Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:33, 11 July 2003

Last changes about scope and territory by JJ seem to restate once again already mentioned facts. Could anybody else please express his opinion. Maybe the "Territory" section should state more clearly that a dispute exists between Israel and Syria, Israel and Palestinians. Now it's a salad. Iorsh

(in which it's very existence was threatened)

Excised. This is hardly an NPOV comment; looks more as though it's in there to be provocative.

I am removing the following claim, from the entry. The claim states "It was born by major ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homes in the mid 20th-century." First off, many people would say that this is untrue. There is much historical evidence, including public admission by a huge number of Arab leaders, that the exodus of Arabs from the British Mandate of Palestine was due to the Arab themselves, who publicly called for all Arabs to leave Israel, so that the Arab armies could come in and destroy the State of Israel. Secondly, this polemical comment doesn't mention that Arab states did the same thing of their Jewish citizens, attacking them, killing them, and driving them out by the tens of thousands. Even the PLO and the Palestinian Authority have now signed agreements that any future peace accords must take into account the huge number of Jewish refugees. RK

Finally, even assuming that the claim is partially true, this is a complex issue that needs to be discussed in a calm and neutral point of view (NPOV) fashion. You are merely inserting a biased anti-Israeli polemic into an article which has nothing at all to do with that particular topic. This is inappropriate behaviour in the Misplaced Pages community. You need to read up more on the entries on NPOV, and you absolutely must read the already extant articles on this issue: You appear totally unaware that your claims and related isues are already are discussed in great detail, both in Misplaced Pages entries on Israel, Palestine, and in their associated Talk pages. There is no need to start a flame war by starting the entire thing all over again in yet another article. This topic already is discussed in more than place. If you must, work on this topic in those appropriate and already-existing articles. RK

actually-you people are the POV junkies. Yes, the statement was POV but rather than NPOV it, you all decided to delete it... DUH'

"It was born by major ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homes in the mid 20th-century." should become "Some argue that it was a result of major ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homes in the mid 20th-century"

and yes...Israel is committing genocide. Lir 22:24 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry Lir, but your rant against the Jewish state isn't going to win you any friends. It just demonstrates that you are unqualified to work on an article that make you epxlode in anti-Semitic rage. In any case, this topic already is discussed in many articles. When you and your peers keep trying to add this exact same topic to yet more articles, it becomes clear that you are just trying to stir up hatred against those in Israel, and against those who support its right to exist. That's an evil thing to do. Literally. RK

Way harsh, dude. You wanta lighten up a bit? Before you throw the flaming brand of "evil" on Lir's bonfire -- turning her into modern Joan of Arc martyr, why don't you explain slowly and carefully. Not all people who disagree with your POV are raging anti-Semites. That's no way to treat a lady. --Ed Poor

Deleted by RK:

It was born by major ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homes in the mid 20th-century.

It would be better to say that certain people consider that Israel was born, etc. --Ed Poor

indeed, as noted above:

Some argue that it was a result of major ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homes in the mid 20th-century.

As for exploding into anti-Semitic rage-I would like to let you know that I am Jewish and those who practice our form of Judaism view Israel as an anti-Jewish state, a non-Jewish state, and nationalist Zionist Israelism is nothing but a twisted form of fascism. We feel that Israel is conducting genocide against Palestine, and anyone who doesn't explode into anti-Israel rage at such genocide is probably a racist. Of course we wish to maintain NPOV and merely state that Some people say that Israel is doing these things -- but off the record, Israel is evil and war crimes are bad. Does, "Thou shalt not kill" mean anything to you? Lir 23:19 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

(A) I doubt you are Jewish. I suspect you are lying. (B) Even if you were Jewish, that is no excuse for anti-Semitism and lies. Being a Jew does not give you some kind of divine license to hurl hateful speech. Take your anti-Semitic rants elsewhere, because we won't let your NPOV violate the academic integrity of this encyclopedia project. Go away, troll. You lose. RK

1. The genocide article explains that international treaties have added to the original meaning of genocide -- extending it to include "crimes" other than murder. Perhaps your battle is with the UN rather than with Lir. She didn't say "mass-murderers" anywhere I can see (if she does, I will change my tune -- rapidly and decisively).
2. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." So please hesitate before fighting "hateful speech" with your own spiteful rage. A little courtesy, even when apparently unmerited, will get you more of what you want than name-calling. Try it for a week, and see. :-) --Ed Poor 14:53 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)

Danny, Ed, I shall agree with you, and do it your way. Seriously. My only exception will be today's comment made at someone who claimed that the Holocaust didn't really happen, and that it was only an alleged event. My BS detector went off, bells ringing, at that one. But other than that specific charge, I will defer to the positions that both of you have stated. RK

Just to make myself clear, I do not object to Misplaced Pages entries discussing the charges of ethnic cleansing (and the like) in regards to the formation of the State of Israel, or to any other countries to that matter. Nor do I object to Arab, UN, or Israeli points of view being equally represented. What I do object to is this particular anti-Israeli polemic repeatedly being placed into this article, especially in an out-of-context fashion that violates NPOV. Why should the same issue be repeated in four different entries? This is already discussed in detail in the entries on Israel, Palestine, and in their associated Talk pages. RK

born by major ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homes in the mid 20th-century.

I don't understand what "born by" means. Does this refer to Israel's economic success, or to its being created by confiscated lands, or what? Rather than delete this puzzling remark, let's discuss it. --Ed Poor

Some critics (mostly in the Arab world) say Israel was "born by major ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homes in the mid 20th-century." (author unknown)

This is better covered in the History of Israel article and in the extensive series of article on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

An Arabic translation of "State of Israel" is needed. The Geography, Demographics and other sections need to be expanded. --Jiang

Perhaps we need to turn this article ("Israel") into a disambiguation page. The new content could read: RK 21:25 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• This is a disambiguation page.
• State of Israel - This article discusses the modern State of Israel.
• Jacob - This article discusses the Biblical patriarch Jacob, also known as Israel.
• History of ancient Israel and Judah - This article discusses the history of ancient Israel and Judah.
• Kingdom of Israel
• Israelites - This article concerns the twelve tribes of Israel as described in the Bible, and modern historical debates about the origins of the Israelites.

Just make sure all the links to this page are fixed and I won't complain. --mav

There are a lot of pages that link here. I sugest we keep the article on the State of Israel here and put a link to Israel (disambiguation) at the top of the page. - Efghij

I have made a couple of factual corrections, notably:

• the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not accepted by most states, all of whom base their diplomatic representatives in Tel Aviv (The US only accepted Jerusalem in 2002!) I have put both side by side with a footnote explaining how most of the world regards one city as the valid Israeli capital, while the Israeli state regards another city. Accepting either city without mentioning the long running dispute is POV. This way, both the view of Israel and of most of the rest of the world are respected and explained in a NPOV manner;
• Lest some people be confused and try to change what they think is an error, I have put in a footnote to explain that for a short period, Israeli prime ministers used to be directly elected, but that innovation had since been abandoned, having been seen as unsuccessful.
• a list of additional external links covering everything from relations with the European Union, the possibility of EU membership, the EU's attitude towards Israeli government policy, a link to a report about the US accepting Jerusalem as the Israeli capital in late 2002 and to the allegations of ethnic cleansing made by Arabs against Israel. Proper links should allow a reader to find a variety of sources, both pro- and contra-. The previous links were all universally supportive one one viewpoint and so POV.
• a neutrally worded few lines explaining in a non-judgment way the divergence between Israeli and Arab opinions on whether the Arabs displaced in 1948 left or were forced to leave, and how this divergence in analysis is central to the modern Israeli-Palestinian dispute. FearÉIREANN 23:18 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is a terrible idea to start up all of these disagreements all over again. All of these issues are already discussed in great detail, in many other articles on Israel, all of which link here. Why are you proposing that we do all this arguing again? RK

Because without them the article is biased and POV. FearÉIREANN 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Capital of Israel

I think modification of the footnote by RK was more POV than Jtdirl's original. Yes, I do think Tel Aviv should be left out of the template. However, the fact that most embassies are located in Tel Aviv makes it function in the diplomatic sense like a capital. Saying "Israel regards..." is more NPOV. Otherwise, you're just spurning all those states who don't recognize Jerusalem. Now isn't that taking sides? I vote to revert (except the template). --Jiang 00:46 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. JT's wording seemed to be far more professional and at least a bit more NPOV. --mav

Huh? It is grossly anti-Zionist and pro-Arab. How is lying about Israel's capital, and stating falsehoods, "professional"?

Actually I think all of this is somewhat misleading -- Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and this has been recognized for decades by nearly all countries. In fact, nearly all countries (including the US and most EU countries) had their embassies in Jerusalem until the early 1980s, and this was not controversial in the least. What happened was that Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and some surrounding areas in the early 1980s, and the United Nations passed a resolution opposing the annexation and requesting its member states to move their embassies to Tel Aviv in protest; nearly all countries, including the US, did so (the US did not vote for the resolution, but did not veto it either, and followed its request). This resolution did not state the Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel though -- only that the unilateral expansion of its municipal boundary was unacceptable. So, while Tel Aviv functions as the diplomatic center for many nations, they still recognize Jerusalem as the capital. --Delirium 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That is very interesting! Please integrate that into the text. --mav

I've made a first stab at it; correct as necessary. The article on Jerusalem has a lot more information. --Delirium 01:03 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Followup: so the comment Most states refuse to accept that designation in the footnote is factually incorrect. What most states refuse to accept is Israel's definition of the boundary of Jerusalem, not its being the capital. --Delirium 00:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your text Stored version Line 73: Line 73:

Because without them the article is biased and POV. FearÉIREANN 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)  Because without them the article is biased and POV. FearÉIREANN 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC) 

Nonsense. You aren;' even looking in the correct article. Please read our many articles on these subjects. You can't claim that other articles (such as this one) are biased because the same damn arguments aren't repeated yet again. The topics you mention are already covered so extensively in Misplaced Pages that to claim we are leaving out is silly. We only need links to them. RK 01:04 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Capital of Israel

Actually I think all of this is somewhat misleading -- Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and this has been recognized for decades by nearly all countries. In fact, nearly all countries (including the US and most EU countries) had their embassies in Jerusalem until the early 1980s, and this was not controversial in the least. What happened was that Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and some surrounding areas in the early 1980s, and the United Nations passed a resolution opposing the annexation and requesting its member states to move their embassies to Tel Aviv in protest; nearly all countries, including the US, did so (the US did not vote for the resolution, but did not veto it either, and followed its request). This resolution did not state the Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel though -- only that the unilateral expansion of its municipal boundary was unacceptable. So, while Tel Aviv functions as the diplomatic center for many nations, they still recognize Jerusalem as the capital. --Delirium 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC) Actually I think all of this is somewhat misleading -- Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and this has been recognized for decades by nearly all countries. In fact, nearly all countries (including the US and most EU countries) had their embassies in Jerusalem until the early 1980s, and this was not controversial in the least. What happened was that Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and some surrounding areas in the early 1980s, and the United Nations passed a resolution opposing the annexation and requesting its member states to move their embassies to Tel Aviv in protest; nearly all countries, including the US, did so (the US did not vote for the resolution, but did not veto it either, and followed its request). This resolution did not state the Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel though -- only that the unilateral expansion of its municipal boundary was unacceptable. So, while Tel Aviv functions as the diplomatic center for many nations, they still recognize Jerusalem as the capital. --Delirium 00:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That is very interesting! Please integrate that into the text. --mav

Followup: so the comment Most states refuse to accept that designation in the footnote is factually incorrect. What most states refuse to accept is Israel's definition of the boundary of Jerusalem, not its being the capital. --Delirium 00:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)  : Followup: so the comment Most states refuse to accept that designation in the footnote is factually incorrect. What most states refuse to accept is Israel's definition of the boundary of Jerusalem, not its being the capital. --Delirium 00:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me that no one, other than Israelis, have any say in this matter. The capital of any nation is what its citizens say it is, period. That is not POV or an opinion, that is an indisputable fact. Since when do non-Israelis have any say over what the capital of Israel is? How would Catholic Italians like it if all the Jews and Muslims in the world united and claimed that Rome was not the capital of Italy? Besides being anti-Catholic and anti-Italian, it would also be false. Facts cannot be created by popular vote. We can say that most nations do not respect Israel's choice of capital, because that is a fact. But to claim that any other city is Israel's capital is a deliberate fiction, and totally unsupportable. RK 01:04 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If many of the functions normally carried out in a capital are carried out somewhere else then we need to report that. --mav 01:08 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully. The footnote never claimed that Jerusalem was not the capital and Tel Aviv was. It only stated "Israel regards" Jerusalem as the capital while other states do not. We didn't come out and say "Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel." How clearer can that be? We have to simply regard the truth--who regards what. Trying to ignore opinions and positions with undenably exist by labelling them "anti-Semetic" doesn't cut it. Now it is cleared out. --Jiang

The refusal to accept Jerusalem as the capital predates the takeover of Arab East Jerusalem. The international stance was that Jerusalem lacked the clarity of acceptance required in diplomatic protocol to be accepted as a capital. Its boundaries were questionable, its unified status illegal and its symbolism provocative. Thus from the foundation of the state, international states refused point blank to accept any right by Israel to claim a disputed city as its capital. When Israel contrary to international law took over the whole city, that enflamed those convictions further. Old copies of World Book, for example, stated that the capital of Israel was Tel Aviv. Diplomatic documents unambiguously listed the capital as Tel Aviv. Ambassadors were accredited to Tel Aviv, diplomatic compounds opened in Tel Aviv. Some opened consular missions, some embassies physically in Jerusalem while saying that did not mean recognition. And most of those ones pulled out when Israel took over Aran East Jerusalem contrary to international law.

There may be good reasons why Jerusalem should be the capital (I am not taking sides on that) but the fact is that some states say it is, most say it isn't, and no state has the unfettered freedom to designate a city as its capital. 99 times out of 100, the choice is so uncontroversial that they know there will be no problem. But if there is a problem once you are a member of the diplomatic community you are supposed to work on a protocol level with everyone else, including trying to smooth any problems that may arise over the designation of a capital. Listing either Jerusalem or Tel Aviv in isolation would be POV. Listing both, with a footnote explaining that Israel regards 'x' as its capital, most of the world regards 'y', is strict down the line neutrality, the NPOV that is at the heart of wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 01:15 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering what countries do recognize Jerusalem as the capital, here is a complete list:

• Costa Rica
• El Salvador
• United States

- Efghij

The question, I think, is one between de-jure and de-facto status. It has already been proven that the great majority of diplomatic functions are carried out in Tel Aviv. But that is only one function that a capital plays; more important is its role in the ruling of its nation. So where is the government of Israel based? Where does the Prime Minister have his office? I'm pretty sure the answer is Jerusalem.

Having just Jerusalem in the table with a footnote ref seems to be enough but I am slightly in favor of listing both since there are notable capital-like functions carried out in Tel Aviv and many nations do only recognize Tel Aviv. In short I can live with both options so long as the footnote stays in. --mav