Talk:Israel

Old archives
Israel and the Occupied Territories Jerusalem as capital

Legal issues surrounding the holocaust

Just an observation: The article touches briefly on Israel's bringing Eichmann to justice. There is an interesting aspect to this and related topics in that Israel has unusual legal authority in these matters. That is, normally a nation has little or no legal jurisdiction on matters that did not occur within its borders. I don't see any explicit discussion of this and it seems to me a unique aspect of the state's sovereignty (and how it is recognized internationally).

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Any country can put someone on its "wanted"-list. Most countries just don't come and get people. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an oversimplification. True any country can choose to go after somebody but it is usually only superpowers that get away with it. The fact is that countries around the world have recognized Israel's jursidiction in these matters and extradition has been granted for former Nazis. I don't claim to know the details of the agreements and laws surrounding this (hence the reason I did not modify the article myself) but I do know there is more to it than Israel does what it wants. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is also not very unique to do it, as Britain did with Pinochet. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Britain did not claim any unique jurisdiction. They in fact were not the ones that issued the warrant. It is true that universal jurisdiction is a concept recognized by most countries but Israel has held a special jursidiction wrt Holocaust crimes. It is unclear to me to what extent that is by agreement and to what is extent that situation is de facto but it is interesting nonetheless. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you present a source stating this? After all, even the article on Eichmann points out that the US was within its rights to arrest him, even if we chose not to. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Israel has any special legal status regarding holocaust crimes, even though many people are sympathetic towards Israel's standing there. The capture of Eichmann was illegal according to most learned opinion (once I did a search of journals of international law) and the Security Council also had that opinion, see United Nations Security Council Resolution 138. Later Israel signed a kiss-and-make-up agreement with Argentina admitting that the action had "infringed fundamental rights of the State of Argentina". Zero^talk 01:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That was part of my point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

All countries have the right to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity against their own people, regardless where the crimes were committed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prwagner3 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The key to that is "their own people". Modern Israel did not exist at the time and so cannot legally claim that these were crimes against its citizens. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought any high contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions were obliged to search for and prosecute people who breach them no matter what their citizenship happens to be or where the alleged crimes took place....in theory. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this in your talk page, but The Israeli court addressed that - the court ruling was that the nazi regime's intentions were also against the Jews in the Land of Israel at the time and that's why Israel could prosecute even if the State of Israel didn't exist yet. The court said that it didn't concern itself as to how the defendant came to the court (btw, legal/illegal is an incorrect term regarding this). Amoruso (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge as a lawyer, the aforementioned Universal Jurisdiction means that there are crimes against humanity that are understand to be commited against humanity as a whole. Such crimes may be prosecuted and judged by any country, regardless of the nationality of the individuals involved. I guess there must be an article about that somewhere in the wiki. Which Israel could not do, is to violate the sovereignity of another country to kidnap a national and bring him to justice, and that created some roblems, which led Israel to deny initially his involvement. So there is not a "Israeli Special right" to prosecute nazis around the world. There is an interest though, by obvious reasons.

I do not think more is necessary here, as there are other articles dealing with it. Leirus (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

British fugitive Ronnie Biggs was snatched off the streets of Brazil and found himself in Barbados. The kidnappers claimed to be acting in an 'deniable operation', the British Authorities refuted their claims. Biggs was not returned to Britain as Barbados does not have an extradition Treaty with the U.K. If that technicality had not been noted perhaps Mr Biggs would have joined Mr Eichmann in that route to face the music.Johnwrd (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish ethnicity?

Is there such a thing as being "ethnically" Jewish? In my understanding of things, isn't Judaism a religion and not an ethnic group? Because I know there are a lot of followers of Judaism from different backgrounds (including Arabic, African, Iranian, German, Russian, etc.), so I don't think there should be a separate "make-up" (specifically the side bar stating that 75% of Israel's population is Jewish, with around 20% being Arab, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.85.40 (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

judaism is very special in the fact that it is both a nation and a religion. its like 2 for the price of 1. so yes judaism is an ethnicity. and you are also correct there are jews all over the world, but they are all ethnically jews. the point for israel was to create a home for the jewish people, not the jewish religion. so there should be a special side bar recognizing that israel is a jewish state and that 75% of israels populace are jews.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And another 4% have Jewish ancestry (the non-halakhically Jewish new immigrants mostly from the former USSR). And some Muslim Arabs may have Jewish ancestry also. Benjil (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jews are both, a religion and an ethnicity, children of Isaac's son Jacob are Jews, the Israelites / Hebrews] started to be called as Jews in the book of Esther, yet, a German that converts to Judaism is as much a Jew as an Ethiopian black Jew, Yes, some Jews have been forced to convert to Islam, like about 5,000 in Morocco, for example.Rilahag (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

West Bank Wall

The article says concerning the west bank wall which protects Israelis from terror attacks:

which is partially built within the West Bank.[172]

Partially? or Mostly? And if Israel capture the West Bank in 1967, why is it called the West Bank if it is Israeli territory? Shouldn't it be called Israel?

119.82.255.116 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The West Bank isn't regarded as Israeli territory by Israel. It's referred to as "territories that are held by the State of Israel under a belligerent occupation." and similar terminology by the Supreme Court of Israel. See here for an example ruling and you can find other examples at the Supreme Court's website here. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

request for change in intro

in the intro it says that jerusalem is the country's capital, but not oficially recongnized as such, but that is not the case. jeruslaem is recognized as the capital of israel, though east jerusalem is not recongnized as such.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we recently had a (very) long discussion about how to present the capital issue and decided on the current wording, which represents a compromise consensus. Neither West nor East Jerusalem is recognized as Israeli territory or as a capital, but Israel has moved most of its governing organs there and the currently agreed text reflects this. --Dailycare (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

alright--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

De facto Jerusalem is under Israel full sovernity. The UN decided not to akcnowledged one of world oldest cities, ancient Jewish city, as the capital of Israel-good for it. It's still de facto the capital of Israel. The goverment is sitting there, the suprime court, everything. The present wording is poor, but it's not the fault of all of those who suggested it I guess, given the facts I can't offer a better one.--Gilisa (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Member in the OECD

Israel was accpted as member to the OECD and will formaly be announced as member by the end of May according to this source[1], for instance. I add this information to the lead. Information on membership in the OECD does appear in the lead of virtually all countries member in it (e.g., Greece, Canada) -and in any case, isn't immapropriate in it.--Gilisa (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I support. The official entry is 27th of May. Benjil (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Urgent reduction of reference templates

I was advised by the VP that the extensive use of reference templates in this article is behind the lagging that at least part of the readers experiencing when they try to read the article. I suggest we would cite at least part of the references (including these that are already in the article) without using reference tamplates and removing templates we agree are unnecessary until the lag problem is solved.--Gilisa (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. Proper citation formatting is required for FA status, and I had to do a whole lot of work to get us to our current well-formatted state. Would anyone mind if we don't use these things? It would make changing the format much harder. okedem (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, it became clear that this template is behind the problem and we surely don't want readers to skip this FA because it just get stuck. I agree however that the FA status is important by itself and that we don't want to loose it. I suggest we would start with removing the number of citations. Many of the statements are cited more than once, let's reduce the number to one and save these we removed in an archive or something. We should also remove unnecessary templates. The purpose is to improve the article and not to degrade its quality and I'm sure that we can keep it FA without keeping the lag problem, we have no other option. So, what you think?--Gilisa (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We can trim down a few sources, but I doubt that would help too much.

Reading Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates and tools, it seems the templates are not required. We should just make sure we preserve the same formatting (can copy-paste from the current rendered footnote), and use plain-text refs. okedem (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced anyone should do anything. I've seen the lag problem but only intermittently. The time it takes for the page to be rendered seems to vary quite dramatically at least for me plus it's 168 kilobytes long which may be more pertinent (see WP:SIZERULE). It seems unfortunate to remove refs because a template's code is inefficient. It makes more sense for someone to try to improve the template's performance. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But there is no rule that force one to use templates. Infect, the citation format is what matter-and not the use of specific template. Mostly, the lag is not that serious, sometimes it's. It's really a severe problem. P.s. There are many articles larger the 100 kb that are not lagged (nor divided, unless there is a good reason).--Gilisa (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)--Gilisa (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The lag problem comes and goes for me as well. I don't understand why it even exists. Can this be brought to the attention of some developers here? okedem (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a way to do that, I forgot what it's :) Do you have energy left to search in Wikipedia?--Gilisa (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Anyone knows how much KB's each template adds? --Gilisa (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Foreign relations

The article states that the USA was the first to recognize israel followed by the USSR but cites no sources. In Montefiore's book on Stalin (Stalin: the red tsar) he claims the USSR recognized Israel first. I think either a source hsould be provided or the statement rephrased. Telaviv1 (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In the book "The Arab-Israeli Conflict" (second edition 2004) T.G. Fraser writes on page 43 that "The new state was proclaimed at 6 p.m. Washington time; Trumans's de facto recognition followed 11 minutes later [...] An American recognition was quickly followed by that of the Soviet Union". This of course does not rule out that a third country recognised Israel within those 11 minutes. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Economy section

The article says

• "Since the 1970s, Israel has received economic and military aid from the United States, whose loans account for the bulk of Israel's external debt.[1]

The source (World Factbook) says

• "Roughly half of the government's external debt is owed to the US, its major source of economic and military aid."

This is a much better source with aid data going back to 1949

• Congressional Research Service, U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel, December 4, 2009

Sean.hoyland - talk 14:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Shock, Horror... it's official :Israel has Nuclear weapons

Israel attempted to sell nuclear weapons to apatheid South Africa.

Here's the link...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons

I'll try and add something on this later --86.138.113.101 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god, the Guardian has a slow news day! Actually, those documents were made public years ago, and there's absolutely zero new information here. The claims are well known, and remain unsubstantiated (note phrases like "believed to refer to"). Since it seems nothing actually happened, even if the offer is true, it's of little importance here. I'm removing this; it would, perhaps, be appropriate in Nuclear weapons and Israel. okedem (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have link where those documents were available before this publication? --Dailycare (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All infor on it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents. Important enough to add to the page on Israel, I think. --FortEuropa 20:36, 24 May 2010 (GMT+1)

And here is an AP report that has a bit of concrete facts instead of the fluff and hearsay that we have learned to expect from the Guardian. I think you will have trouble including any indication that Israel has been proven to possess any nuclear weapons. But nice try. [2] Breein1007 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All infor on it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents. Important enough to add to the page on Israel, I think. --FortEuropa 20:36, 24 May 2010 (GMT+1)

They were previously classified documents Okedem (likely released by the ANC as a little payback)... they have not been available 'for years'. The documents clearly indicate that deals regarding nuclear weapons were being negotiated... or did you not even bother to read the article (because Peres says it's naughty). Even the Israeli president accepts that the documents indicate that the Israelis attempted to sell South Africa nuclear wepons... he attacks it on the basis that he believes it's factually innaccurate (because it wasn't signed by Israelis... why would it be? It's a South African governmental document!).

Please do a little research and thinking before dismissing these things out of hand... I believe this is a confirmation of something important in regards to Israel as a country (not exactly unspeculated)... I think it warrants inclusion in the section of this article dealing with defense and other claims of Israeli nuclear weapons.

For the time being I would be happy with it being added to the article but qualified by the statement by Peres.

Even if it only warrants a setence it still warrants inclusion.--86.138.113.101 (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OF course Breein1007... because the Guardian are a bunch of nasty leftists out to get the perfect state of Israel. Facts have a well-known left-wing bias you know? Perhaps you could try refuting the facts? Whatever you say the claim still warrants inclusion... even if it is not unqualified.--86.138.113.101 (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I stated... Peres only attacks the article on the basis that the document was not signed by Israeli officials. Why would a South African document be signed by Israeli officials?

Is it common practice in the security services for random people to unnecessarily sign confidential documents which could be damaging to them?

If you don't know the anwser to that question... it is no.--86.138.113.101 (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Peres would be outspoken on this issue considering that he was the salesman: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents--86.138.113.101 (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to go very far - see South Africa and weapons of mass destruction#Alleged Collaboration with Israel ("In 2000, Dieter Gerhardt, Soviet spy and former commander in the South African Navy, claimed that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with "special warheads" for South Africa.").

To say "three sizes [of warheads]" refers to "nuclear, chemical and biological" (instead of, say, just three sizes), is a peculiar interpretation, and certainly is not proof of anything. okedem (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okedem Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published." There are a number of third-party verifiable mainstream sources which discuss Israel's nuclear weapons program including: Vanunu's Photos of Dimona -1985 that showcase production models of Israeli nuclear weapons cores and the manufacturing facilities, The U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu [3]; Mordechai Vanunu: The Sunday Times articles, Times Online, [4]; The BBC, Israel's Secret Weapon (Google Video) [5] (Real media) [6]; Jeffrey Richelson, Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence from Nazi Germany to Iran and North Korea (New York: Norton, 2006); Avner Cohen, The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb (Colombia University Press 2010); Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb (Colombia University Press 1998); and The George Washington University National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 189, Israel Crosses the Threshold. harlan (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you really have a reading comprehension issue, don't you? Did I claim we shouldn't mention the nuclear program? Did I attempt to delete the info we have about it now? I said nothing about this at all. I was just referring to the claim regarding an Israeli offer to sell nukes to SA, which is neither new, nor well-grounded, nor important at all. okedem (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Another "RS" The anti-Israel bigoted: 'The Guardian,' LOL

Wow, what a "reliable source" on Israel, that same biased anti-Israel The Guardian that Promotes Apartheid Slur [7], lies [8] about this "story" as well. note the "coincidence" in a stubborn trend in promoting the "apartheid" epithet - association.Rilahag (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

controversy

With all that is going on, shouldn't there be a "controversy" section, considering that Israel has been doing and lying about things, not to mention all the video around showing Israeli settlers in places like Hebron attacking children and so forth?

99.145.123.223 (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Every country in the world has "controversies" around it, but other country articles do not have such biased sections, and so neither does this one. okedem (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a section of criticising the "obsessed-critics" of Israel. Starting with what (some-of-them) their real motives are, given their pattern of "criticism." Rilahag (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical Facts at a glance

If there is an accession to EU, can we incorporate an accession to OECD into these facts?

OECD and non OECD membership is a rather important economic and social indicator. Sagi Nahor (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical Facts at a glance

Historical facts of Bulgaria present a more accurate representation of its history and the history of its population.

I have added key facts onto Israel's historical facts at a glance to reflect this more accurate history.

The question is not why is Bulgaria different.

Its why other countries haven't adopted this more accurate approach. Sagi Nahor (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. The problem is that the State of Israel is not a direct continuation of the former Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. This is not the same entity that evolved along time but a new entity created in 1948 even if the Jews that live in Israel today or more or less the same people than the Jews of the past. But this can be discussed. Benjil (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The years of the distinctly different entities are listed for nations such as France and Germany. Why is this meeting resistance with Israel? It fits within the infobox if done correctly with the "established_event#" parameter.Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not noticing your comment Benjil. Direct succession does make it slightly different. I assume (not totally clear on it) that modern Israel links its past with the ancient kingdom. If the modern government and historians give it any play then we should too. It is clear that it is not the same thing just like it is cear that the Holy Roman Empire is not Germany.Cptnono (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As Benjil says, this article is about the modern State of Israel not the Biblical Land of Israel. The question is not 'why other countries haven't adopted this more accurate approach', the question is why Sagi Nahor is putting Biblical history in an infobox for the modern State of Israel, describing Biblical history as 'historical facts' and referring to it as a 'more accurate representation of its history and the history of its population'. I personally find this genuinely bizarre. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

______________

Thank you all for your input.

The First Bulgarian Empire was formed in 681. This year, and this momentous event in the annals of this nation, is recorded, as it should be, in the quick-glance historical facts section of Bulgaria.

A Second Bulgarian Empire was formed in 1185. This momentous occasion, and the year in which it occurred, are likewise displayed in the key facts section of Bulgaria, as they should be.

Bulgaria lost independence in 1396. This event, and the year in which it occurred, is recorded, as it should be, in Bulgaria's key facts box.

Bulgaria lost its independence to the Ottomon Turks for almost 500 years.

After almost 500 years, Bulgaria formed an autonomous government again in 1878. This event and the year in which it occurred, is once again recorded in the key facts box of Bulgaria, as it should be, because this is accurate and vital historic information.

The Jewish people have had a continuous connection with the land of Israel since the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel.

Since this time, the Jews were either active rulers of the land of Israel, such as the Hasmoneans , or were in exile from their homeland, awaiting the time they could re-establish independence.

Key historical facts, like those pertaining to Bulgaria, should also be recorded for Israel.

Sagi Nahor (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

These are not key historical facts about the State of Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite right.

The point is that just as Bulgaria did not appear magically through independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1878, rather was a pre-existing national entity from centuries prior, so too Israel did not magically appear in 1948, but forms a continuous national entity from the one formed centuries prior.

Sagi Nahor (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a continuous connection of indigenous Australians going back 40,000+ years with the land of the modern state of Australia. So what ? It doesn't make it pertinent to the infobox in the Australia article. And your non-Bulgarian based POV pushing arguments 'Israel is the inheritance of Jacob, of the Jewish people. It is the will of Allah' don't make it pertinent either. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And I have reverted. So that is the third revert of this material by three different editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

__________________

Should the Australian Aboriginals gain independence from the Commonwealth, they would most definitely have dates in their key facts box relating to their original establishment, their period of self-rule, period of foreign rule, and period of renewed independence. This is in part what has happened with Israel. Surely you can see how this is a more factual representation of the history of the land and its people? With this in mind - ie more factual representation - I revert back to the more factual representation, unless, Sean, you have no interest in relaying factual history? As I've said earlier, any nation that can provide strong evidence of continuation from a previous kingdom should do so, as it provides ... a more factual representation of its history. With regards to my comment on fatima's page, I talk to different people in the language they understand. Sagi Nahor (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at France and Germany, some of this could be open to interpretation. Is Germany a straight continuation of the Holy Roman Empire? Does France date specifically from the baptism of Clovis? (Although there could be a French state largely continuously from around this time.) It could be a quagmire trying to deal with alleged continuity of countries over that length of time e.g. does modern Italy have some continuity with the Roman Empire? PatGallacher (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

All these comparisons are completely irrelevant. This article is about the State of Israel which was founded in 1948. If somebody wants to throw in Herzl or the Zionist Congress of the late 1800s, fine. Anything else doesn't belong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well no. The article is about Israel which can encompass the State of Israel but also the land and the people of Israel. The article deals with the past and the former kingdoms. We are here debating about an info box. Benjil (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

After seeing the actual edit and reading this section, I thought this was one of the worst ideas I've seen on WP. But I've looked around at number of country articles and many are worse than this. Portugal starts with the County of Portugal, Iran ties the modern state to the Median Empire, the Czech Rep. to ninth century Bohemian principality, etc. Lithuania starts off with the "First mention of Lithuania" in 1009 and follows while Poland starts off with "Christianisation" (966). Japan was the worst I saw, starting with the mythical National Foundation Day, from the (semi?)mythical reign of Emperor Jimmu which that infobox dates to Feb. 11, 660 BC. This seems like a very bad idea to me but it isn't Sagi's bad idea. Just another infobox problem with editors trying to cram nuanced information into single-word categories. Somebody should probably fix that.

That said, the circa 1050 BC founding is mythological and shouldn't be included even by the loose standards of those other articles. Even the Japanese example I mentioned links to the celebration of the mythological founding without swallowing it whole. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The history of ISrael is not just about a piece of territory but also about the Jewish people, as such the history needs to have two seperate threads. This is unusual and one of the things that makes it different from other countries. I think the expulsion from Spain and the holocaust may deserve a larger mention - definitely the Holocaust - but I also think the history should be kept short. Perhaps the stuff on Zionism should be made shorter. Do people really need to know about each 'aliya'? Telaviv1 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"The modern State of Israel has its historical and religious roots in the Biblical Land of Israel, also known as Zion, a concept central to Judaism since ancient times"

Thankfully, this sentence displays prominently in the introduction of the article.

Why not continue this factual representation into the key?

I refer you also to the country of Portugal where its key facts box reflects a more accurate picture of its past.

The Jewish nation did not appear out of thin air in 1948.

             Why not provide more key information regarding its roots?

I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia made for furthering people's knowledge.

Maybe I was mistaken.

Sagi Nahor (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC) ___

Jews' roots in/to Israel, general-historic and religious

It (Jews' roots in Israel) is both: 1) Historic AND 2) religious/Biblical = central to Judea-Christians (and to some Muslim scholars like Sheik Palazzi who areb not afraid to talk about Zionism, Jews (Bani-Israel) & the land of Israel in Muhammad's book the Koran.). Here's a publicized example of continuous Jewish presence for 2,000 Years.[9] Here's in general about it [10]Rilahag (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups: Jews in Ancient Japan?

http://www.moshiach.com/tribes/japan.html

What you think? 189.106.98.202 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC) (I am de facto portuguese brazilian speaker only)

Well, considering Jesus is buried in Japan ;) RomaC (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Arimasa Kubo's writings are already mentioned here. I think you should probably read this as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

incorrect statement

The sentence here is speaking about the variety of geographic features that Israel is home to, but this area is not in Israel:[11] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

well, must be acknowledged here the fact that the Golan Heights as a security measure have been administered under Israeli law since the Yom Kippur war, and that if ever one wants to visit them s/he should better come through Israel; the article is descriptive of a geographical reality, don't consider that sentence as if it were a political declaration issued by the Israeli government, if you want to fight for their reconquest WP is not the right arena, cordially, Hope&Act3! (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly "come through", but that's just it. It is not a part of it. The geography of the occupied territories can be described in their own articles. How is it a geographical reality if a region that is internationally recognized as in Syria is in "Israel is home to a variety of geographic features" That region is not Israel. This article is about Israel, not the Israeli-occupied territories, in the geography section it is describing the geography and climate of Israel, so this region that is not in Israel can not be in it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

oumouadene abdeikader je repete la tous la drs algérie et la sm algérien et dce algérie et abdenour dguima il ma bien torturé et enlever les yeux de bouteflika abdeazize le président algérien populaire et démocratique —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.104.31.210 (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

~Removed my input~ Kcphaid (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)kcphaid