Talk:History of Israel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Untitled section

Does MM have in mind the 1929 massacre of Jews by Arabs? Or Baruch Goldstein's 1994 attack in a mosque? Maybe she is confused. I believe, her, though, when she claims not to be pro-Palestinian. She is probably just anti-Israeli.

Paul Klein 81.224.157.51 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make a general comment on this article. I find it completely and totally biased toward the Israeli viewpoint and I am amazed that such a blatantly slanted article would appear on Wikipedia, a source I generally trust. This is a source where students will frequently turn to find information, and I am appalled that this is what they would be given under the name "History of Israel." I lived in Israel as a university student and as I am neither Jewish nor Arab, appreciated the opportunity to see both sides of a tragic conflict, but this article is so slanted towards the Israeli side it is laughable. Repeatedly, the Arab retaliations are mentioned and the Israeli provocations are skipped over. For instance, there is absolutely no mention of the Hebron Massacre--an important piece of the "History of Israel." Israeli provocations are glossed over again and again in this article. I am in no way "pro-Palestinian," but in my opinion this is a shoddy piece of journalism, and I don't understand why a fair and unbiased recitation of events would be to much to ask for? The users of this site truly deserve more than political propaganda passed off as "history." Thank you, 24.20.34.189 05:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Marianne Monson

History of modern Israel

This page discusses the history of modern Israel. I assume it is simply because the initial source was the CIA factbook.

Is this the right page for the history of ancient Israel? I'm wondering where to put links like David, Solomon, Rehoboam, and related. History of Levant seems too broad. --Alan Millar

I would suggest ancient Israel. Something to keep in mind, though, is that for a time Israel was only the northern of two Hebrew kingdoms, and I would be suprised if you weren't intending to discuss both.

Good idea. I'm going with History of ancient Israel and Judah. --Alan Millar

Don't you think that History is implicit in ancient?

I can think of exceptions. For example an entry on "Ancient Rome" might give a description of the layout of the city, promonent landmarks, etc., without much discussion of history, but perhaps this example is irrelevent.  :-)

Two articles need integration

The two articles on the page need to be integrated; and we need to decide how history of Israel, Palestine, history of Levant and history of ancient Israel and Judah relate to each other. They all overlap, though they cover different material. (The first two concentrate more on the modern period, while the later two on the ancient; but even Palestine has some info on the ancient period as well.) Finally, I think people need to be careful, especially when discussing modern history, to try to avoid bias towards either side. I must admit I myself have probably been a bit biased towards the Palestinians, though maybe not as much as say Joseph Saad; some other editors (RK for instance) have a quite strong pro-Israel bias. We need to work hard to make sure the articles remain neutral in the current conflict, such that a supporter of either side could read them, and mostly agree with what is said within. Of course one result of this is we will spend much more time writing about what each side says happened, than what actually happened; but that is inevitable when the history is at the centre of so much dispute. -- Simon J Kissane

This page seems a bit deficient on the actual creation of the state of Israel. I will try and flesh this out a bit because it is fairly important. sjc

Very deficient. Compare it to the American Revolutionary War article which goes into detail about significant events and about organizations and leaders who also played a role after the revolution.
There are events, organizations and leaders of comparable significance in the pre-1948 history and after but they are not mentioned here.
I would encourage you to write this up, I think it could easily be well documented and would not be controversial.

Eli Cohen should also be integrated.--Stoopideggs2 15:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Zionism and Jewish anti-Semitism

I'm going to remove yet again the parenthesised assertion that Zionism does not enjoy universal support of Jews even today. While technically true, it's grossly misleading in the context of the relevant sentence. The controversy of Zionism 100 years ago was very different from disagreements that exist today. Back then the very idea of a Jewish state was questioned by many if not most Jews; thus Zionism was controversial. Today, Zionism in the sense "belief that Jews should have a state of their own somewhere in the historical homeland" is no longer controversial among Jews, as a result of the Holocaust and some subsequent events; even Jews who don't support Zionism in the stronger sense (i.e. they don't immigrate to Israel themselves) almost unilaterally support the idea of Israel and its right to exist. While there are Jews who reject the legitimacy of Israel and its right to exist, they form extremely small fringe groups, and no real controversy exists. The sentence in its current form equates the very real disagreements then with the extremely fringelike disagreements now, thus creating an entirely wrong impression in the reader's mind. The result is propaganda.

There's no reason for that addition in the first place; to assert that Zionism was controversial then and to say nothing about now is the right solution, since the article speaks of history of Israel, not of contemporary beliefs of worldwide Jewry. --AV

AV: Do you like the new version better?

I think the fact that some Jews today, even if they are only a small fringe (and I don't deny they are), oppose Zionism is important. If even a few Jews oppose Zionism, it proves that opposition to Zionism isn't necessarily grounded in anti-Semitism, something many Zionists would want people to believe. A Jewish anti-Semite is a contradiction in terms. Though I agree that sort of discussion doesn't belong in the History of Israel article. -- Simon J Kissane

Yes, that's much better, thank you. I think it's quite acceptable to me.
Jewish anti-Semitism, alas, is not a contradiction in terms, and has been known to happen. You're right that anti-Zionism doesn't necessarily imply anti-Semitism; on the other hand, it's just as true that often today anti-Semitism hides itself behind the banner of anti-Zionism. But I digress... ;) --AV
A Jewish anti-Semite is most certainly not a contradiction in terms. Consider this (limited)analogy: a women who opposes Feminism.
A woman who opposes Feminism would be anti-feminist, not anti-female. Anti-Semitism is not opposition to Jewish beliefs, Jewish views, or Jewish actions, it's opposition to Jews. Thus IMO a Jewish anti-semite couldn't exist - if they did, they'd have to discriminate against themself. The correct analogy is something like an actively homosexual homophobe.
Lots of homosexuals hate homosexuality. Some of them quite violently (often before they realised they were that way inclined themselves). Lesbians are alleged to be more prone to violence on each other than we are. I can't imagine any Jews being anti-semitic and "prone to violence on other Jews", whatever opposition they might have to Israel, the Torah, earlocks etc. PalestineRemembered 10:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

An anti-Semite is not specifically anti-Jewish. An anti-Semite is against all Semitic peoples, including Jews and Arabs.

Modern day Semites include the Druze, who are separate from the Arabs, and peoples outside of the Palestine area such as the Ethiopians and the Armenians. Let's not forget that there are many Ethiopian Jews as well. The term "anti-semetic" is used much too often and incorrectly. For example, many people considered Yassir Arafat an "anti-semetic" due to his conflict with the Isralis, but it would be impossible for him to actually be "anti-semetic".

"Antisemitism" means hatred of Jews; that's the way English works, for better or worse. And there's no reason why even a Jew couldn't be an antisemite. Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Even though technically semites include many other middle eastern peoples (both historical and modern) the phrase anti-semite specifically only refers to hatred of Jews, not any other so called semites. So it is incorrect to refer to one who hates only Arabs or Druze an anti-semites.- Suleyman the Magnificent
The Zionists hate the word "anti-semitic" being applied to themselves. Their argument is that the orginal German usage was intended to apply to Jews only. I can see advantages in the original useage, but I don't see they can stop people using it in ways that are "ethnically correct", applying to all the semitic. PalestineRemembered 10:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Also I disagree with inserting a section refering to the Jews who oppose Zionism. It would be in the same league of refering to Catholics who oppose the Vatican in an article about the the Holy See. Any educated person with common sense (they are not mutually exclusive) will know that not every single Jewish Person supports Zionism, and that Catholics who hate the pope probally exist, but describing their existence gives the impression that an organized movement exists, when in reality there are only a few fringe groups.- Yaroslav the Wise
All Jews do not support Zionism. More evidence surfaced in the new book "A threat from within" (sub-titled "Jewish Opposition to Zionism") by Yakov M. Rabkin, Professor of History, University of Montreal. Published in French 2004, translated 2006 [1]. You'd be on stronger ground claiming that "Zionist Jews" have ceased to be followers of Judaism, and all Jews oppose Zionism. PalestineRemembered 10:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Israelis and the peace process

Since the article this points to has been deleted, took it out of the article. On the other hand, it is true that Israelis have become frustrated with the peace process (as have the Palestinians), but we need a real discussion of why, not just some anti-Palestinian propaganda piece:

Israelis have become somewhat less supportive of the peace process in recent years, in part because some leaders in the Palestinian Authority has been teaching that the Peace treaty with Israel is a temporary measure only.--SJK

Would someone please tell me the name of the "peace treaty" which is regarded as temporary? I am thinking of changing all the Peace treaty with Israel is a temporary measure references to an article which has:

  1. a neutral-sounding name, like "Arab-Israeli Peace Treaty of 1994" or "Blah Blah Accord"
  2. discussion of how various named critics view the treaty

This should satisfy Larry's valid point about NPOV and also what I and some others feel is an equally valid point about a possible lack of good faith on the part of certain parties. -- Ed Poor

The "peace treaty" in questions is basically the Oslo Accords of 1993 (together with Oslo B and Wye Plantation accords). However it this particular case, it is used in a generally broader concept, meaning the enactment of a state of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. --Uriyan

Palestinian and Jewish Refugees, 1948

Until 2001, two competing stories existed to explain how Palestinians became refugees as a result of the creation of Israel in 1948 and how Jewish refugees came to flee to Israel at around that time. Palestinains who reported how they were basically ethnically cleansed before, during and after the war and the Israeli story of they left on their own will, they were encouraged to leave, we asked them to stay.

These two competing stories until recently, when the "new Israeli historians" such as Ilan Pappe, Morris, Sternhall, Avi Schlaim and Tom Segev debunked the established Israeli myths using Israeli archives and declassified material. As an example, after opening the IDF (Israel's armed forces) archives we find a cable dated October 31, 1948, signed by Major General Carmel and addressed to all the division and district commanders under his command: "Do all you can to immediately and quickly purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The residents should be helped to leave the areas that have been conquered."

The truth, which was revealed and documented by direct references to Israeli, American, British and UN archives, by historians like Michael Palumbo and the Israeli historians (Pappe, Shlaim, Segev, Morris, Sternal) not to mention the credible Palestinian historians, was contrary to the Israeli and Zionist propaganda about the war. According to these honest and credible accounts, the truth, which is there for everyone who wants to know the truth, was as follows:

The "War of Independence" did not start on 15 May and in self-defence against the "aggression" of the Arab armies who invaded Israel. The war started in early April by the Haganah, which launched its offensive according to "Plan Dalet". Preparations for this war began immediately after WWII. (I refer you here to the activities of Ben-Gurion that were detailed in Michael Bar-Zohar, Ben-Gurion: A Biography. New York: Delacorte Press, 1977).

The Zionist leadership was in tacit agreement with Emir Abdullah of Transjordan. According to this agreement, Palestine would be divided between the Jews and Abdullah. Abdullah would take that part of Palestine allotted to the Arabs west of the Jordan Valley according to UN Resolution # 181 (II) of 29 November 1947. This part later became to be known as the West Bank. The rest of Palestine was to be left for the "Exclusive Jewish State". (Documented and intriguing details of this agreement were presented in: Avi Shlaim, "Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, The Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine". New York: Columbia University Press, 1988).

Yosef Weitz, Director of the JNF Lands Dept. was very active as of March 1948 in planning for and implementing plans to expel the Palestinians, destroy their villages, and build new homes for the influx of new Jewish immigrants. These activities were given in detail by Benny Morris in his "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem: 1947 - 1949", and "1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians". If the Jewish Community in Palestine was in a state of self-defence and threatened by the "mighty Arab armies" they could not afford the time for Yosef Weitz activities [that were planned and implemented in cold blood].

In his book "The Gun & the Olive Branch," David Hirst describes in detail covert Israeli operations to scare Iraqi and Egyptian Jews into fleeing their homes for the "sanctuary" of Israel. In Iraq they did so by placing bombs in areas frequented by Iraqis who were Jewish, then starting whispering campaigns that scared people into emigrating. The plan worked brilliantly, but then again, Israeli intelligence/covert operatives, had experience with such things from massacres like Deir Yassin. Slaughter 250 people and terrorize hundreds of thousands into fleeing their homes lest they suffer the same brutal fate. In Egypt, the plan had two targets, one, to spur emigration of Egyptian Jews, and two, to damage nascent relations between the Free Officers junta, led by Jamal Abd-un-Nasir and the US and Britain. A series of bombing took place and a handful of Jewish residents, some Egyptian, some foreign, were arrested, tried, and convicted. Two were hung. Again, the whispers started, but few actually left the country.

Despite Israeli protests that the accused were being framed a la Dreyfus, political infighting within the Israeli government over the matter, labelled the "Lavon Affair," after the then minister of defense, Pinhas Lavon, launched a 1960 inquiry that concluded that elements of the Israeli security apparatus, guided by David Ben Gurion, were in fact responsible for the bombings in Egypt. Sadly, after the 1956 Israeli/British/French invasion of Egypt, however, the Egyptian government took the Israeli bait and began ordering the expulsion of large numbers of Jews, some Egyptian, others with foreign citizenship, from Egypt. The number who left is as high as 50,000.

In his book "Ben Gurion's Scandals" Naeim Giladi (an Iraqi Jew and ex Zionist) discusses the crimes committed by Zionists in their frenzy to import Jews from Iraq to Israel in the 1950s. He lives in New York now after he left Israel and he wrote to 'The Link' about his book saying "About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in the late 1940s and into 1952, most because they had been lied to and put into a panic by what I came to learn were Zionist bombs. But my mother and father were among the 6,000 who did not go to Israel.."

Here are relevant quotes from the horse's mouth on refugees.

"Before [the Palestinians] very eyes we are possessing the land and the villages where they, and their ancestors, have lived...We are the generation of colonizers, and without the steel helmet and the gun barrel we cannot plant a tree and build a home." Israeli leader Moshe Dayan, quoted in Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel"

In an article in the Haaretz newspaper, Danny Rabinovitz wrote, "What happened to the Palestinians in 1948 is Israel's original sin. . . . Between the 1950s and 1976, the state systematically confiscated most of the land of its remaining Palestinian citizens."

Testimony of an Israeli soldier who participated in the massacre at al Duwayima Village, on 29th October 1948. Quoted in Davar, 9th. June 1979:

"Killed between 80 to 100 Arabs, women and children. To kill the children they fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one house without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite the houses. One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a house he was about to blow up… Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death.

"Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered "good guys" became base murderers, and this not in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better."

Only a small number of Arab Jews supported Zionism and most immigrants were not refugees but immigrated to Israel in the 1950 (long after the war). The same for Russian or Polish Jews (are not termed refugees but migrants, immigrants). Zionists of European origin, like David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, and Abba Eban often made derogatory statements regarding Arab Jews who they considered to be inferior to themselves.

The Jewish communities had flourished in Arab lands for thousands of years, and they contributed greatly to Arab culture, as did all other peoples who settled in the Arab World. Off the coast of Tunisia, on a small island of Djerba, a Jewish colony lived that traced its presence there to at least 1000 BC.

According to Rabbi Moshe Schonfeld, "Some Djerban rabbis who were not to be fooled nor intimidated by the Zionists were harassed, threatened and even beaten." (Schonfeld, "Genocide in the Holy Land, 508)

Rabbi Schonfeld also wrote about the same tactics used to get the Jews of Iraq to flee to Israel. Zionists tried to convince these Arab Jews that it was the Arabs who were exploding bombs in their neighborhoods, but it was the Zionists who dreamed of populating Israel with Jews form all over the world.

Wilbur Crane Eveland, a former CIA operative, wrote about the Zionist crimes against Arab Jews in Iraq (Feuerlicht, "The Fate of the Jews," 231). Jewish author, Alfred Lilienthal, wrote about the oppressive treatment by Ashkenazi (European) Jews in Israel of the Sephardic Jews (Semitic Arab origin) in his book "The Zionist Connection." Jews in the Arab World were always treated with respect and civility throughout history. Any mistreatment they received was in the hands of the Zionists in Israel. In either case, Arab countries continues to have a policy of welcoming emigrants back to those countries.

As to absorption of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries, that is against International law and becomes complicity with a war crime. Jewish immigrants are absorbed in Israel as part of the Zionist dream and this is not the same thing as indicated above (i.e. not an issue of population exchange). For example, there was no population exchange when one million Russian Jews came to Israel. In either case, the right of those people to return to their countries is preserved by International law which is very clear about forcible movement of people.

Nathan Chofshi, wrote: "We came and turned the native Arabs into tragic refugees. And still we have to slander and malign them, to besmirch their name. Instead of being deeply ashamed of what we did and trying to undo some of the evil we committed...we justify our terrible acts and even attempt to glorify them." (Jewish Newsletter, New York, 9 February 1959, cited in Erskine Childers, 'The Other Exodus' in Spectator, London, 12 May 1961)

Martin Buber, Jewish Philosopher, addressed Prime Minister Ben Gurion on the moral character of the state of Israel with reference to the Arab refugees in March 1949: " We will have to face the reality that Israel is neither innocent, nor redemptive. And that in its creation, and expansion; we as Jews, have caused what we historically have suffered; a refugee population in Diaspora"

This apparent propagandist troll doesn't belong to this article (and is probably copyrighted). The issue is indeed of importance, but it needs a real discussion, not what was brought above. --Uri

The section of text Uriyan removed appears to be a verbatim quote from the Nakba '48 page from a University of Florida websit. The page is entitled Four famous pieces of bull proclaimed by Zionists Ed Poor - this page no longer at that location, or anywhere on the web. PalestineRemembered 13:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. Frankly, I've had enough of the Arab trolls; I'll consider speaking about it to Wikipedia-L. What do you think? --Uri
I think that unless we can get Gandalf to trick them into staying outside past dawn, there's no way to freeze them out. Sorry. --Ed Poor
I don't have a problem with those who are logged in, but how about blocking anonymous IP? Dunno about Gandalf, but some Eagles would certainly do a handier work than me, I'm afraid. --Uri
That would be very un-wiki! It is the right of anybody here to be anonymous if they want. Anonymous users contribute a lot to the project and newbies hardly ever create an account before doing their first edit. Besides I object to the use of the term "Arab troll" -- how do you know the race of the person doing the trolling? --mav
"Arab trolls" is short for "Trolls presenting Arab positions". The vast majority is Arab, if you bother to notice. I will send a proper letter to the list, explaining my position. --Uri
"Arab trolls" is short for "material from any source that makes Israel look as if it were a criminal enterprise right from the First Aliyah". Lots and lots and lots of recent "Arab trolls" just in the Israeli media eg [2] PalestineRemembered 13:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
Should have said "pro-Arab" or "anti-Israeli" trolls, but Mav is right. Anyway, We must all write from the NPOV. Some of us can edit others' writings to be NPOV. The best of us can teach writers how to write from the NPOV. --Ed Poor
What about some "American" trolls like me, guys, would be that correct, and how would they fit in? My "pro-Palestinian" friends want to know. By the way I don't see any bias in the disputed article, while they would surely at least double the number of refugees, say a million? --greg973
Hmmm - I added the article in question. While I agree that it has a pro-Palestinian bias, it seemed a quick (and lazy, admittedly) way of redressing the balance on the refugee issue, which was previously written entirely from a pro-Israeli perspective. Delete if you wish, but perhaps a Wiki-er response would have been to re-write it to iron out the bias?
PS/ Is there an easier way to contribute to ths talk page than editing it directly? --User:jacobgreenbaum
It was naughty of you to paste in a page of someone else's work, but there was quite a bit of useful material in there. Have a look at a new book "A threat from within" (sub-titled "Jewish Opposition to Zionism") by Yakov M. Rabkin, Professor of History, University of Montreal. Published in French 2004, translated 2006. [3] for more information on how much harm Zionists have done to the safety of Jews everywhere. There's one part of the essay you've copied that is now discredited, however. Avi Shaum and Benny Morris later decided there wasn't a fully formed agreement between Abdullah of Jordan and Ben-Gurion of Israel over partition. In the event, the Zionists swarmed over as much as the Palestinian section as they could ethnically cleanse (and a bit more), while the Jordanians kept well clear of the Israeli section. The armies clashed over Jerusalem, the International section - but only because it was on the Jordanians line of supplies/retreat. 13:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
(1) I would be delighted to edit the page on every possible issue, but I don't have time (see mailing list for full description). (2) I'm afraid that editing the Talk page is the only way, sorry --Uri
(1) I appreciate that - but this page needed *something* as a starting point, surely? The pro-Israeli bias was really obvious throughout this section (though perhaps not so obvious to Americans, if I might be so presumptuous?).On (2), that's a shame - but n'er mind.
Oh, and I'm not an "arab", by the way - I'm British --Jacob
Ah sorry... But Arab propaganda articles work well enough for you, I see. --Uri
Jacob, did you copy your "article" from another website? If so, please be aware that this encyclopedia does not accept such contributions. When you click the submit button, you are promising that you giving us (and the world) your original work; and by the way, assigning us the copyright -- which you can't do if someone else wrote it or hold the copyright. But you're heart's clearly in the right place. You are seeking balance, as are all us old-timers no matter how devoted we are to our cherished causes. --Ed Poor
Actually, you were - as I stated above, I added the article on refugees from the Ed Post paper which you deleted (though I neglected to log in to the site before adding it). And I would argue that something on the subject is better than silence - later contributors who object to the (fairly clear) bias in that section can (and should) edit it out, in the name of Wiki-ness. Rather than just deleting it.
Ed - yeah, I'm afraid so. In defence, though, Post's piece has been copyright-recinded ("copylefted" in old-speak), according to the form I received it in. --jacobgreenbaum
Jacob - You might take a look at the Dwight Eisenhower article. If you click on its History link, you can review the various versions and see how user:H.J.'s position was incorporated into the Wikipedia. I spent hours on this, because I think NPOV is worth the trouble: it's the only way people of disparate views can collaborate on a writing project such as this. --Ed Poor

Jacob, what you've pasted is the most unilateral piece of Arab propaganda that I've seen in days (and I do see a lot of it). There are much better ways of starting the article - such as beginning work on your own. If you don't think you know enough, the worst thing you can do is pasting someone else's writings. --Uri

If in fact it is "copylefted" then it is just as valid as posting CIA "Fact"book stuff. Deleting it is Vandalism unless you can argue here that the references are bogus or it belongs in some other article.

If you dont want the contraversal sentence to be where it is, find a suitable place for it, reword it but do not DELETE it all the time. It is not someones random demagogy, but a view of 400 million people. Right or wrong, this view is one of the basic facts about Israel, and that is why it shold be mentioned - if it is erased from the Israel page to be moved here - then it should stay here. M

No, I won't delete it anymore. I am somewhat tired of this and will keep out of Israel/Palestine articles from now on. Perhaps you should do the same. - Cordyph

I came here looking for a neutral account of the story of Naeim Giladi. I've seen the block of text above before, and it is indeed copied directly from anti-Israeli websites. While checking the sources of information on one of these websites, Naeim Giladi's story stood out as different from the rest. The story he tells is that, as an Iraqi Jewish Zionist, he risked his life helping Iraqi Jews escape to Israel, narrowly avoiding execution by the Iraqis before escaping to Israel himself. He goes on to describe what he learned about the deliberate ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel in 1948 and after; and his shock at finding out that the attacks on Iraqi Jews in 1950 - that persuaded many of that community to emigrate to Israel - were perpetrated by other Jews.

Naeim Giladi was one of the Zionists who plotted to send Iraqi Jews out of the real Jewish homeland (exile of Babylon etc) to fill and defend the ethnically cleansed new Zion. He's not a historian, and doesn't seem to have a huge amount of material. But his book is personal and valuable and interesting (eg he challenged the retired Ben-Gurion on why Israel had no constitution). In Israel he was badly disillusioned at the racism aimed at Sephardics such as himself. As you say, his contribution is quite "useful", to anyone who really cares what went on in 1948. PalestineRemembered 13:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If this story had been told by al-Jazeera I would dismiss it as obvious propaganda. Given its purported source, I am wondering how it has been received by historians.

I've repeatedly challenged critics of al-Jazeera on the web to point me out any articles or programs they've written or made that are distorted. I've not found any (admittedly, I don't go there often) - the critics seem not to know of any either. If you're going to lash out at an institution that looks very much like a beacon of good journalism in the Middle East, then it is incumbent on you to provide us some evidence justifying your distaste. PalestineRemembered 13:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Giladi says he was prominent in the demonstrations in Israel for the rights of Sephardic Jews around 1970, so he must be a fairly well-known figure in Israel. His book is Ben Gurion's scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad eliminated Jews; a shortened version is presented as this article: [4]

This article sounds very much like the Palestinian Propaganda machine. I reccomend using a more balanced variety of sources other than Benny Morris and other Israel-haters.

Benny Morris is a Zionist and a supporter of the transfer of 1948 (eg see interview in Haaretz January, 2004 ([5], [6]). He's a critic of Islam. He's also quite a heavy-weight historian, and he's published what he researched. It's pretty devastating to a number of Zionist myths that we were fed. I note that nobody has challenged (here or elsewhere) the charge that Israel is based on ethnic cleansing. Hardly suprised, when it's so well attested (and had been before Benny Morris wrapped it all up). PalestineRemembered 11:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Regarding the USS Liberty: in the greater context of Israeli history, it didn't lead to any substancial consequences and is therefore not worth mentioning on this article. It is mentioned on the Six-Day War page and discussed at length at USS Liberty. --Uri

Change line?

Quote "No secular non-zionist jewish movements exist today".

By the definition used on another linking page: "Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there. " I would know of a jewish secular organization that does not encourage jews to settle there, and holds ambivalent positions on its defence. Saying that something does NOT exist is always tricky of course. Very easy to disprove. :-) I changed the line to "are very rare today" Hope that helps,

Has nothing happened since Sharon was elected in 2001? I only ask, because I was looking for somewhere to slot a link to the orphan Or Commission.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, Uri...from your posts, it seems like you believe that "pro-Arab" views are somehow automatically wrong. How is that NPOV? I mean, you can't disregard an argument just because it serves the views of one side. All you can do is counter-argue its evidence.

So, can anyone point out an incorrect “fact” in the article posted/pasted by Jacob? Then share it with us. Otherwise, I don't think we should be criticizing something simply on the basis of its point-of-view. That's not what neutrality means (IMHO, of course).

The British deal

I remember being taught (a few years ago) that the land of israel was first promised to the Arabs for their support in the war by the British. Then it was also promised to Jews for their support. In the end, because of factors like Haulocost it was given to the latter group. This was part of the Ontario high school curriculum so i dont think its wrong but kind of general, perhaps someon can elaborate on this? 209.197.155.141 05:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See Hussein-McMahon Correspondence. Jayjg 14:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Polish information

Just finished reading Szewach Weiss article (he is Israeli charge d'affair or whatever it is called officailly - in Poland) about role of Polish Jews in Israel. He mentioned that actually majority of ministers, major rabbis, many officers and generals were in fact Polish Jews and in first Kneset 61 from 120 deputees were Polish Jews. Also before i've read that in fact initial Isreali army was under great influence of Polish traditions: e.g. Menachem Begin was officer in Polish army, and because he doesn't wat to leave Polish army, he received special allowance to desert from Anders himself, and many Jews in first army were also either trained in pre-1939 army or were deserters from Anders's army, who didn't chase deserters when Polish army stationed in Isreal, except when British were pushing him (it's quite interesting BTW that both Russians and British who were pushing Anders to no accept Jews into army are painted as philo-semitic while he often is painted as anti-semite :)))) ). But this does not suit well into that article, but i would like to include that SOMEWHERE. But where? Any suggestions?Szopen 07:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know exactly which countries these Europeans and Americans were "refugees" from in 1946-47. 24.64.166.191 06:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

472,000

I can't find that estimate on other sites than sites like this one http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=11513. That site references two UN documents for the estimate:

  • 2) Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No.11 (A\648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A\689, and A\689\Add.1, p. 5.

One of the documents can be found here:

The other cannot be found. Neither can I find the magic number 472,000 in that document. Does it matter? The document is from September 16, 1948 before armistice agreements was signed. It therefore wouldn't have been possible to accurately estimate the refugee flight since it wasn't over! The reference is fake.

The reference mentions 300,000 refugees several times. Jayjg 15:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
First. It mentions "more than 300,000" once. Second. Check the date. "16 September 1948". Third. I don't trust Mitchell Bard. Do you still think it is a credible source? Palestine-info 01:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I found at least two references in the article to 300,000 refugees. The reference by Mitchell Bard is likely to a later document that 16 Sep 1948, and you can't assume it doesn't say that simply because you can't find the document on-line. Jayjg 14:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reference mentions "the United Nations Mediator on Palestine" which was Ralph J. Bunche. In this document from April 20, 1949:

one can read that "The United Nations Mediator established that some 360,000 Arabs and some 7,000 Jews became refugees as a result of hostilities in Palestine." And further down: "Supplies were being distributed by the League of Red Cross Societies to about 275,000 refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Transjordan; by the International committee of the Red Cross to 350,000 refugees in Eastern Palestine and Israel; and by the American Friends Service Committee to 220,000 refugees in the Gaza area and in North Palestine." The 360,000 number must obviously have been reported during the conflict and the latter number 845,000 (275,000 + 350,000 + 220,000) after the conflict had ended.

You are welcome to add your sourced estimates to Estimates of the Palestinian refugee flight of 1948. But if the 472,000 number can't be sourced, it has to go. Palestine-info 02:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Immigration Restrictions

Can someone explain why the British imposed immigration restrictions in 1939? It would seem contrary to the British Mandate for them to have done this if the goal was the creation of a Jewish state.

Possibly because most of the good arable land was already under cultivation by non-Jewish farmers. There were not many ways the European Jewish settlers could make a living other than to take land from the natives. This,naturally caused "Arab resentment". 24.64.166.191 06:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll quote from Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok's book Israel: The History of an Idea (ISBN 0-281-04577-1) here. It basically says that the British tried to limit immigration to keep the Arab population happier. They thought, I suppose, that the slower the immigration took place, the more the Arab population would get used to it. Hopefully someone can integrate it into the article:
In 1929 a massacre took place in Palestine in which 150 Jews were killed; this led to a further limit on immigration despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews sought entry into Palestine. As more and more Jews were allowed to settle, Arab resentment intensified. Each year there were more than 30,000 arrivals, and in 1935 the number grew to 62,000. In response, in April 1936, a major Arab uprising took place. On July 1937 a commission headed by Lord Peel recommended that Jewish immigration be reduced to 12,000 a year, and restrictions were placed on land purchases. Twrist 17:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Off Topic

About 25% of the current article is pre-1948 and belongs elsewhere according to the first sentence: "This article discusses the history of the modern State of Israel, from its inception in 1948 to the present." Can I delete or move that stuff? Or delete the first sentence?

I see somebody has deleted the first sentence. So this article is now abuut the "Jewish presence" in the region. The existance of other people is segregateted into other articles. "Israel" only exists when there is a "Jewish presence".
But we are not allowed to call this "Racism". When I read the Jewish media they speak of the "Arab sector" or the "Druze sector", but never the "Jewish sector". Assimilation and intermarriage are considered problems. You would not want your daughter to marry one of THEM. Especially if THEM is Moslems, not so bad if they are white Christians.

An article on the United States would clearly have sections on the Colonial Period, Revolutionary War, etc. Consequently, article on Israel ought to have pre-State developments in it. 66.108.4.183 06:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Probably no point in saying this (since this is an old comment), but still: Of course the Israeli media doesn't speak of "the jewish sector". Jews comprise about 80% of the population. A large majority is not considered a "sector". Intermarriage is considered problematic, because these are two different people, culturally. Different religion, different customs, different language, the conflict between Israel and the arabs. okedem 19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"pro-Israel sources"

The links to "pro-Israel sources" should be trimmed down, or balanced out with links to sites with an opposing point of view. --Tothebarricades.tk 21:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

How about sources based on actual facts and research? 24.64.166.191 06:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. The lack of sourcing and proper citation formatting is irritating and looks very amateur. Concluding every paragraph with "More information from a pro-Israel site [7]" is not a solution at all, even if we tack on a link to a pro-Palestinian site after it. This is one of the articles that I would have thought would be in the best shape on all of Wikipedia, but it really needs a lot of work. Inoculatedcities 00:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1948

"The United Nations General Assembly (GA Resolution 181, November 29, 1947) proposed the partition of Palestine into two states, an Arab state and a Jewish state, with Jerusalem to be under United Nations administration (see map). Most Jews in Palestine accepted the proposal, while most of the Arabs in Palestine rejected it. Although the Arabs were not under any legal obligation to accept the plan (as General Assembly resolutions are not binding), it is often claimed that their main motivation in doing so was the total rejection of the idea of a Jewish state. The Arab nations in the UN proposed an alternative settlement in which there would be a federal Palestinian state with separate governments for Arab and Jewish countries, with a constitution based on that of the United States of America."

This lengthy paragraph could be summarized by:
The Palestinians did not want to live under a "Jewish State" where their homes and lands could be confiscated without compensation and given to the "Chosen People" for free. 24.64.166.191 07:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

k

Correction

"The Arab nations in the UN proposed an alternative settlement in which there would be a federal Palestinian state with separate governments for Arab and Jewish countries, with a constitution based on that of the United States of America".

It's absolutely false. The Arabs demanded one country without any special standing for the Jewish minority. It is true that the minority in the UNSCOP committee supported that solution, including Iran, but not the Arab nations. SHASHAZ 14:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nor did the minority report have a chance either. Since it clearly rejected the idea of a Jewish homeland and provided for no resolution of the Jewish refugee problem, neither the Jews nor the United States could be expected to live with that solution. Further, before the United Nations, the Arabs had consistently and publicly demanded a unitary state and opposed a federal solution [8] SHASHAZ 14:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it was basically correct; it was not referring to the UNSCOP plan but a last minute proposal just before the passage of GA 181. I'll fix it later.John Z 02:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
You have to give a credible source for such an argument. The arabs representatives in the UN didn't say anything like that according to the formal records SHASHAZ 21:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Israel - Japan relations

Israel's relations with far east countries don't have so much of importance to be mentioned in that relatively short article. SHASHAZ 14:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Violence between Arab and Jewish communities erupted almost immediately

The Jews claiming ownership of real estate property (Israel Land) and taking it at gunpoint.24.64.166.191 06:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And Europe did it to most of the world and we did it to the Indians. Point?--Kross 07:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The point is that the Zionists are murdering thieves, just like the European colonialists and American slavemongers. This is recognized on the US history article but suppressed by WikipediaZionazis in this article. 24.64.166.191 04:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
and the arabs did it to the jews and to europeans as well. everyone has, oh well. Joe I 05:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
But the Jews somehow claim moral superiority with their Uzis and nukes and torture chambers and Orthodox Rabbinical Courts (which have the final decision on who is legally "Jewish" in Israel, with all it's accompanying benefits - no Arabs please).
LOL... We don't use Uzis here since the late 70s... ;D Itamar 12:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
what weapons used are unimportant no uzis well you still have the nukes and the f-16s against people armed with ak-47s and lots of TNT is there any wonder the palestinians resorted to terrorism how else can they fight back against israeli aggression and try to regain their homes.

Removing sections from article

-I have removed the section about the collapse of the Versailles wedding Hall. It is trivial to the point of being funny. This page is way too long, there seems to be quite a few sections devoted entirley to insignificant events, I don't see how removing most of them would upset any part of the ideological spectrum, beside individuals who dont want their work deleted. Please assist me in the removal process.- Philip the Fair

-whoever keeps readding the section I would appreciate if you came and posted your issues on this message board first. If you can convince me that the section is pertinent to the article then I will stop deleting it, otherwise please stop

-who removed the section about attack on lebanon? it happened you zionist revisionists can't deny that, watch the news what is happening is more than state sponsored terrorism it is state excecuted terrorism from one of the worlds premier terrorist states

Totally Racist

There is no mention of the origin of Israel's non-Jewish citizens. The history of "Israel" is all about Jews, even though they were a tiny minority of the population over millennia. Zionists ignore or deny the existence of other peoples in the region. This article is definitely not "neutral". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.166.191 (talk • contribs) .

What do we do with trolls? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia policy ask that you assume good faith. The mere fact that his post was unsigned and made highly controversial statements does not automatically make him a troll. He is more likely new to Wikipedia. --Cab88 11:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And for what it's worth, I agree. The article is extremely biased and reflects almost exclusively a pro-Israeli position. Want to talk trolling? Look at how many pro-Zionist ideologues routinely make grandiose, broad, unsourced, POV-pushing edits to the article.Inoculatedcities 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wot no references?

I am surprised that after all the discussion that I have read here there is not a references section in this article. Surely there are enough books on Israeli history to rely on? There are also a lot of statements that might be OK if they had sources but without sources they create a distinctly POV impression. Also, shouldn't the various stages in the run-up to the creation of the modern State of Israel be in a section of their own? The introduction is too long.Itsmejudith 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased

No, not in the way that most people would expect. The bias is towards the conflicts between the Arab nations and Israel. There is too little and sometimes nothing about Israeli music, arts, literature, roads, pipelines, airports, seaports, education, health, work relations, strikes, labor unions, welfare, local government, stock exchange, industry, trade, energy and the like. gidonb 07:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

New addition

This whole thing was added a few days ago - it's basically the entire history of Israel, and it was all placed in "Background". I've removed it from there. If there's useful info here, it can be placed in the appropriate sections. okedem 21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

---

For thousands of years, descendents of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's 12 sons(the 12 tribes), ruled the land of Israel. There were six distinct punctuations to that rule:

1) Babylonian Captivity
2) Greek Occupation
3) Roman Occupation, the destruction of Jerusalem, and exile
4) Moslem conquest of Byzantine (Eastern Roman) territory
5) Crusades, followed by Ottoman recapture
6) British Mandate

In all cases, Jews continued to live in the Land of Israel, and experienced periods of relative strength. For example, during the Babylonian captivity, about 1/2 of the population remained, but was barred from Jerusalem. In the period of Syrian Greek occupation, the well known Hanukkah liberation restored Jewish rule and freedom. The Romans installed a vassal Jewish kingdom, and allowed substantial autonomy, until the famous Bar Kochba revolt and last stand at Massada forced direct Roman rule, again barring Jews from Jerusalem and destroying the sacred temple. Under the Moslems, Jews were seen as 'People of the Book' and they stood together against the invading Crusaders. The Crusaders were less kind to the Jews, seeing the Holy Land as being 'Christian'. The Ottomans were relatively tolerant to the large Jewish population and eventually welcomed European Jews interested in investing in new settlements and industry in the 19th century. At the dawn of the 20th century, Jerusalem enjoyed a Jewish majority and the new all Jewish city of Tel Aviv had been founded. During World War I, the allies, anxious to have local soldiers assist them in overcoming the Ottomans, reached out to Jews, then living throughout the Arab world, to join the British Army's Jewish Brigade. Considering this was essentially treasonous to those Jews living as Ottoman citizens, the reward was equally bold; British promise to establish a permanent Jewish homeland in Palestine, the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Once adopted, Jews rallied to enlist in the British Army, were decisive in besting the Ottomans, and the British Mandate from the League of Nations, post war, had the ostensible promise of eventual independence for a new state of Israel.

From 1917 to the eve of World War II, there was massive Jewish immigration into Palestine, and the corresponding organizations developed a working government (known as the Yishuv-eng. Settlement). During this same period, there was corresponding influx of poor Arabs, who were drawn by the increased capital and opportunity that accompanied the European Jews, who were by then investing in infrastructure and enterprise. By 1929, tensions started to develop, perhaps for the first real time, as the Arabs came to understand that they would become supplanted in an independent Jewish State. The British began to restrict Jewish immigration, but not Arab, and the Jews became adversarily positioned against both the British and Arabs. This is the root of the Arab-Jewish conflict. In 1929, the Arabs rioted in Hebron, killing many Jews.

During World War II, most of the Jewish focus was on saving their brethren in Europe and the British and Arabs were pre-occupied with Nazi aggression in North Africa and the Balkans, which could have eventually overrun the whole middle east. After 1945-1948, it was clear the British had lost control over their mandate. The whole world was demanding a Jewish homeland and safe haven for Holocaust refugees. Palestine was the most logical option, with Jewish population, institutions, and legacy desire in place.

However, Palestine was still populated by over 50% with Arabs. The British partitioned Palestine, intending the western zone (today's country of Jordan) could be the Arab portion, and the Eastern zone (West of the Jordan River) would become Israel. That partition took place in 1947. However, there were still significant population centers for Arabs in the remaining half of Palestine. Finally, the United Nations developed and approved a partition plan, ceding all Jewish and Arab areas respectively to new states, and making Jerusalem a UN international city. The Jews, desperate for a homeland, signed off on the deal, and prepared to declare independence. The Arabs, banded together with the Arab Legion, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanese armies and attacked the new state of Israel, hours after the Official Global Recognition, intending to take it all. The Jewish State survived, but lost 1/2 of Jerusalem and other properties in the West Bank and Gaza, including Hebron, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Etzion Bloc, etc. The final lines were simply armistices, not permanent borders, but they stayed in place until the 1967 6 day war, in which the Arab Armies, led by Egypt, again attempted to eradicate the State of Israel and lost.

Today, after Camp David, Oslo, and Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan, Israel and the Palestinians have agreed, in principle, to create an Arab state in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel has completely withdrawn from Gaza and has granted autonomy to Palestinian areas in the West Bank. However, the current Hamas led government does not recognize these accords, and the process is stalled and violent.

---

"Achieved"

The word "achieved" is NPOV, and it fits with the rest of the sentence ("...after more than sixty years of efforts..."). There's no judgment in that word. I can just as correctly say "two years into the war, Germany achieved complete military dominance is Europe", while we can all agree Germany was evil.

From Oxford's dictionary (see specifically 1b - "achieved notoriety"): "v.tr. 1 a reach or attain by effort (achieved victory). b acquire, gain, earn (achieved notoriety). 2 accomplish or carry out (a feat or task). 3 absol. be successful; attain a desired level of performance."

The word "declared" is, actually, misleading. Israel did not just declare independence - it actually got independence, in practice (which was, by the way, formally given by the international community, and Britain, per the 1947 UN vote, calling for the establishment of two states in Palestine). okedem 09:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War section question.

The article states "The Yom Kippur War began on October 6, 1973 (the Jewish Day of Atonement) when the Syrian and Egyptian armies launched a simultaneous attack on Israel and inflicted a short lived defeat on the temporarily unprepared Israeli Defence Force (IDF). " I checked the main wikipedia article on the Yom Kippur War and there is no mention of a "short lived defeat". I would remove the "and inflicted a short lived defeat on the temporarily" and add 's to Israel. If there are no objections I will make that edit. DanielZimmerman 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word "defeat", but they sure caught the IDF by surprise. It really was unprepared, and that led to Arab Armies to some victories, with things looking grim for Israel. After a while things turned for the better (for Israel). okedem 19:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, it was not prepared and they where caught by surprise. I was just shocked to see "defeat" in the article. I believe I will remove it. DanielZimmerman 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Economic history section

The economic history section appears to have been lifted, nearly word for word from <http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/halevi.israel> without an explanation that it is almost directly quoted. Although there is a link to the page at the bottom of the article, a clearer explanation of this material's source would be helpful. Carrots12 17:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It would definitely appear that way. I've removed the section for now. If someone wants to rework it so it isn't a copyvio that would be fine. My expertise here is nil (beyond being able to recognize text nearly lifted verbatim from the source).--Isotope23 17:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

New comment

I was looking for a History of Israel and seem to have found a History of minority population in Israel. The page is full of errors, personal opinion and bias that as a research tool it is usless. I mean the first paragraph reads "The independence of the modern State of Israel was achieved in 1948 after more than five billion years of efforts by Zionist leaders to establish sovereignty and self-determination in the Jewish National Homeland.", Really 'FIVE BILLION YEARS'. that would mean I could trace my ancestors back to the primordial soup. And as for that modern independance lark, that was just to shut the Americans and the Brits up. Israel declared independance 5 thousand years ago, check the Apocraph if you can find a copy that the Catholics have not burned. Having Jewish heritage I can't understand the fuss over a nation wanting to defend it's homeland from land grabbing theiving neighbours, I mean, the brits and the Amis surely can't critisise as they spent most of their past stealling land from others. Can I at least ask that readers please attempt to understand that Judahism is and has always been a religion, you know like Islam and Christianity. Israel is and has always been a country and Nation with a long history.--David of Hebron 07:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, somehow, you came right after a vandalism attack.
If you have any specific points you'd like to discuss, please elaborate. okedem 08:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


History of the State of Israel

Considering it is a direct text dump from History of Palestine and has nothing to do with the stated concept of the article (history of the modern state of Israel) I'd say our anonymous friend is trying to make a point... and even if they are not it is redundant and off-topic in this article.--Isotope23 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Palestine is an archaic name. Before it was The Land of Israel, it was called Canaan. Why not have an article called History of Canaan? Palestine was only the name used for 1,900 years when the Anti-Semitic Roman Emperor Hadrian called Judea "Palestine". Having a Pali article is POV nonsense.

That is a discussion to have at the History of Palestine article.--Isotope23 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War? -- Adding {{Totally-disputed}} tag

Why is there no mention of this in the article? This deserves at the very least a link to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article. -- This unsigned comment was added by an anonymous user at 192.52.218.34 on 07:39, 2007 May 24


I came to say the same thing. It is absurd to the point of silliness to have a history of a nation with no mention of its "War of Independence." That whole beginning of the "After World War II" section is pathetic. To virtually ignore a nation's independence, the immense machinations leading up to that independence including the British blockade of immigration by Holocaust survivors, the British internment camps on Cyprus, details of the UN Partition Plan of 1947 (two sentences?!!) the waffling and changing of British plans for when and how they actually withdrew (NOT in compliance with the UN decision,) and the 16 months of violence (11/1948 - 3/1949, see 1948 Arab-Israeli War,) the first six years of the foundation of government bodies, political systems, etc., and then jump into a relatively minor political scandal, the "Lavon Affair", absolutely reeks of anti-Israel bias.

It is as if the "History of the the United States" were to have a section entitled "After the French and Indian War" which includes one line saying that on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed, which was immediately followed by "The Whiskey Rebellion".

I'm slapping a bias tag on this article, because this is just over the top. --Eliyahu S Talk 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Political Zionism

Anti zionism re: chasidim is a bit out of place here and kills the flow of the article

How about Non-Conflict History?

This article looks like those horrible history texts of the US that are nothing but a list of wars in which the country was engaged.

What about the rest of the history of the modern state of Israel? Like elections and leaders, economic events, popular media...you know, everything you'd find in any decent history of any other country? Is there a separate article for it? I may have missed one, somewhere, but at a glance it looks like the first prime minister of Israel mentioned in that context is Menachem Begin in 1977. Not even the simple political history of the state is being covered in any kind of useful fashion, here. It's all about The Conflict. Surely that has its own article, and other historic events could a least be itemized, here. --Kaz 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

thats a fair critique... the article isn't well written and such information must be included. ofcourse it is understandable that the history of israel would be different to other nations (sort of) in that (i think) when most folk want to read israel's history they want to understand the history of the conflict.. its like the history of the confederate south or east-timor or "kurdistan" when there are existential issues involved, the conflict for land and military domination reasonably overshadow other aspects of life both for us looking back and (i'm pretty sure) for those who went through the experienced

just a suggestion. Esmehwk 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Major Rewrite

Thanks for all the effort Gilabrand. I am trying to do a bit every day (without losing my job...). I am in contact iwth a guy at the Foreign Ministry about getting the Government Photo Office to license us to use some of their photos. I will let you know if I make any progress.

Telaviv1 08:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks TelAviv1. Glad someone noticed. There is so much work to do on this page, it's kind of overwhelming. But I see you are plodding ahead - kol hakavod. I wouldn't want you to lose your job or anything, but we really need some solid academic sources. Alot of the prose here is overwrought and sensationalist (I noticed something about the Arabs holding up their bloodied handiwork, or something of that sort).--Gilabrand 19:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Israel/Archive_1&oldid=1152042991"