Talk:Israel/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5

New Topic to be called :Peace Options for the Middle East

Should there be such a topic at all? I mean Peace who needs it! --Leonakselrad 17:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Remember, according to the Christians, when peace is brought between the Jews and Arabs, by the Anti-Christ, that the apocalypse is not that far down the road, so pray for no peace in the Middle East. 06:19 January 31 2006 (UTC)

War Status

"Israel is formally at war with Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. A 1973 armistice agreement governs relations with its most immediate military adversary, Syria, and a de facto armistice persists with the other states as well. The chances for peace negotiations and/or full diplomatic relations with most Arab nations appear a more likely prospect once an independent Palestinian Entity is established."

I don't know, but is Isreal still formally at war with Iraq since the invasion and the installation of the new regime? 69.250.25.213 03:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a good question! I don't know either, but I suspect changing the status quo between Israel and Iraq would be fairly low on the list of priorities for either country; politically, it would be hard (if not suicidal) for any Iraqi leadership to make any conciliatory gestures toward Israel right now. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

See here Ramallite ^(talk) 03:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said, hard, if not suicidal. Mithal al-Alusi's sons were murdered outside his home in February (the bullets were meant for him.) I hope he can succeed in his aims. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The statement "Israel is formally at war with Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon" is wrong for two reasons.

Under the UN Charter, of which all these states are signatories, there is no such thing as a declaration of war or a state of war. All UN members have renounced war as an instrument of policy. Therefore no state has been "formally at war" with any other state since 1945
Since Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon have never recognised Israel, they can't be "formally" in any legal state with it.

Adam 12:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your first reason is a good one. States can renounce war but still do it. However, I agree with your conclusion that there is a problem with the "formally at war" claim. I think it would be more correct to say "informally". They fought against each other and didn't kiss and make up yet. Both the Jordan-Israel and Egypt-Israel peace treaties speak of ending the state of war, IIRC. --Zero 13:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

My first statement is a straightforward statement of international law. There are of course plenty of de facto "states of war," but the word "formally" can only refer to a de jure state of war, which cannot exist between UN Charter signatories. Adam 14:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Why Is There A Military Section?

Whose idea was it for this? No other countries have information regarding their military. --MPA

Some dates and phonetics

I just RV'd some changes that 68.235.169.70 put in place, I took the liberty of changing some "gramatical" changes back to where they were. I personally don't think some of the phonetics this user used are globally accepted, such as the "Iyy" for the "Iud" sound in "Iyar". I left "Herzliyyah" unchanged, but I'd like to form some kind of consensus before undertaking the task. I was refrained of reversing all the changes from "day month" (ie: 5 Iyar) back to where they were, like "Month, Day" (Iyar, 5) more in accord with the english nomenclature. Unless somebody expresses their disconform here within a couple of days, I'll go ahead and put them back as they were. --Sebastian Kessel 21:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I just did it. --Sebastian Kessel 16:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I RV'd "Herzliyah" to "Herzliya". Although one could say there should be a double 'y' there, the general spelling should be that way. Another thing: Is it just me, or that using dates like September 01 looks ridiculis? one digit-date should appear September 1.. we are not computers .. (same goes for Tishrei 01 and etc..) --VICTOR 08:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Cuts

I have reduced the size of the article from 55 to 38kb by

editing the History section, particularly the detailed accounts of the various wars, which belong in the relevant specialist articles
deleting all the stuff about political parties and coalitions etc, which belongs in Politics of Israel.
deleting some material from the Military and Geography sections which belongs in specialist articles or repeats earlier material.

Adam 11:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

This article says that 60% of Israeli Jews were born in Israel. The CIA Factbook, however, says:

Jewish 80.1% (Europe/America-born 32.1%, Israel-born 20.8%, Africa-born 14.6%, Asia-born 12.6%), non-Jewish 19.9% (mostly Arab) (1996 est.)

Can someone clarify this? Adam 12:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This table from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics gives counts by age and origin for Jews and Others (the later being non-Arab non-Jews such as the non-Jewish family members of immigrant Jews). This table gives annual summaries by religion. Average values for 2003 that I can see (thousands): Total 6690, Jews 5130, Moslems 1055, Christians 141 (of which Arab Christians 115), Druze 110, Unclassified 251, Total Arabs 1283. For place of birth for Jews only: Israel 3404, Elsewhere 1726 (of which Asia 222, Africa 309, America+Europe+Oceania 1195 (of which former USSR 732, Romania 110)). So 66% of Israeli Jews were born in Israel. I guess that the CIA figures are for "country of origin", which is not the same as country of birth. --Zero 13:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This page has current summary statistics. For mid-year 2005: total 6921, Jews and Others 5564 (of which Jews 5269), Arabs 1357. --Zero 13:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the CIA site says clearly born, and I'd be astonished if such a wildly incorrect statement, on such a sensitive subject, could survive without challenge on such a widely-read website, and an official US government website at that. That said, I will have to take the Israeli government figures as correct unless someone can show that they are not. Adam 13:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed amazing, especially as anyone personally familiar with Israel would know that 20.8% is impossibly low. --Zero 13:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well actually, considering the fact that Israel was only created shortly after World War II, and that after the annexation of the area, a large proportion of the population was basically airlifted in, this is not a very surprising fact. I also have a great deal of other information (Religion vs. Ethnicity, Internal method of accounting as opposed to that of the CIA, etc.), which was cited in my earlier post, (though that seems to have been subsequently wiped-out) explaining the discrepancy between a few of the statistics given here. I personally don't want to get much further entangled in this discussion, but the proportion of Ethnically Jewish, Israeli born settlers within the bounds of the country established by the 1947 UN Partition Plan and inclusive of the areas included in the 1949-1950 armistices, is usually held at somewhere around 20%. If you have any questions about, or for me, or just need more explanation as to how I reached my conclusions, you can post your requests on my user page, or email me at [email protected] --Dariusthegreat88 9:52, 8 September 2005 (EST)

The numbers in the article are for Israel now, not in 1948. Of course figures for 1948 would also be interesting. --Zero 11:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The new edition

I'll list some problems, though I won't get far in this sitting. --Zero 13:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"In fact Israel's interim constitution, the Basic Law, does not specify that Israel is a Jewish state, although this assumption underlies most Israeli law."
--Calling it the interim constitution is legally dubious, but the main problem is that the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, the Basic Law of the Knesset, and the Basic Law of Freedom of Occupation all say that Israel is a Jewish state. So the sentence is simply wrong. --Zero 13:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I read the Basic Law some time ago with the specific intention of finding where it defines Israel as a "Jewish state" and I couldn't find any such statement. I will go and read it again. Adam 14:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK I have read the Basic Law again. The three references you refer to assume that Israel is a Jewish state, but there is no basic constitutional statement that "Israel is a Jewish state." I will modify the sentence somewhat. Adam 14:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Non-Jewish Israelis enjoy full political and civic equality"
--The most well-known exception is that non-Jewish citizens do not have the right to bring their non-Jewish spouses into Israel, but Jewish citizens do have the right to bring their non-Jewish spouses into Israel. There are a large number of other exceptions, many produced by carefully crafted legislation that appears balanced on the surface. So the claim is slightly false in theory and very false in practice. --Zero 13:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

A foreign spouse is by defintion not an Israeli, so that doesn't really contradict what I said. No-one disputes that Israeli immigration law discriminates in favour of Jews. Adam 14:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It is the right of Israeli citizens to live with their spouse in their own country which is alloted to citizens in a racist fashion. It is not the rights of spouses that are at issue. Even the rabidly pro-Israeli ADL criticised this law. --Zero 14:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I will modify the statement. Can we avoid words like "rabidly"? I am very tired of over-heated rhetoric on this subject. Adam 14:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Guys, let me humbly point out that the Israeli declaration of independence does state that Israel is a Jewish State. Quote ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL. (Caps are from the text) Please see [[1]]

A declaration of independence is neither a constitution nor a statute. I of course don't dispute that the founders of Israel intended it to be a Jewish state. All I am pointing out is that there is no actual constitutional statement to that effect. Adam 01:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

That is indeed a good point, but in this case the spirit is clear and I think it should be in the article. Nevertheless, the fact that it is not formally written is good for Israel and should make integrating other religions into the country easier, hopefully in the near future.

Don't hold your breath. Adam 05:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You can't expect to find a simple statement "Israel is a Jewish State" because then it would have to be defined. However, statements like "The purpose of this Basic Law if to protect freedom of occupation, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." have the same effect and are intended to have the same effect. The Law of the Knesset even has an enforcement provision: if your political party doesn't hold that Israel is a Jewish State you can't stand for election. There are also multiple references to the principles enunciated in the declaration of independence, of which "Jewish State" is central. It appears that the Israeli Supreme Court indeed holds the "Jewish State" concept as foundational even though they have trouble agreeing on what it means. Below is an extract from the Stanford Journal of International Law, Winter 2004, pp64-68. --Zero 05:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

= = = = = = = = =

2. Israel: "Jewish and Democratic"

Common Article 1A of the Basic Laws reads, "The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." [FN86] This clause in the 1992 Basic Laws amplified an amendment to the 1985 Basic Law: The Knesset, which stated that political parties may be banned from participating in parliamentary elections for several reasons, including the negation of the existence of Israel as a democracy and as the "state of the Jewish people." [FN87] In 2002, this section was amended to conform with the 1992 Basic Law to read that a person or a party could not stand as a candidate for Knesset election if it could be inferred from their goals or acts that they deny the existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. The amendment allows the Central Elections Committee to disqualify a party or a specific candidate from a party list. [FN88] In 1992, the Parties Law was enacted, [FN89] including similar restrictions on the registration of political parties. Although the reference to Israel as a Jewish state appears already in the 1948 Declaration of Independence, [FN90] the phrase "Jewish and democratic state" began playing a far more significant role since the enactment of these laws, and especially after these terms were included in the 1992 Basic Laws. [FN91] As a result, in current Israeli discourse, the definition of the state as Jewish (and not just democratic) may serve to justify the denial of full civic equality to non-Jews, particularly the denial of their collective rights as a national minority within Israel. It may also provide a rationale for the curtailment of democracy, especially concerning equality for Israel's Palestinian citizens. [FN92]

Since the 1990s, political and legal discourses in Israel have become increasingly polarized between those who emphasize the "Jewish state" aspect and those who argue that, as a democracy, Israel must consider itself the "state of all its citizens." The prevalence of the "Jewish state" idea as a constitutional principle has often served to delegitimize the idea of Israel as the "state of all its citizens."

The definition of Israel as the "state of the Jewish People" in the 1985 amendment to the Basic Law: The Knesset, and as a "Jewish state" in the 1992 Basic Laws, affected the thrust of the prevailing discourse and came to imply that Israel belongs to the Jewish people and is not the "state of all its citizens." [FN93] These ideas resonate in Supreme Court rulings pursuant to the statutory provisions placing limitations on political parties. In the 1988 Ben-Shalom ruling, [FN94] the Court gave the "Jewish state" concept one of its most maximalist readings. Although it may be unusual in the extent to which it expands the Jewish state at the expense of democracy, and although this ruling was issued prior to the time framework discussed in this Article, it is indicative of the tensions between Jewishness and democracy in Israeli constitutional discourse.

In the Ben-Shalom case, the Supreme Court heard an appeal requesting that a party with both Arab and Jewish members be disqualified from participating in elections because it had rejected the principle that Israel is the state of the Jewish people. Although the Court rejected the appeal three votes to two, one dissenting judge, Dov Levin, argued that a party calling for full equality between Jews and Arabs and stating that Israel is the "state of all its citizens" should be disqualified from participation since it thereby rejects the constitutional idea of Israel as a Jewish state. [FN95] The other dissenting judge, Menachem Elon, emphasized that Israel is the "state of the Jewish people," and only the Jewish people. [FN96] While disqualification was prevented because the majority held that the evidence submitted had been insufficient to prove that the party in question had rejected the idea of Israel as a Jewish state, the majority did not seem to strongly disagree with the minority Justices on the interpretation of the Basic Law. In any case, the dissenting opinions are an example of the broad interpretation given by some justices to the notion of the Jewish state.

Another ruling issued in 1996, however, adopts a different view than the one expressed by the dissenters in Ben-Shalom and tacitly supported by the majority. In Issacson, the Supreme Court was asked to overturn a decision that had allowed the registration of an Arab party under the Parties Law. [FN97] The Court rejected the appeal, and Justice Cheshin held that the party's declaration that the state of Israel is a "state of all its citizens" does not contradict the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, since equality among all citizens is a fundamental principle of democracy. [FN98]

In the 1999 Ehrlich ruling, the Supreme Court considered disqualifying a party on similar grounds, but ruled that it was questionable whether Azmi Bishara, the party leader, had indeed negated the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. [FN99] Finally, before the 2003 elections, the Central Elections Committee disqualified two Arab individual candidates and an entire Arab political party based, inter alia, on the same grounds, but these decisions were overturned by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the idea of the "state of all its citizens" may or may not contradict the idea of the Jewish state, depending on the specific interpretation it is given. [FN100]

These rulings indicate that the constitutional definition of Israel as a democracy and the state of the Jewish people was more than once interpreted in case law as an endorsement of the state's ethnic character, potentially disqualifying from participation in the political process anyone seeking a shift from an ethnic state to a liberal democracy based on civic equality. Although no party has been disqualified on these grounds since 1965, and the 2003 Central Elections Committee decisions were overturned by the Supreme Court, the interpretation in Ben-Shalom provided by the dissenting justices and tacitly endorsed by the majority represents a prevailing attitude that the definition of Israel as a Jewish state or as the state of the Jewish people denies the option of viewing it as the state of all its citizens. To fully understand the pervasiveness of this understanding of Israel as a "Jewish state," one must look not only at the symbolic level and at the question of political participation, but also at existing practices of discrimination that are connected to the identification of the state with the dominant ethnic group. These practices especially include discrimination in allocation of resources, such as land and education. [FN101]

That being said, in Ka'adan, [FN102] a precedent-setting ruling concerning land rights discussed in Part IV.D.3, the Supreme Court surprisingly relied on the Jewish state definition to reinforce rather than deny equality to Arab citizens. The Court's rationale was that the character and values of a Jewish state require it to ensure equal treatment of non-Jews. [FN103] In a later development, in 2002 as part of a decision stating that municipal signs in mixed Jewish-Arab cities in Israel must be written in Arabic in addition to Hebrew, the Supreme Court recognized the collective language rights of Israel's Palestinian minority. [FN104]

To conclude, the reinforcement of the Jewish state definition in 1992 through the new Basic Laws and the Parties Law may bolster Israel's ethnic nature at the expense of egalitarian democracy. The likelihood of this outcome will depend largely on the course the judiciary chooses, and its record has been mixed thus far. In and of itself, the constitutional definition of the state as the Jewish state did strengthen a discourse that rejects the idea of Israel as a state of all its citizens. Insofar as reconciliation within Israel proper would require acknowledging the exclusion of its Palestinian citizens from full and equal citizenship in the state, [FN105] the strengthening of the Jewish state at the expense of the democratic state or the state of all its citizens runs counter to the goal of reconciliation. From a transitional justice perspective, then, the transformations of Israeli constitutional law in the 1990s failed to encourage reconciliation and inclusiveness. In fact, the opposite may be true.

Finally, the 1992 Israeli Basic Laws do not include an equality clause. The right to equality was sacrificed in political compromises struck on the way to the legislation of the Basic Laws because of concerns about its potential effect on religious issues, state relationships, and relationships between Jews and Arabs. [FN106] However, after the legislation of the Basic Laws, the Supreme Court issued several rulings stating that the right to equality is protected by the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, as part of the right to human dignity, [FN107] and also made significant rulings concerning equality for Arabs within Israel. [FN108] The absence of an explicit equality provision in the Basic Laws, however, is significant in and of itself.

[FN90]. Pnina Lahav discusses how the idea of the "Jewish state" in the Declaration of Independence was first used by the Israeli Supreme Court to limit democracy when it came to electoral participation rights of Arab parties in the famous Yeredor case. E.A. 1/65, Yeredor v. Chairman of the Central Elections Commission, 19(3) P.D. 365. [1965, before the ammendment to the Basic Law of the Knesset - Zero] In this sense, this case is a precursor of the 1990s constitutional discourse about a "Jewish and democratic state." See generally Pnina Lahav, Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century 181-195 (1997). On the "Jewishness" discourse in Israel's Declaration of Independence, see Pnina Lahav, A" Jewish State...to Be Known as the State of Israel": Notes on Israeli Legal Historiography, 19 Law & Hist. Rev. 387 (2001). (other footnotes on request)

= = = = = = = = =

That is all very interesting, and what it shows is that Israel has felt increasingly compelled over the past 20 years to provide legal reinforcement for the view that Israel is a state for one and only one ethnic-religious community, the Jews, in the face of increasing rejection of this view of nationality in western liberal-democratic states. It is interesting in this context to note that the three Basic Laws which Zero refered me to date from 1986, 1992 and 1994. In other words, from 1948 to 1986 there was no reference at all in the Basic Law, the nearest thing Israel has to a constitution, to Israel being a Jewish state. Three such references have now been added to the Basic Law. But the Basic Laws are only statutes passed by the Knesset, they are not clauses of a constitution. By contrast, the Iranian Constitution (to take one example) says: "The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice." So Iran's status as an Islamic republic is constitutionally entrenched in a way Israel's status as a Jewish state is not. One might suggest that the principal reason Israel does not have a constitution after 57 years of statehood is because there is no consensus on what is meant by the expression "Jewish state" and on exactly what kind of state Israel is. Adam 09:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Israel clearly isn't the only liberal-democracy without a constitution (except for the United Kingodm, which nonetheless exhibit a liberal-democratic tradition spanning hunderds of years) by mere coincedence. For those fluent in Hebrew, this is the site of the Constitutional Committee: knesset.gov.il/huka, and less comprehensively in English at: here. El_C 09:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Pages for deletion

I nominate this page as a page for deletion. Due to the fact that Israel has violated a large number of U.N. resolutions; it has demonstrated that it is not concerned with it's soveriegn status as granted by the U.N.. Therefore, it should be considered a non-soveriegn state, and as such, should be of no concern to Wikipedia. As a Wikipedia editor, you have the right to vote for or against deletion, you do not have the right to erase my nomination for deletion.

We have the right to ignore it as a silly piece of anonymous provocation. Adam 07:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

We have the obligation to ignore it as a silly piece of anonymous provocation. When the United Nations deems Israel non-soveriegn, then such a change can be implemented. At the event, there's the 1947 UN General Assembly Resolution 181 which was voted on accordingly:

The 33 countries that voted in favor of UN Resolution 181: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussia, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, South Africa, USSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The 13 countries that voted against UN Resolution 181: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

The ten countries that abstained: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia. El_C 08:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)



While I agree with your general point, that vote was not a vote to recognise the State of Israel. It was a vote on the Partition Plan. Israel is quite clear that its sovereignty does not derive from a vote taken by the UN, but on the inherent right of nationhood of the Jewish people. Adam 08:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know; point taken though, I didn't qualify the above with great precision. El_C 09:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what the discussion was about, but anyway Israel's sovereignty under international law derives from their recognition by other nations and by international bodies such as the UN.  Same as for everybody.  Nothing to do with how good their national myths are.  --Zero 09:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

map

Anyone notice that the map shows Israel containing Gaza and not containing the West Bank/Judea and Samaria?  Seems a bit POV to me (though a mixed POV).
--23:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
(Comment: unsigned by USer:198.203.175.175. Please use ~~~~ in the future to auto sign & date your posts)

Nah, I think the pixel for Gaza is missing. I envy your eagle vision though. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, is Sheba Farms shaded in or not? And the borders seem to include Taba. Perhaps this is why eight pixel maps of countries are not used to determine international borders. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

terrorist vs. militant

It seems very strange to me that self-described terrorists cant be described as such to the point of censorship. Ive just noticed on the wikipedia entry for 'stern gang' their called 'terrorist'-so theres a form of schizophrenia in wikipedia- however if thats what you want Im not going to argue it just that reality is being denied Eric A. Warbuton 06:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The introduction refers to actions by groups on both sides; singling out just one group is POV, and needless detail in a summary article.  As well, Wikipedia prefers the term "militant" as more neutral than "terrorist". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Motto

The page is protected but the motto has somehow disappeared, I think in the last edit by User:Toya. Can somebody with access put it back?

Israel don't have national motto! Toya 15:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, but in any event, a note here before doing it would've been nice. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to make substantial edits while the page is protected.  However, we can discuss here whether or not Israel really has a motto.  Has anyone produced hard evidence in either direction?  --Zero 03:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

no motto. just see the Hebrew version of this page. Deror 08:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm an Israeli and I've never heard of anything such as an Israeli motto. The removed "im tirzu, ein zo agada" was the motto of Herzl's Altneuland, it has become a popular Zionist slogan, but I've never heard it is Israel's motto.--Doron 13:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
So that's where I've heard it before.  Unless someone can find some sort of official statement that the Altneuland motto was adopted by Israel, I think we should keep it out.  --Zero 06:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Look what i've found [2]. This is curious... maybe somebody living in Israel can shed some light? --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Haven't got a clue--Doron 06:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Again - no official moto. The flag anthem and symbol are set by Knesset legislation. NO legislation re moto. Deror 10:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This version

Having been accused within 48 hours of being both an Israeli agent and an anti-Semite, I am fairly confident that the current version is fairly balanced. Any article that annoys fanatics on both sides is heading in the right direction. Adam 14:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Balanced?? The tag limitedgeographicscope is not inappropriate for this article since it presents a POV held by a narrow minority as if it was the (global) majority view.  It's disgusting frankly. As a Jewish person I _know_ that what you are doing is a disservice to Jews even if you mean to do the opposite. By presenting (modern) extremist US-Israeli views on Israel and it's history as if it was factual you are turning a Wikipedia article into cheap propaganda.
Imagine if I would edit an article on homosexuality and would put in this sentence: 'Men and women has throughout the ages strived to become homosexuals and it is well known that every important historical person that has ever lived has been a homosexual', do you think a person reading that would say 'Interesting, I didn't know that' or do you think they would laugh and then not take the other (real, factual) claims that were in the article seriously?
If I was to edit an article about Israel I would probably slant it in a pro-Israeli way since I believe that we should have a homeland (and it's impossible to not be biased) but I wouldn't resort to writing a fairytale version of reality.
In the opening paragraph you have this sentence;
"In most respects, non-Jewish Israelis enjoy full political and civic equality (although some laws favour Jewish citizens), but Israel is not a secular or multicultural state in the purest sense."
Who do you expect would believe that? The whole article is like that and it only serves to discredit Wikipedia, and to discredit us Jews that wants and needs to live in the real world.
I don't think it would be much use if I were to edit/suggest edits to the article as I believe they would get reverted, even if I submitted 100 references for every edit. That's not the way it should be. --saxet 06:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Please be more explicit and less emotional.  What would you write instead of that sentence?  You might have a good point, but so far you haven't given us the opporttunity to judge it.  --Zero 06:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

And if you are not prepared to take part in editing, you have no right to put dispute tags on articles. If your edits have merit, other editors will protect them from reversion. Adam 07:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Largest city

jerusalem is not the largest city, tel aviv is three times larger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.27.66.67 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 September 2005  (UTC)

The Tel Aviv metropolitan area is bigger (1.8 million), but the city itself is only 365,000. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Are they referring to largest in population or per square mile?MPA
Population.--Doron 09:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How large is the population of West Jerusalem?  Because the rest of the world doesn't consider East Jerusalem to be part of Israel, and our Jerusalem article gives 704,900 as the population of all of Jerusalem.  Assuming the two halves are about the same population (they may not be), you would have a situation where the Israelis say that Jerusalem (all of it) is the largest city in Israel, but the rest of the world says that Tel Aviv is, because it is larger than the undisputedly Israeli part of Jerusalem...does that make sense? john k 22:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point. The articles I've seen use that 700K number for combined East and West Jerusalem.  --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

About 58% of the population of Jerusalem lives in the territory annexed in 1967, out of which 45% are Jewish. About 67% of all residents of Jerusalem are Jewish. Even if you consider only the Jewish residents, Jerusalem is still the most populated city in Israel. For the facts-in-a-glance box, I think this is accurate enough.--Doron 07:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
This seems fair enough, I guess... john k 15:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, wait. It doesn't make any difference whether they are Jewish or Shinto; it's people who make up the population of a place. I'm not at all sure of the relevance of the demography. I mean, if there were more Jews in NYC than in all of Israel, it wouldnot make NYC the largest city in Israel. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes, but the Jews living in East Jerusalem behave as active citizens of Israel - they vote in Israeli elections, they serve in the Israeli army, and so forth. I think it's a tough call, but when the options are either a) listing just Jerusalem; and b) listing both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, I'm going to go with the simpler option if a rationale can be found that's not too obviously POV. john k 18:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)