg 03:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We'll come to that later about 'If' it is then what to do. First let's decide is 'Wester Jerusalem' bigger then Tel Aviv -yafo or not. Please answer with providing links

Zain 04:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, no. Jerusalem is Israel's biggest city, by a long shot, as the census's show. If you want to argue politics against actual population, feel free to do so. Bring any facts you think exist on your side. Jayjg 04:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who is talking about Jerusalem here. ....... See my hand still down. because i am not talking about it.. Ooh yes I see ur hand you are talking about it. I am talking about WEST Jerusalem. so please give figures about it. So we can go further

Zain 04:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no city named "West Jerusalem" in Israel, so there won't be any census figures for that. Jayjg 04:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain, I'm afraid that you might be wrong. The city of Tel-Aviv ("Tel-Aviv-Yafo Municipality"; note that saying just "Tel-Aviv" does NOT mean the metropolitan) is significally smaller than Jerusalem (~358,000 pop.). Let me give you the official website of Tel-Aviv: [19] -click "Demography" - and see for yourself. Moreover, Let's head to the official website of the city of Jerusalem: [20] - Click "Vital Info" (top) -> Useful Information -> Jerusalem - Facts & Figures: over 657,000 pop. Compare that to 358,000 ! Besides, what's all you say about the "Tel-Aviv metropolitan" - look at the title of the talk that you've created - the biggest CITY. Last note - the criteria is "Largest City" and is defined by wikipedia country template, we cannot add a "biggest metropolitan" criteria; anyway, look at the bigger picture- such criteria does not belong in the info sheet of a country.

Please note I am just talking about West Jerusalem Many think it is different (including UN, and all islamic countries) so we should have Tel-Aviv too. Because 'Full Jerusalem' is not recognized as a part of Israel. Please see my statistics of population of East Jerusalem.

Zain 23:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Purposed Solutions — Add an entry of ‘Biggest metropolitan area’ and mention including 'occupied areas' Jerusalem and excluding ‘occupied areas’ Tel Aviv-Yafo. It is NPOV (bcoz it specify condition) it is informative and it is related. So I believe we should make this change. Zain 13:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recognition

Jerusalem is illegal occupied territory, it is not Israel. That is the difference. It is the same as Germany claiming that Paris is German city because Nazis are holding it. --Abdel Qadir 01:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Qadir, this is an encyclopedia, not a "which side is right" page. Read NPOV first. WhisperToMe 02:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

’ this is an encyclopedia, not a "which side is right" page’. Yeah so we should cover both sides! Cutting ‘Eastern Jerusalem’ will make it smaller then ‘Tel Aviv-Yafo’.Zain 13:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would? Jayjg 16:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comparing Jerusalem to Paris as an "illegally occupied territory" takes away all respect for your argument Abdel. Its most definitely not NPOV. At the very least East Jerusalem is adjacent to Israeli territory. Paris is not on the border of France and Germany. Please examine current geographical maps before making strange statements. ==

Jerusalem footnote

Regarding [21]. What on earth is controversial? All I did was take two rambling repetitive paragraphs and condense them into a single paragraph which has substantially the same information, and is much more readable. – Smyth\^talk 22:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The last edits, which were reverted, changed the information itself and not only combined the information into a single paragraph. Examples:

"Until then, most states" - This is the most obvious change: there are a several levels of recognition in the Israeli capital; the situation is certainly not that most state recognise Tel-Aviv as a capital - because it was the temporary unofficial capital for 8 months in 1948 - and that's it, as presented. This is a distortion of facts. The next edited sentence even contradicts the former - "Most foreign embassies are locate there, or in other major cities.." ?

If you read again the original version - the dissenting countries (due to the reunification of Jerusalem) locate their embassies in other major Israeli cities. You can note to yourself that many of these countries have held embassies in west Jerusalem until the reunification. These states does not recognise Tel-Aviv as capital, nor ceased to see Jerusalem as capital. The embassy move was to avoid political sensitivities, as was explained in the original version.
The next level is the countries that objects designation of Jerusalem (or any part of it) as a capital - due to UN Partition Plan that marked the area as international. Although that today, most (or even almost all) of theses states does not support the (old) internationalization idea, their policy toward Jerusalem hasn't change yet; They are waiting too for a final Israeli-Palestinian settelment in this matter.

"Dispute" vs. "Dissent" (this designation) - Dissent implies of various levels of agreement and disagreement. Besides, this original wording is a good balance and accepted by all.
"and the continuing violence over the issue" - that does not fit in here. Violence does not result in legal claims, nor political advances. The status of an unresolved issue is not due to that. (one can say that the violence is the result of this unresolved issue)
"by future negotiations" (rather than "Israeli-Palestinian negotiations"). No other state or entity has any claim (legally) to Jerusalem, or part of it. Anything that will be setteld between those sides will automatically have the stamp of the international law. --VICTOR 11:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate your attention to subtle shades of meaning on this very sensitive issue. But my edits were in good faith and were aimed at improving what was a rather incoherent and repetitive original, not changing its meaning. You should have edited, not reverted.

"Until then, most states" - okay, I see your point. But this was hardly clear in the original either, partly due to wholesale repetition of "Israel's capture of the eastern half..." If a distinction between two groups of countries must be made, then the countries should be identified.
"dispute" vs "dissent" - this is just grammar. "Dissent" is an instransitive verb, you can't "dissent" anything, you dissent from something. And "many countries dissent from this designation" isn't right either, it implies that the designation arises out of some sort of consensus of nations, which isn't really the case. Many countries do dispute the designation. Look at the top of the article, it says "Capital: Jerusalem (disputed)".
"and the continuing violence over the issue" - "Violence does not result in legal claims, nor political advances." - haha, you must be optimistic. But seriously, that wasn't a very well thought-out ending and I should have known better, and you should have replaced it with something better.
"by future negotiations" (rather than "Israeli-Palestinian negotiations" - seemed like a tautology to me, but if you think it's necessary then fair enough.

– Smyth\^talk 22:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was hoping your edits were in good faith of conribution to this Encyclopedia, and was reassured by your reply. Too often people turn this article (and others) into a political stage of edit wars & never ending discussions.
Anyway, back to the issue:

"Until then, most states" - I agree that the footnote could use some clearing, particulary that repetition. Your're saying: distinction between two groups of countries must be made - things are not black & white in this world you see.. I don't know if you can even say "two groups". Those are certainly 2 main approaches of countries to this issue, however things are much more than that. For example, there are countries that formally recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but do not keep an embassy there (currently..) - like the U.S, some latin-American countries and a few more.. Or countries that informally see Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, but keep their embassies elsewhere; both fall under the first general approach, whereas the second approach could include some European states which stick to the U.N position (France, Spain and more) .. or states that have their own policy (United Kingdom), or Arab states that recognise Israel - all see Tel-Aviv as a de-jure capital, until a final settelment is reached - and thus fall to the second approach. No real distinction between countries could be made.. we can only present the approaches. Other than that, corrections to the footnote for conveying the information more coherently and clearly - that's something that we can (and perhpas should) do. This is an encyclopedia after all!
"dispute" vs "dissent" - the word here should enhance that there are several approaches and levels to the issue. Dispute is certainly not the word - you say Many countries do dispute the designation. Look at the top of the article.. - you see, even that small word near the "Capital" criteria was after lots of discussions & edits ... As a whole, the status IS disputed, but looking closely, some dissent from it, some agree, some disagree. Overall - and only overall - this is disputed. Try to read the sentence again to see that this is a key word when explaining approaches of various levels to the issue - and some approach do not dispute.. so this word doesn't fit in. I think that dissent does convey the message of various levels (other than fixing the grammer issue) - I'm thinking that perhaps removing the second repetition is possible - it's not essential for understanding the concept of the second approach. (the outcome: "...in the first place (1950). These states instead recognize...")

--VICTOR 01:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems like any proper explanation of the situation and its history will be very long and confusing, and too big for this footnote. So I suggest we replace the footnote with a reference to Jerusalem#Status_as_Israel.27s_capital. Or even better, eliminate the footnote, and link from the word "disputed" in the header. That way, the encyclopedia will contain one and only one explanation, and one corresponding debate. – Smyth\^talk 01:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mention of ‘UN recognized’ Capital

Well we should also have an entry on ‘UN recognize’ Capital with mentioning Tel Aviv. It is NPOV (bcoz it specify condition) it is informative and it is related. So I believe we should make this change. Zain 13:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The UN does not "recognize" capital cities; its opinion is irrelevant. Jayjg 16:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please see Tel Aviv It says and let me quote

"This includes international state organisations, all of whom continue to regard Tel Aviv as the de jure Israeli capital"

So now can I mention it by editing page?

Zain 03:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The footnote on Jerusalem already gives this information, it doesn't need to be duplicated. Jayjg 03:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Foot note says nothing about current 'Tel Aviv' relation to 'capital. Please add this to foot note. in your own words so it won't cause confusion.

Zain 04:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The footnote currently says "Jerusalem has been Israel's officially designated capital since 1950, and is the location of its presidential residence, government offices and the Knesset (parliament). Israelis often describe the city as "The Eternal Capital of Israel." However, many countries dispute this designation due to Israel's capture of the eastern half of Jerusalem from Jordan during the Six Day War of 1967, and the continuing violence over the issue. They therefore consider the final status of Jerusalem as an unresolved issue, to be determined by future negotiations. Until then, most states recognize the capital as Tel Aviv, which was the temporary capital for a time when Jerusalem was under Arab siege in 1948. Most foreign embassies are located there, or in other major cities like Ramat-Gan, Herzliya, etc." Did you notice the highlighted part? I think it already covers your objection. Jayjg 04:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oops I missed that. Now as it is understandable now that many countries recognize 'Tel Aviv' as official capital. Can we mention that in 'main table' because there are at considerable votes (If not overwhelming) to call 'Tel Aviv' Capital instead of Jerusalem.

Still even seeing overwhelming majority i am not asking for replacement but equal mention with same footnote. quite NPOV I think.

Zain 04:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The footnote was arrived at after a long period of negotiation, and there has been no recent "vote" on the matter. The footnote makes the point quite well and clearly. Jayjg 04:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As long as the world understands that God has given Israel to the Jews, we should have no problem. After all, that's how Israel came to be. If only the U.N. didn't veto Israel's systemic violations of the Geneva Convention, we'd all be on the same page. And by "same page" I mean the entire Western world besides Israel and the United States.

NPOV - Enn pee ohh veee! WhisperToMe 04:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're speaking a foreign language to our anonymous commenter. Jayjg 04:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ha ha ha Jayjg just relax cool down. Just have 'good faith'. I understood what he said but u didn't just bcoz of 'good faith' instead of conspiracy. Just look at it he is saying NPOV. N--Enn , P--pee , O--ohh , V-Vee. So I think u can see just by having 'good faith' you can understand what others are saying. So just have 'good faith'.

Good luck

Zain 04:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying Zain. Jayjg 04:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe I am taking a break (see my later comment). So on my behalf explain what u said, to Jayjg. I'll be very thankful for your cooporation. I would have done this task by my self but I don't want this page to get heated too. just stay cool whisper.

Any way whisper as you did the edits. Its your responsibility. Because an editor has to explain his edits. As jayjg didn't get what u said so its your responsibility to explain.

With Regards

Zain 04:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understood exactly what WhisperToMe said. I was making a joke about the previous anonymous editors comments. Jayjg 04:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You should have told me when I tried to explain.Ummm.... I think we can add this joke to wikipedias joke collection! Any how I think I started to have 'over good faith'. You said and I thought that you are telling in 'good faith'. Nice Idea how about heading of 'over good faith' in wikipedia resulting jokes!. Whisper ok as i have reduced explanation burden on you. You owe me a task. So copy it modify it a little and add it to wikipedia jokes collection! and I mean it.

Should get out of this page now or will stick to it and will result in more 'jokes' :-).

ok bye bye

Wishpppppppppppppperrrrrrrrrrr don't forget to add that joke ok.

Zain 04:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was spelling out "NPOV", because I was really pissed at someone that time. I felt that you need to bone up on your knowledge of that concept. WhisperToMe 06:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Debate heating up here too. So let me take break from this page too. Actually I don’t know all the pages coming on my watch list are bringing me with you. It is not deliberate. So to avoid any conspiracy. I am taking some break here too. Hope some thing else will come on my watch list.

Zain 04:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Infobox

Moved to template:Israel infobox.--Jerryseinfeld 17:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)