Talk:History of Israel/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

There was no 'Israel'

The article says, "Between the 7th and 11th centuries, Jewish scribes, called the Masoretes and located mainly in Israel, established the Masoretic Text... ". To the best of my knowledge, there was no territory called 'Israel' during those centuries, just the Greek eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and the Arab conquest. I suggest defining the relevant territory by its official names of the period. Presumably we all know that it forms part of today's eretz Israel. Politis (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


I wondered how long it would take for someone to see that )less then 24 hours). Its a valid point and I will correct it.

Telaviv1 (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

AMIN AL HUSSEINI NEVER COMMAND A MUSLIM SS SECTION OR UNIT

I want to strongly recall your atention over the imput the infamous Amin al Husseini commanded 'a Bosnian SS' unit in WWII. This never was. First of all, never was 'a bosnian SS' in WWII but a 'Croatische Waffen der SS' enlisted by croats, serbs an yes bosniacs both chistians and muslims ones. His high officers were ever germans, chistians germans and never muslims. This unit dated from 1944 and come into action figthing Tito's partisans and after in Austria against Red Army, and never was involved in Holocaust against jews. Certainliy al Husseini paraded SS troops, but Husseini never reached any military degree. And more: Kurt Waldheim never was acquited or prosecuted for any war crime and the 'comission of historians', suported by Simon Wiesenthal, released him from any guilty. Indeed, Waldheim was honoured by Josip Broz Tito -supossed to be 'his victim'? all 'Waldheim affair' is supossed to be a lie orchestred by Israeli Mossad secret service, in 'Lavon affair' line... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.201.84.254 (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

'''The 'Nasser nazi rocketers', an urban legend?''' When it saids "Egypt develops rockets with the assistance of German scientists... Egypt begins three missile programs based on the German V-2 missile with plans to build 900 missiles of the three models by 1970... When the Mossad learned in 1962 that a team of German scientists were building rockets for the Egyptians to use against Israel, he launched a campaign of murderous intimidation against them and their families. The Nazi association of Nasser were one of the things that inspired Anthony Eden in 1956. The intention of creating the rockets for delivery of poison gas has a clear association with the Nazi extermination program..." etcetera I think is but an 'urban legend' Why? I have read a lot over V2 rocketers in III Reich, GB / USA (operation paperclip) and USSR but, when I try to get something over them in Egypt I can't found nothing. Not a name, not an operative plan, not a nothing! Nothing in Wikipedia, nothing in hundreds and hundreds 'V2' and 'ME affairs' pages in the internet, not a single book over this 'subject'. I had never find a single name of any german scentific involved on that. Now, the input "creating the rockets for delivery of poison gas" is absolutely new to me, never have read that in any 'cold war' and 'ME wars' historians: who said that, who historian, and who granted that?? Yes Peter Malkin -the one who kidnaped Eichmann- said he was 'involved' in a Israeli letter bomb campaing against this 'egyptians nazi rocketers' but, indeed he didn't reveal any detail, any name or dates, any nothing. So when I cant find nothing granting the true, I became to think this subject is untrue. The Harel 'fall' as Mossad superchief comes not by his Egypt rocket obssessions, but by his collision with Abba Evan: over the Eichmann kidnapping in Argentina, Evan's diplomatic prestige was very touched and damaged because Evan, Secetary of External Affairs, was not informed of waht Mossad was doing and even Harel and Malkin team used Evan's plane landed in Buenos Aires airport to 'deliver' undercover Eichmann to Israel -Evan knowing nothing all about. The Eichmann kidnapping fueled a NU votation agaisnt Israel and an Argentina very formal diplomatic protest. In result, Evan and Harel never talked each other again. You can read on at Harel's book 'The Garibaldi street house'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.201.84.254 (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I will check up on the Waffen SS unit the Mufti commanded. The text provides references for the material about the Egyptian missiles. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The War of Independence: The civil war phase

This edit was reverted by User:Telaviv1.The issue was previously discussed at my talk page:

The following sentence in The War of Independence: The civil war phase was changed by me:

Initially the Arabs had the advantage as the British maintained an embargo on Palestine's seas preventing the Jews from importing arms or manpower, while Arab states could supply local Arabs who also occupied more strategic areas—and outnumbered the Jews by approximately two to one.

where a source is provided for the fact that of the total population of the Mandate there were twice as many arabs as jews. I changed the sentence to this:

Initially the Arabs had the advantage as the British maintained an embargo on Palestine's seas preventing the Jews from importing arms or manpower, while Arab states could supply local Arabs who also occupied more strategic areas.

You reverted this here and here, stating that "deletion summary does not change the fact that this is sourced and fully appropriate". In my view, and as stated in the comment, the total population is not relevant in context of war. The fact that a source of the population figure is provided does not change that. Please explain why you think it is "fully appropriate". --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly relevant to note the population difference. If the population of one side is twice that of the other, it is likely that the army of that side will be much larger than the others as well. We can't include that in the article, because it is WP:OR, but we can certainly include the population and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Breein1007 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Following that line of reasoning, it would be much more reasonable to mention total manpower instead of total population, as total population also includes children, women and elderly. In "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" Charles D. Smith (professor in history at University of Arizona) on page 200 writes "The Jewish community had a slight manpower advantage over Palestinians among males in the twenty to forty-four age group". I suggest we replace the current erroneous text with this one. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You didn't raise any objections, so I'll go ahead with the change. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I maintain that total manpower is significant and that stating that the jews outnumbered the arabs, while true when it comes to total population, is misleading to the reader. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the Arabs had more men under arms at first. Does smith give the number of men for each side and if the JEws had more in that age bracket expalin why that was? Can you see what his sources are? I think Benny Morris is probably the best source because almost everyone accepts that he is a reliable informant. I haven't heard of Smith. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Smith does not seem to give the number of men at arms. He does not explain why the Jewish community had this manpower advantage despite a significantly lower total population. It's quite obvious though that it is due to Jewish immigration. His source for the manpower comparison is "Cohen, Palestine, 307". I do not have this book.
I'm sceptical about about the claim of the Palestinian Arab forces initially outnumbering the Jewish forces. On the other hand, Benny Morris is a reliable source. If he confirms this claim in his book then that should be in the article. Please provide a quote and page number where he says that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I've just started reading "1948" by Morris. On page 81, he writes that "despite the general demographic tilt, the Yishuv had a disproportionate number of army-age males", citing Cohen (the same source as Smith used). He goes on and explains that the reason for this disproportionality is that "during the 1930s and 1940s, the Zionist leadership had taken care, as a matter of policy, to ship to Palestine, legally and illegally, young, fit males—deemed "good pioneering material."".
Morris also includes "trained military manpower" on the list of the many advantages the Jews had over the local Arabs. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As there has been no response, I will go on and make the change. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've been busy. The British immigration quotas meant that they had to choose immigrants carefully and people had to prove commitment to get in. Immigrants arrived fluent in Hebrew and trained in a griculture. I will examine what you have added when I have more time.

Telaviv1 (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Waldheim

Waldheim subsequently turned out to be a former Nazi officer, whose name appeared on a 1947 list of wanted war criminals submitted to the UN by Yugoslavia.[86]

This line seems to attempt to discredit Waldheim's criticism of Israel, while the article that is cited actually clears Waldheim of any wrongdoing. While the sentence is technically true, it has no bearing on the context; it is just there to mislead, I'm removing it. Thebwt (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

Caption: "A Qassam rocket fired from a civilian area in Gaza towards southern Israel, January 2009" But summary for the image reads: "12 December 2008" ??? --Marcus Schätzle (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction: Early Jewish history

It's a shame there aren't any citations for this whole section, if I may be so bold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.182.63 (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Citations: persecution of the Jews in Russia

I'm a bit busy at the moment so this will take me a couple of weeks, but it shouldn't be a problem. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed

"after almost two millennia of Jewish dispersal" - is not supported by citation 1. I will add a citations needed tab to this statement in a week after checking this talk page. Beam 20:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


I don't want to intrude, so forgive me if this is inappropriate. I also had a problem with this sentence, specifically the part where it is said that the jewish people have been persecuted for almost two millenia. I think we should add some of the important examples of persecution as the sentence, as it stands now, gives the impression of being biased. Or at leasst link to a page with a list of major persecutions and a history of the jewish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.37.71 (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Section "Jewish history in Israel"

I believe that this section, which deals with events of some two to three thousand years ago, has no place in the article: the article is about the state of Israel, which came into existence in 1948 and has a history rooted in the Zionist movement of the 19th century. So the Zionist portion should form the background, but not the history of Iron Age Israel.

However, if ancient history must be mentioned, it needs to be accurate. That means that it can't just summarise the bible - it's pretty normal these days to see the bible as a very biased work of the post-Exilic period, with little value as a source, especially for the very earliest period (notably the business about Abraham and so on). PiCo (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am restoring this section: it does not "summarize the bible" it provides a detailed history of the area now known in Israel, the origins of its name and the name palestine, the orign of its "holy status" to christians, Jews and moslems and history of the jews n israel. the history of a country is not just of its "state" history of Libya would not start with the creation of the Libyan state. Telaviv1 (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hm, although I replaced some of the deleted material, I'm inclined to say this article should not cover anything before the Zionist movement. This is not a history of the area, it is a history of the modern day state. I may remove the entire bit before that today. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The state of israel did not magically come into existence in 1948. It already existed and simply declared independence. Much of the conflict with the Palestinians is religious and to understand how crucial the conflict over the temple mount is (for example) one needs to know the history. Or toundersgtand why Hamas talk of crusaders etc. In addition the Jews remained a significant presence in the country up to the Crusades and did not simply vanish in 70AD. There were Jewish revolts against the Romans in the second century and fifth.

If you're that keen go to History of Iraq, independent since 1932 and delete all the "ancient Iraqi history" from the article. Tell them they are only allowed to write about the modern state. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest we link to History of Palestine? At the moment, the first sections of this article are highly duplicative. "Jewish history in Israel" is a relevant topic, but only if mentioned in the wider context of Zionism. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Other article do not serve as a template for all such articles. I agree some ancient history is necessary here, but to add chunks of Jewish-only history of the region is not right; that is covered elsewhere. Chesdovi (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Israel existed in ancient times, hence it is relevant. It is not Jewish only: you have not bothered to read the section. See also the History of China, History of Germany ( acountry which exists only since the 19th century), History of Egypt (was not independent from Cleopatra to 1932), History of Ghana, there is a clear connection between the history and modern events: more so then in other countries. [User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The only section that does not mention Jews, Judah or Israel are the two last paragraphs in "Crusader rule (1099 – 13th century)". History of Egypt is divided between many pages, and since we already have numerous pages about the history of the Israel region, this page is reserved for the history of Modern Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is not called the history of modern Israel and not called the history of the state of Israel (a state and a country are not the same thing). Templates do exist across wikipedia and in many respects the article follow those templates. Duplication of material also exists across wikipedia. For example the article on Israel includes material on the history of israel: and not just in the modern period. The article focuses on the modern period and merely provides a summary of the ancient history except where it may be relevant to modern Israel or of interest to readers.

Because the Jews were mostly in exile/lived outside the country for many centuries, some background is necessary. Because they are also a religion, some history of the religion is also required. Because religious conflict was and is, a major factor in the conflict it is important to explain how each of the religions touches upon the country. Telaviv1 (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Summary" and "some background" - yes. 11 sub-sections - no. Links to the relevant other history pages will do. Chesdovi (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

1948 war

Material needs to be cut and merged with the main article. Chesdovi (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I am removing most of what has been re-added by TA in the 1948 war section. This page is not about the history of the 1948 War. Chesdovi (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on this, far too much space is being taken up by the 1948 war and I was trying to make it more basic. Telaviv1 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
"More basic" will not do. Again, you added 7 sub-sections. This event is to be covered in 1 paragraph only. Chesdovi (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Chesdovi. One paragraph should be sufficient. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Judith

"Who or What?" can you please explain the meaning behind this statement?

The Book of Judith was written around the first century. It contains tens of references to Israel, in terms of a people, a region/country, a tradition. all part of a contiuing history worthy of documentation.

Judith chapter 4 :The children of Israel in Judea learned what had happened to the other nations at the hands of Holofernes, the chief general of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Assyrians... ..All the people of Israel called upon God with great fervor and humbled themselves before him......All the men of Israel in Jerusalem, with their wives and children, bowed before the Temple, sprinkled ashes on their heads...

chapter 5: The Israelites drove all the inhab¬itants into the desert; 15 they inhabited the country of the Amorites and wiped out the Hesh¬bonites. Then, having crossed the Jordan, they took possession of all the hill country, 16 driving out the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Shechemites, and the Ger¬ge¬sites, and they lived there for a long time.

chapter 6: Who are you, Achior, you and all the people bribed by Israel to prophesy against us as you have done today? Why do you counsel us not to make war on the race of Israel because their God will cover them with a shield?

Telaviv1 (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Major refactoring

This article has a substantial overlap with History of Palestine. I think it would be better, as suggested by Chesdovi, to let this article be about just the history of the modern state. As it is now, there are pages and pages of text in several paragraphs before getting to the real meat (i.e. the history of the modern state). This is a disservice to the reader. If the reader passing by is really more interested in ancient Israel, the 1948 war or Zionism, then there are already articles for that. We should direct the reader to the relevant articles, but we should not duplicate the content of those articles here. I suggest the following:

  • At the top of the page, make a link to History of ancient Israel and Judah in case the reader was looking for that.
  • Replace section 1-3 with a Background section. In this, relevant info such as ancient Israel, Zionism, the Balfour declaration and the Mandate is briefly described. This info should just be enough to prepare the reader for the history of the modern state. Wiki-links and see-alsos should ensure that the interested reader can reach more on Zionism etc. if so desired.
  • Section 2 and onwards will start on May 14, 1948 with the declaration of independence and move on from there. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Can nothing can be done until we have the consent of TA? Chesdovi (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe it's best to wait with making these kind of changes before TA has commented. Hopefully, we can reach an agreement. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Coming back here after a long break, I really like Frederico's suggestion. Overlap of content is an endemic problem in articles on the history of this area. What or who is TA? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Telaviv1 who "reverts vandalism": [1]. Chesdovi (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
"Who or What?" can you please explain the meaning behind this statement? The History of Palestine, is an irrelevant page. If there is overlap it should be deleted there. Israel is an existing, UN recognized country with a verifiable history. There is no country called Palestine. If you object to overlap remove it from there. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're mistaken about the nature of the History of Palestine article. The topic of that article is the history of the region called Palestine. For the proclaimed state, there is another article called State of Palestine. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think there is agreement here that this page should be reserved for modern Israeli history only. That is what the page was originally supposed to be about. Chesdovi (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree so there is no agreement. You have not addressed my points nor made any contribution to this page other than to delete large sections without consultation. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a rename to History of the State of Israel to solve the problem. Chesdovi (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds fine with me. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I changed my mind. "History of the State of Israel", while more precise than without the "State" part, would introduce an inconsistency with the main article title (Israel). Readers who don't know that "State of Israel" is the official name for Israel could also be confused about why "State" is capitalised. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Telaviv1, could you please state why limiting the scope of the article to the modern state is a bad idea, and what your alternative is? --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As part of this discussion I would draw everyone's attention to Archaeology of Israel. I converted it a long time ago from incomprehensible list form into something more like an article, and it has been expanded a lot since. I never worked out whether it should be about archaeological discoveries in the area of the present-day State of Israel (=Prehistory of Israel), or about the practice of archaeology in Israel, or what. It would be nice to have consistency there too. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Israel is a nation-state. According to Wikipedia "The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. "

The article notes that Israel is an exceptional case as it combines an ethno-religious group rather then just an ethnicity (it is not a universal religion). In that sense Judaism differs from Christianity or Islam in that it is also an ethnic-group, rather like the ancient Egyptian or Greek religions with which it was once contemporary.

The middle-east conflict is complex and deep, and requires of those of us who edit pages related to it an open-minded, sensitive and tolerant approach. My solution to this, is to avoid editing "Palestinian" pages and to accept that there are two different narratives here. Neither necessarily excludes the other, and no one has a monopoly on truth. Instead we must tolerate our differences and look for common ground.

To suggest that the Israelis are not a nation, that their state is not a region subject to a geopolitical or cultural history or that the people's association with their land is not worthy of recording seems to me discriminatory and POV: it is a political statement, notably your insistence that the region is "Palestine". That understanding is only true for some people but not for others. you are attempting to impose your POV on me and my people. Your attitude derives from intolerance and prejudice and not from an attempt to understand who the Israelis are and what motivates them.

Until a few years ago Al-Qaeda referred to Israelis as "Crusaders" which is why we put in a section on the Crusades, explaining the anti-Jewish genocidal nature of the Crusades. Since then, that language has dissappeared, I think that the article contributed to that.

Many of the readers are Moslems who are unfamiliar with the Jewish connection with the Haram-a-Sharif or Al-Khalil, sites which sit at the very heart of the present conflict. By explaining that association and explaining to Jewish readers the importance of the site to Moslems, we provide Moslem and Jewish readers with a better understanding of each other's connection to the site and so promote understanding and tolerance. Many readers are practising Christians and Jews, so it makes sense to summarize the bibilical period and the evolution of christianity.

Because Israel is partly conceived as a haven for Jews from persecution, and because of the exceptional nature of the persecution endured by the Jews (mainly in Europe), the hsitory of israel needs to provide a summary of that persecution and describe the religious connection with the country.

There have been four or five countries called Israel over the course pf the last 2500 years and it seems relevant to describe them and also explain how, why and when the Jews were driven into exile. Expecially since most people assume it all happened in 77 AD and in fact it was a longer more complex process.

the article is structure in such a way that readers can easily skip to the period that interests them. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But could you please summarize? And what is bad with the proposed article composition specified in the original post? --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
What Telaviv1 wants is to duplicate History of Palestine in this article. We could do that, but this pages still needs a thorough sorting out. We cannot have half the page spanning 2,500 years and the other half the last 50 years. A new page will have to be made about history of the modern state. Chesdovi (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Before I respond I would like to draw your attention to the page ratings, 35 have rated the history of Israel, 14 rated the history of plestine.

History of ISrael is shown first, history of palestine second.

Trustworthy: 4.5 - 3.4 Objective: 2.5 - 2 Comprehensive 3.5 - 3.3 Well written 4 - 4

84.108.237.238 (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought we needed a higher-level opinion on this, so I consulted with Professor Benny Morris.

He suggested we rename the "History of Palestine" to the "History of the Land of Israel - Palestine" and commented that the History of Palestine article downplays the Jewish connection to Israel. In my opinion its basically a list of empires that came and went. However, I agree with him that the History of Palestine (regardless of its name)is the appropriate place for a detailed description of the land's history from stone age to Zionism

Regarding the History of Israel, he suggested we remove the intro text "Israeli independence has been marked by massive immigration of Jews, by conflict with the Palestinians and by wars with neighbouring Arab states. Since about 1970 the United States has been the principal ally of Israel. In 1979, an uneasy peace was established with Egypt and in 1994, with Jordan. About 42% of the world's Jews live in Israel today." Which I would like to do, and I doubt you will disagree.

He agrees with me that the History fo Israel must "stronggly refer to the Jewish ties to the land and at least delineate them historically". and that it must "explain the derivation of the name Palestine, designed by Romans to disassociate and distance the Jews from the land".

Personally I believe we must also explain the whole issue of the temple mount and haram a sharif. So a lot of ancient history is required.

If you like I will also ask Professor David Cesarani and I can check with Dr. Hillel Cohen too.

Telaviv1 (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


I suggest in addition that we add segments to ancient history explaining the origins of the Druze. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for seeking outside advice. However, I think it would be better if you posted both your question to Prof. Morris as well as his answer in full. It would be even better if you asked him to comment directly on this talk page. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As comparisons, History of Italy, History of India, History of Brazil, History of China,History of Ukraine, etc. refer to the ancient history, before the modern states were founded. It appears to be the norm. Are there examples of "History of country X" articles that don't refer to history before the founding of the modern country? Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that there already exist an article which covers the history of the region, History of Palestine. This makes this case special, and direct comparisons with other articles will not be meaningful. A better comparison would be to History of the People's Republic of China, which do not duplicate the content of History of China. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know that this is so "special", as there are analogous situations. For example, History of Bangladesh, History of India and History of Pakistan all overlap. If you're looking for a smaller geographical area, History of Serbia and History of Croatia overlap. Jayjg (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It is not the question of some degree of overlap, which could have been tolerated. This article essentially duplicates the article History of Palestine. That is not acceptable. As an example, History of the Republic of India does not cover events from ancients time, as then the article would become a duplicate of History of India, which covers events on the subcontinent, as seen by the opening text: "This article is about the history of the Indian subcontinent prior to the partition of India in 1947. For the modern Republic of India, see History of the Republic of India. For Pakistan and Bangladesh, see History of Pakistan and History of Bangladesh". --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I see a lot of duplication in these articles, and the typical situation is that the "History of country X" article includes the history of the region prior to the founding of whatever modern country is there now. Since there is only one state currently in the region, and since it controls most of the territory in question, you're actually making an argument to remove the material from the History of Palestine article, or turn it into a re-direct. Jayjg (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see "a lot of duplication" between the articles History of India and History of Republic of India. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
But there is a lot of duplication between History of Pakistan and History of India - in fact, a number of sentences are identical. And, as I stated, the typical situation is that the "History of country X" article includes the history of the region prior to the founding of whatever modern country is there now. As another example, both Cambodia and History of Cambodia discuss the history of the Khmer Empire, despite the fact that the Khmer Empire also covered all of Laos, much of Thailand, and parts of Vietnam and Burma. Would you suggest that any mention of the Khmer Empire be restricted to the History of Southeast Asia article? Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
History of Pakistan and History of India covers different regions, so that comparison is not relevant, regardless of how many sentences those articles have in common. The central problem remains: we currently have two articles both of which covers the history of essentially the same region. That is not acceptable. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
History of Pakistan and History of India cover overlapping regions, of course, because the modern country of Pakistan is considered part of the historic region/empire of India. That's why they both refer to things like the Vedic Civilization, the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great, the Maurya Empire, the Indo-Greek kingdom, Kushan Empire, Gupta Empire etc. Please don't dismiss obviously relevant comparisons as "not relevant". Furthermore, you have failed to respond to my point that the typical situation is that the "History of country X" article includes the history of the region prior to the founding of whatever modern country is there now, nor to my question about whether any mention of the Khmer Empire be restricted to the History of Southeast Asia article. Please start responding to these points. Jayjg (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There is partial overlap between the articles History of India and History of Pakistan as Pakistan is a part of the historical region of India, true. But the articles do not duplicate each other. Some overlap is ok, full duplication is not.
  • The point that "the typical situation is that the History of country X article includes the history of the region prior to the founding of whatever modern country is there now" is not relevant as this situation is not typical to begin with. For the typical "History of country X article", there is no article which fully duplicates the content of said article. In this case there is (i.e. the article History of Palestine).
  • The articles Khmer Empire partially overlaps with History of Southeast Asia and History of Cambodia but duplicate neither. Hence, the comparison is irrelevant.
  • To summarise, neither of these examples addresses the main point, i.e. the issue of duplication. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
So your argument is that Palestine and Israel are identical? Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly identical, but Israel forms the larger part of Palestine (commonly defined as the region west of the Jordan), the same way People's Republic of China forms the larger part of China (note that there is an article covering the history of China from ancient times as well as another article which covers only the history of the modern state). --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As I've noted below, the article which covers the modern state is a sub-article of the main article, and is summarized in the main article. Note they are also both articles about China, sharing the same name. Regarding the rest, it appears that, as far as you're concerned, the only issue here is "duplication", not overlap. So, if someone were to re-word the material in History of Palestine, so there was "overlap" but no "duplication", we'd be fine? Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

I will check with Prof Morris before I publish our correspondence.

The History of Palestine is quite different from this article: it contains very little Jewish history, and would need to be renamed if it was going to be related to this article.

The History of Israel section on ancient history is quite specific in its orientation: it is about the Jewish connection to the country and provides only a brief overview of the years when there was no Jewish presence.

Comparing Israel to India is like comparing a Gnat to an Elephant. The History of India is a vast undertaking. Try History of Sri Lanka or History of Burma. Telaviv1 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But please note that doing comparisons with random articles covering the history of a country is not meaningful, as it ignores the central issue, i.e. the present state of duplication between the articles History of Palestine and History of Israel. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Comparisons to "random articles" are not meaningful, but comparisons to comparable articles are quite meaningful, and that has what has been done here. Please stop ignoring this. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Comparisons to History of Sri Lanka or History of Burma are not meaningful as the issue of duplication does not arrise for those articles. For example, there is no article History of Ceylon (it redirects to History of Sri Lanka). Telaviv1 seems to think that the size of the region is important. It is not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As pointed out above, the issue of duplication does indeed arise for History of Pakistan and History of India, because the modern country of Pakistan is considered part of the historic region/empire of India. That's why they both refer to things like the Vedic Civilization, the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great, the Maurya Empire, the Indo-Greek kingdom, Kushan Empire, Gupta Empire etc. You keep avoiding this point. Please respond to it. Also, Cambodia and History of Cambodia discuss the history of the Khmer Empire, despite the fact that the Khmer Empire also covered all of Laos, much of Thailand, and parts of Vietnam and Burma. Would you suggest that any mention of the Khmer Empire be restricted to History of Southeast Asia, the article about the history of the "region"? Please respond to that point too. Finally, regarding the History of Ceylon, you point out that it redirects to the history article with the modern country name, not vice versa. Thus, as noted already, you seem to be arguing the point that History of Palestine should also redirect to History of Israel. Have we reached a consensus for that, then? Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I've addressed your points above.
Redirecting History of Palestine to History of Israel would be one way to solve the issue with duplication. Thanks for the constructive suggestion. I'll consider it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are grossly oversimplifying the comparison with the indian subcontinent and south east asia. None of the countries you mentioned have a history similar to the State of Israel. As you know, Israel's history lies mostly in European Zionism, not in the region which it currently occupies. What happened in the region for the intervening two thousand years is not relevant to the history of the state of Israel, and this is reflected in how poor this section of this article is. As Frederico says, it should be removed - it is simply not relevant to this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, nothing is a perfect comparison, but I don't understand what you mean by "Israel's history lies mostly in European Zionism" - did, for example, someone bury the country in a layer of concrete 50 feet thick in 1948, and simply start fresh? Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
About the comparisons with other areas. There are various situations that theoretically ought to provide us with good analogies as to how to proceed. However, if we find identical sentences in two "History of" articles, that is a problem in itself. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. Those articles themselves need cleaning up to remove the overlap. Overlap is, I think, always a problem. Dovetailing isn't a problem. Nevertheless, there are enough parallels to show that we can have one article on the post 1948 state and one on the history of the area before that date. Then we have one big problem here that doesn't arise in other cases. That is, that there is no single, non-controversial way to refer to the area that is now Israel, before its formation. The case of Northern Ireland also became politicised; if you said "Ulster" it marked you out on one side, if you said "the Six Counties" it marked you out on the other; however "Northern Ireland" was neutral and acceptable to both. The only terms we have here that are relatively neutral are "The Holy Land" and "Southern Levant". Itsmejudith (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, in my experience, history articles that start at a certain date are typically sub-articles of the longer history articles - that is, the history of a specific area has grown too large, so someone creates a sub-article to contain it, and summarizes it in the main article. I don't think we have any real parallels to excising the history of a country before the founding of the modern state. Even the example given History of the Republic of China isn't particularly good - it starts in 1912, and is about a government that currently controls 0.3% of the historical territory of China, territory it didn't even control for most of its early history. Israel, on the other hand, currently controls at least 80% of the historical region of Palestine, assuming you don't include what is now Jordan, which would be opening up a whole other can of worms.
Regarding your other proposals, something like History of the South Levant might be problematic, since it would invariably include Jordan. It's also unlikely you could get anti-Israel activists to agree to the term "Holy Land"; for reasons that aren't entirely clear (or perhaps just not well though through), they seem to think the term somehow lends legitimacy to Israel, something that is anathema to them.
In any event, if we're going to do something unique for Israel, excise from an article on a modern state the history of the land it controls, then we'll have to see some good examples of that being done elsewhere. So far we've only seen the opposite done. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
You said "I don't think we have any real parallels to excising the history of a country before the founding of the modern state." But we have just that:
No, we don't actually. As I've noted above, History of the People's Republic of China is a sub-article of History of China, removed because it was too long to include in the main article, and merely summarized in the main article. Note, however, that both articles are still about China. In addition, even though you say History of India is about the history of the region before 1948 creations of the modern countries of India and Pakistan (and later Bangladesh), in fact more than half the material in History of Pakistan is from before 1948, often duplicating word-for-word the material in History of India. Moreover, we also have a History of Bangladesh article, which also has more than half of its material about events prior to the formation of the state in 1971, and considerably overlapping with the History of India. So, rather than providing an example of articles being split, where the history of an area is excised from article on the modern state controlling the region, you have instead brought examples of the exact opposite. Are you proposing that we have a History of Israel article, of which a sub-article is History of the State of Israel, dealing with material from 1948 onwards, and summarized in the History of Israel article? Because that is what we have examples of on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
That is what I thought was being proposed, except that the broader article that you refer to as History of Israel would ideally have a neutral title, if one can be decided on. Definitions of "India" and "Ireland" are equally controversial, yet solutions have been found. (Notwithstanding the need to remove duplication in History of Pakistan.) Itsmejudith (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Itmejudith is correct. That we should "have a History of Israel article, of which a sub-article is History of the State of Israel, dealing with material from 1948 onwards, and summarized in the History of Israel article" is indeed what is being proposed, save for the choise of article names. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree. The only issue outstanding is the name of the "broader" article. Unfortunately, that is same as the underlying reason why we're having this whole discussion at all - because that name is very difficult to agree. A 4,000 year history during which the name Israel was used to refer to the whole region by geographers and historians for a tiny fraction of that time would look absurd if called "History of Israel". Which is exactly why the History of Taiwan and History of the Republic of China are separate articles with different names. History of Palestine and History of the State of Israel would be the correct pairing, but has met resistance from Jayjg in the past. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
@Frederico1234, if you look at the current History of Israel article, the pre-modern state material actually differs from History of Palestine, and appears to overlap very little with it. Instead, it focuses on material specific to the Jewish history of the region. This would seem to solve your concern with the articles being "identical", as instead they just have a small overlap.
@Oncenawhile, it appears that – at least on Wikipedia – the "History of X" articles are given the name of the modern state that currently controls most of the historic territory in question. However, I'm not sure what the "4,000 year history" and the name used "by geographers and historians" has to do with it; geographers and historians (in the modern sense) hardly even existed for most of that period. I'm also not sure what you mean by "has met resistance from Jayjg in the past", much less how it could possibly be relevant to this discussion.
@Itsmejudith, I hate to have to expose the elephant in the room, but the only issue of concern here for the editors proposing this change (I don't include you) is the name of the History article. This has nothing to do with "duplication" or any of the other issues raised, because it is well known that the Jewish history of (and presence in) the Land of Israel was just a minor aberration in the long history of Palestine, that those paltry few centuries of Jewish hegemony mean little, if anything. No, the real concern here is that the illegitimate colonialist product of "European Zionism" not be allowed to usurp a history that has little, if anything, to do with Israel or its citizens (including the 20% of them who are Arab, and the further 40% who are descended from Jews from Arab or Muslim lands). Therefore, rather than focusing on the pretext for this discussion, it would probably make more sense to focus on the actual "issue" - what will we call the History of Palestine/History of Israel/History of the Southern Levant/History of the Levant article (if there is to be just one such article), and ignore the sideshow. Furthermore, we must consider whether having, for example, History of India/History of Pakistan/History of Bangladesh articles, all with considerable topical overlap (before the modern era) is actually a problem at all. Jayjg (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment—The problem with the proposal is twofold.

  • Firstly, the content of the article History of Palestine. The article summarizes the history of the area without giving extra weight to any specific period. While now this is perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy, if it represented the history of Israel too, the points important to the history of Israel would be given less relative weight and the article would be less useful to people wanting to read about the history of Israel.
  • Secondly, the name of the article History of Palestine. While it may be technically correct, this implies in today's context that the history deals with Arab Palestinians, which is not the case. To that end, TelAviv1's suggestion to rename it History of the Land of Israel – Palestine would work, although I am not sure it would be the best solution.

Overall, I don't see a problem with having these two articles having some overlapping content. The article History of Israel has a very clear focus that is completely different from the article History of Palestine. The sections of the articles that overlap are not, and should not be identical, because of this different focus. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jayjg, on your points: (1) "on Wikipedia the "History of X" articles are given the name of the modern state that currently controls most of the historic territory in question" - that's simply not correct, as per all the examples already given in this discussion, both above and in the subsection below; (2) "geographers and historians (in the modern sense) hardly even existed for most of that period" - this statement suggests you've got some reading to do. Can i suggest you begin with Herodotus (the "father of history"); (3) "I hate to have to expose the elephant in the room" - odd to see you taking credit for a point I made in my post immediately above, albeit you did try to turn it on its head; (4) Your sarcasm and implicit painting of other editors' POV in the following sentences (e.g. "minor aberration" and "illegitimate colonialist product") is not a correct representation, nor is it acceptable conduct.
@Ynhockey, i think your summary was fair and balanced, albeit i don't agree that the word Palestine "implies in today's context that the history deals with Arab Palestinians" (the region was called "Palestine" by historians and geographers for 1,000 years before the Arab empire, and is used by scholars today in the same context). Having said that, I agree with your conclusion, except that the first section needs to be pared down to only include what its title says (i.e. "Introduction: Jewish history in Israel")
Oncenawhile (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, your statements don't really appear to be responses to my own, in that they a) don't actually address the points I've raised, b) are filled with inaccuracies, and c) are really all about the elephant in the room anyway. Rather than wasting further time, I'm going to address my future comments to more experienced editors such as Itsmejudith and Ynhockey, whose focus is on building an encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Your comments have reached a new level of absurdity. You appear unable to address my challenges, so resort to diversionary tactics like attacking me. I urge you to engage in an intellectual discussion and use your time to address my points - that way we might be able to reach agreement. That might mean admitting you are wrong now and again of course, but we all have to pay a price for compromise. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Please review my comment to you of 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC). Jayjg (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Ynhockey, your points make sense. I, like Frederico1234, Telaviv1, Chesdovi, and you, don't see any issue with having history articles with somewhat overlapping content, so long as they have a different focus. We have other examples (e.g. History of India/History of Bangladesh/History of Pakistan). Currently we have at least three somewhat overlapping articles: History of Israel, History of Palestine, History of the Southern Levant. How would you divide the material, or what would each one's focus be? Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I would leave the content of History of Palestine as it is, although as I said, we should probably start a separate discussion on renaming it, to something like History of the Land of Israel – Palestine or History of the Holy Land. History of the Holy Land is neutral and recognizable to most English speakers.
Regarding History of Israel: the current focus is fine, the article just suffers from lack of comprehensiveness. Broad articles like this should utilize summary style, but in this case it seems to be a bit too extreme. I also don't like the section title "Introduction: Jewish history in Israel"; we have no precedent for something like this in any quality article on Wikipedia, and the meaning is not entirely clear to me.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 18:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ynhockey, I am now confused as I no longer understand your position here. Further above you suggested that an article summarising the pre-modern-state history of Israel would be need to give more relative weight to certain areas than the History of Palestine. Can you be more specific which "points important to the history of Israel" you meant? I had assumed you were referring to the history of Jews living in the region. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Ynhockey, I agree that the "History of the Holy Land" is a good idea to explore for renaming History of Palestine. I wonder how others feel regarding this; Itsmejudith? Regarding the contents of the History of Israel article, given that the modern State of Israel is a multi-ethnic democracy of (primarily) Jews and Arabs, who practice (primarily) Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, how much weight would you suggest giving to the histories of the respective groups making up the country? Also, where does the History of the Southern Levant fit into all of this? Jayjg (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I've just discovered three related articles, Muslim history in the region of Palestine, History of ancient Israel and Judah, and Prehistory of the Southern Levant. So far I'm aware of least eight related articles in all, History of Israel, History of ancient Israel and Judah, History of Palestine, Muslim history in the region of Palestine, History of Jordan, Prehistory of the Southern Levant, History of the Southern Levant, and History of the Levant. Jayjg (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
There are more related articles than that. But that's beside the point. It's ok to have an article History of the Jews in the Land of Israel as well as another article History of Palestine, since the articles have clearly different scopes, even though the regions covered are roughly the same. The first article is limited to the history of the Jews, while the latter is general. While overlap beetween articles such as this is always a problem, the reader's convenience should normally take precedence.
The problem with the History of Israel and History of Palestine articles is that there is no obvious difference in scope. If a reader is interested in the history of the region, exactly which article should he/she read? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware of History of the Jews in the Land of Israel. OK, we can leave that and Muslim history in the region of Palestine out of the discussion for now, since their scope is better defined by their name. We could also stipulate that History of ancient Israel and Judah and Prehistory of the Southern Levant are just sub-articles of overview articles. That would still leave us with History of Israel, History of Palestine, History of Jordan, History of the Southern Levant, and History of the Levant that also do not have obvious differences in scope - or in your mind, do they? Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
History of the Levant covers a significantly larger region, and thus have a clearly different scope. History of the Southern Levant on the other hand seems to be quite similar in scope. That article should probably be merged with History of the Levant. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The Levant is generally considered to include what are today called Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. The Southern Levant is generally considered to include the Levant minus Syria and northern Lebanon. What material would one find in the History of the Levant article that one would not find in the History of Israel, History of Palestine, History of Syria, History of Lebanon and History of Jordan articles? How would the article's name make this obvious? Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

John conquering Edom

Hyrcanus never conquered Edom, he conquered and converted Idumea as one can read in his own wikipedia article for one. Also see Jews, Idumaeans, and ancient Arabs by Aryeh Kasher. (it's the last sentence in the section: Hasmonean kingdom (2nd century BCE – 64 BCE)). please change this. Titirius (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus forming

Jayjg, you are still fighting here only because you refuse to acknowledge that the history of the State of Israel is comparatively unique. Clearly no country has exactly the same history, but some characteristics are shared:

By the way, from your comments above, you appear to be confused about Chinese/Taiwanese history. You also appear to be choosing to ignore the hatnote at the top of History of India. I urge you to accept the comparisons above and let us begin improving the quality of this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"you are still fighting here?" I'm not "fighting here", I'm participating in a discussion to which I was very recently invited by Frederico1234, via his posting at WP:ISRAEL. Please realize that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Also, "50:50 partition of a cultural region"? That seems like a criterion chosen extremely carefully, in order to produce a very specific result - and in any event, Israel controls at least 80% of the territory in question. And finally, "Ruling elite at independence mostly born outside"? LOL! That seems like another criterion chosen extremely carefully, in order to produce a very specific result.
More seriously, the discussion continues above, and please focus on article content in the future, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, we should listen to each other's arguments here. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
@Jayjg, i have struck through the 50-50 reference - do you agree that either way the point remains wholly valid? On the second, can you explain what your LOL referred to? Is that fact not correct, and does it not make the history of Israel, Liberia and RoC unique in your view? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Turns that others have drawn the connection between Israel and Liberia before [2]. Not so "laughable", more "concerning", after reading this. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The general point is that there were many major changes to nation states in the past centuries, therefore we can't simply have one history article per each current member of the UN. All the examples have their own unique circumstances. The Israel/Palestine obviously doesn't exactly match any other case, but there are some similarities to other cases, where we have found solutions that are more-or-less acceptable and conducive to NPOV. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear that there is no consensus for the proposal to limit the article scope to the history of the modern state. What I would like to see instead is an alternative. What should the scope of the article be, and how do you avoid overlap with the article History of Palestine? --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem of any kind with an overlap. Jayjg correctly pointed out that overlaps exist in similar cases all over Wikipedia, and it has never been a problem. The difference between the articles is the focus—one is about the history of the geographical area, while the other is about the history of the country (including ancient history). While there may be a lot of overlapping content, it's far from the same thing. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, but Frederico is right that we should agree what the scope of the article is. In other words, in the view of those editors who support overlap, which parts of the History of Palestine are relevant to this article, and which parts are not? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Arab invasion (May 14 – June 11, 1948)

I have made the following alterations

1 Where is the authority for the statement, They declared war on the new state of Israel
2 The version of the Cablegram from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Jewish Virtual Library differs from the official version reproduced in wikipedia sources, both noted in the article-
a) The correct descripion of the Mandatory Power was not England but Great Britain.
b) The Jewish Virtual Library version omits the intoductory words.

I suspect that the Jewish Virtual Library version is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of the original cablegram (Arabic or English).

For dicussion of invasion/intervention, see Talk on article 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Trahelliven (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove material.

This is the History of Israel, not a history of European Jews. The section on growth of persecution in eastern Europe s not really required. If it can be justified, then it should be reduced to the following. The formation of modern nations and national identities was accompanied by a change in anti-Jewish prejudice. Prejudice that had previously been justified on grounds of religion was now defined in universal scientific language using the then current racial antisemitic terms. While Jews were attaining basic civil rights, other groups saw a decline in their power, including the Russian Tsars and the Church, and these groups were easily persuaded that a Jewish conspiracy was behind their difficulties.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Without understanding the extent of persecution in Europe you cannot understand Zionism or modern Israel. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
you will need to provide RS for your opinion, otherwise I believe I have a good case for removing extraneous material, that is not directly relevant to this article.Dalai lama ding dong (talk)
Then, how about the Zionism in Yemen and Kurdistan, why not brought here as well? There are limits to what this article needs and can obtain. Why also no material on Arab nationalism and migrations? very strange....Greyshark09 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree, this article is not about Antisemitism and Zionism. Only material relevant to Levant should remain and some general background on Zionism. Also the sections on modern state are highly irrelevant, the 1948 war can be summirized in one paragraph, not a 5 page essay with subtitles - there is an article for the war itself for this purpose.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
i am seeing a cinsensus for removal here, any more comments? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
On my behalf, i think we need to remove most of the "Zionism and Antisemitism" section, merging some important parts of it into Ottoman period and British Mandate.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 Done. However, i think the war of 1948 still needs to be truncated into one paragraph.

Reference to invasion by Arab States

The reference to invasion, as opposed to intervention by Arab states is POV, here and elsewhere in wikipedia. See this in this article:

Arab invasion (May 14 – June 11, 1948) The Arab League members Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq refused to accept the UN partition plan and proclaimed the right of self-determination for the Arabs across the whole of Palestine.[83] They declared war on the new state of Israel and immediately invaded.

The Statement by the Arab League upon the Declaration of the State of Israel (May 15, 1948), see http://www.mideastweb.org/arableague1948.htm clearly refers to intervention. Can we come to a consensus that we reflect both descriptions, i.e. invasion/intervention?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point, the statement here:[3] clearly supports "intervention". And that is the side that intervened that uses that term, so it should definitely be used. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Comparing to the Syrian invasion and occupation of Lebanon there is not much difference. In both cases the Arab League provided an initial legal basis for "intervention", greatly exceeded by the involved parties, eventually ending in de fact occupation (see Syrian occupation of Lebanon vs. Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip).Greyshark09 (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
They "intervened" by invading. Every invasion can be called an intervention, obviously. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That is a difficult point of discussion.
Most scholars write nowadays that they 'invaded Palestine'. If we want to comply with scholars, that is what we need to write.
The problem is that this doesn't perfectly complies with our NPoV policy because 'invasion' as a connotation of no-legitimicy. The same scholars who decided to shift from 'invasion of Israel' to 'invasion of Palestine' also reminds that if in March they didn't intend to 'intervene' (sic) despite their claims they had to proceed due to the pressure of their population after Deir Yassin, the palestinian exodus and the Yishuv counter-offensive of April. In that sense, they also 'come and save' the Palestinian Arabs. But the scholars also point out that the didn't care much the Palestinian Arabs : Jordan had her agreement with Yishuv and the support of Irak ; Egypt wanted to prevent this and prevent the establishment of Israel, Syria wanted her part of the cake...
To finalize the complexity about 'invasion' : Palestinian historians (we often forgot them) point out that during operation Nachshon (April 1st), Haganah attacked villages allocated to the Arab state (Jerusalem was under siege !) but also that in April Irgun attacked Jaffa with the ambition to conquer it and on 13 May, that they invaded the whole of Western Galilee (from Acre to the Lebanese border) also allocated to the Arab state. In that sense, Yishuv 'invaded' the future Arab state too and before the Arab League.
In such a context I have no idea which single 'word' could comply with NPoV.
I always wrote that the 4 Arab states 'intervened' and fought the Israeli forces because an 'intervention' can be an 'invasion' and because if Syrians tried to invade Israel, Jordanians at Latrun repelled an Israeli invasion and that before 15 May Yishuv conquered Western Galilee, fought for Jerusalem and controlled the road to Jesuralem to supply the city.
As Morris points out. That was just a 'war'. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever else, the use of either Israel or Palestine is unsatisfactory. If the Declaration of 14 May 1948 was valid, what were Israel's boundaries, Eretz Israel or the bundaries of the Jewish state under Resolution 181(II)? Is Palestine the balance after substracting the Jewish state and the City of Jerusalem or is it the whole of what the previous day had been the area of the British Mandate? The best description is something like, what the previous day had been the area of the Mandate. Trahelliven (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think "invasion" implies no legitimacy. Search for "allies invaded france". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that invasion is clearly POV. Plenty of sources use intervention. The best policy is to use intervention, as that is what the Arab States called it. We can discuss the implications of the wording in the section, but the heading should be intervention to restore NPOV.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I think invasion is not POV at all. Can you show that most sources use intervention? The Arab states said they're going to/did intervene. They did not say they didn't do it by invading (which is what you call sending your forces to a territory that doesn't belong to you, regardless of your intentions). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
i think invasion is clearly POV, in which case it should not be used on its own. Can u show that intervention is not used? Unlike u i am prepared to see both used, with the case for both laid out. Intervention to prevent massacres such as deir yashin is not invasion, and that was what was claimed. Whether u or i agree with that claim is irrelevant. To provide consensus why not just make the heading Arab response? ths solves the problem for the title. Dalai lama ding dong (talk)
@NMMNG : I thought that "invasion" implied no legitimacy but as you point out "allies invaded France" has numerous (reliable) google hits. In that case, "Arabs invaded Palestine" sounds goods to me.
What about "invaded the area" ; "intervened in the war" ? Pluto2012 (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, they already intervened by allowing irregulars (some armed by Arab governments if I remember correctly?) to cross their borders before they actually invaded. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. The Arab League trained and sent volunteers (irregulars) starting February.
So, we should have : "Arab States directly intervened in the war" or "Regular Arab forces invaded Palestine".
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not just have the title as Arab forces enter Palestine? If we are going to use invade, then we need to use invade,( without the quote marks) for Jewish military actions outside their partition area. We need consistency here.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have made the following alterations

1 Where is the authority for the statement, They declared war on the new state of Israel
2 The version of the Cablegram from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Jewish Virtual Library differs from the official version reproduced in wikipedia sources, both noted in the article-
a) The correct descripion of the Mandatory Power was not England but Great Britain.
b) The Jewish Virtual Library version omits the intoductory words.

I suspect that the Jewish Virtual Library version is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of the original cablegram (Arabic or English).

For dicussion of invasion/intervention, see Talk on article 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Trahelliven (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
All

We should first agree on the best version of the Declaration by the Arab States of 15 May 1948. I have so far found four:

1 [4] Its source the Harry S. Truman Library & Museum. It contains an introduction commenting on the document. The Arab states may or may not have wanted to do the things alleged in the Introduction, but the document itself deliberately avoids expressing such intentions. In particular nowhere in the document is there a declaration of war.
2 [5] original source of the Jewish Virtual Library version is the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Both this version and Version 1 refer to the Mandatory power as England. A few spot checks suggest that its wording and that of Version 1 are identical.
3 [[6]] Source Wikipedia Both this version and Version 4 call the Mandatory power Britain and otherwise appear identical.
4 [7] Source United Nations. From the endorsement on the PDF copy it is clear rhat this is a transcription of the original cablegram which was in English.

I suspect that the wording in Version 1 and Version 2 is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of the original cablegram. I think that Version 4 should be used as a reference with a wikilink to Version 3. Trahelliven (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I may be partially wrong but "Great Britain" was the Mandatory Power. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

the invaders can use whatever euphemism they like, it remains an invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bach Aria (talk • contribs) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that Yishuv forces started "invading" the area allocated to the Arab state in April 1948, preparing themselves to the expected invasion of Arab forces. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Baylis Thomas

I removed a couple of sentences sourced to Baylis Thomas. There are a few of issues.

  • As far as I can tell, Mr. Thomas holds a PhD in Psychology, so it's not obvious why he would be considered RS here.
  • Can we see a full quote from the source used to support this text?
  • "surprisingly few border incidents" is editorializing. Surprising to whom? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"surprisingly few" border incidents is POV (how many is few? how serious?) and implies that the ISraelis were indeed responding to attacks. Bayliss is not an original source and rehashes existing material. Either way the link to the 101 unit was left in place. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This article has almost the same scope as History of Palestine

This article has almost the same scope as History of Palestine, till you get to the mid twentieth century, and even then the scopes are extremely slimmer, Should they be merged, or something (maybe the new name could be something like "History of the land of Palestine")? Or alternatively maybe the scope of this page could be reduced to history sense the mid twentieth century, with a hatnote pointing to History of Palestine. It seams like having two articles for almost the same thing would cause a lot of wasted effort. Please respond at Talk:History_of_Palestine#This_article_has_almost_the_same_scope_as_History_of_Israel. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The people known as palestinians have no independent or national history prior to the 20th century. It might make sense for the History of Palestine to be restricted to telling the story of the Arab population of the Land of Israel after the Balfour Declaration. The area is Israel, the page is the History of Israel, a country recognized by the UN which has roots deep in regional history. Palestine has only ever existed as a province in an empire and no such country has ever existed. Even as a province, the area was only called Palestine for 30 years of the last 1000. Its official name was then Palestine Eretz Israel, it was usually known as Palestine E.I. You can still seen the original name plates at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem.

Your approach is likely to lead to unnecessary confrontation. There are two different narratives related to the territory and it is more peaceful to allow each side to tell its version fo the narrative. Telaviv1 (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I won't respond on the History of Palestine since this is the primary regional page and because I do not consider the request relevantTelaviv1 (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

gaza war = decrease in rocket attacks

this keeps on being removed because it was added by an alleged sock. is there anything else wrong with this addition outside of the alleged fact that it was introduced by an uber-evil sockpuppet? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Setting aside the dishonesty of sockpuppetry and the counterproductive nature of meatpuppetry, have a look at my edit here. It said "Israel carried out Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip from December 27, 2008, to January 18, 2009." citing a BBC article. My edit summary said "line attracting sockpuppets/meatpuppets. try to make content as unattractive and uninformative as possible and cite source". This was me trying to stop this back and forth. All sorts of facts about this conflict could be sampled from sources and added; the decrease in rockets, the number of people killed, buildings destroyed etc etc. I think having nothing is better because if you have something you have to have a reason that it isn't something else and that requires neutral sampling for facts, something that many people struggle with because they are trying to highlight certain facts. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The fact that some editors focus on facts that comply with their PoV is nothing new. Let's just deal with it the way everything in the Arab-Israeli conflict is dealt with. Is this is a notable historical sourced result of the war? If it is it should be included. If there are other notable historical sourced results from the war, i.e. protests and so forth, they should be added as well. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

the number of rocket attacks has quite clearly decreased. If you live in Israel that is obvious. Telaviv1 (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a notable historical sourced result. It's one of many facts present in the linked (via redirect) Gaza War article. Here are the facts highlighted by the BBC. Of course there are many more facts that could be sampled from secondary sources and included but these were selected by a reliable secondary source rather than a sockpuppet of a topic banned and subsequently indefinitely blocked editor.
  • More than 1,300 Palestinians killed
  • Thirteen Israeli deaths
  • More than 4,000 buildings destroyed in Gaza, more than 20,000 severely damaged
  • 50,800 Gazans homeless and 400,000 without running water
Can you confirm that if I add these you will not revert them and won't support their reversion by a sockpuppet ? If you plan to revert one or all of them please explain the decision procedure you used to distinguish between the excluded fact(s) and the included fact (about rockets). Sean.hoyland - talk 03:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall reverting anything you added to this article so I'm not sure why I am being asked this question. I don't oppose per se any of the additions you propose as long as they are sourced (though I noticed there was no mention of the Israeli physical and economical damage). However it must be done in an even handed manner -- you know per NPOV.-brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
You consider accusations of sockpuppetry an antisemitic canard ? Well, not that it matters but I think that is a profoundly stupid statement and an offensive cheapening of the real problem of racism. Naturally, we are free to think what we like, but we aren't free to express it here unless it is relevant to the article. You ought to have familiarized yourself with the background. The AE report is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive112#AndresHerutJaim. The editor started socking after that and was indefinitely blocked. Sockpuppet details are available at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim. Not all his socks are reported though because he uses "civilian cover" i.e. range blocks would punish the innocent. You should be aware that if you write anymore nonsense like this here, especially infantile things like "As for guarantees I suggest you find somewhere dark to stuff them", I will have to file an arbitration enforcement report about it. I would rather not spend my time doing that. You should be helping to protect a charity from disruption by banned users. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I lost my patience and was in the wrong and I really do apologize. But as I said, I do not provide guarantees for my edits. I edit according to what I believe to be true and am not that interested in anything else. 82.81.22.146 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to sign in. I will also delete the offending text, unless you really want to keep it. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is "History of Israel". That means when we mention a major military operation like Cast Lead, we should focus on the why and how as it relates to Israel. Statistics that relate to Gazans don't need much treatment, unless we concider Gaza to be part of Israel, which I don't think is the standard Wikipedia line. So it makes sense to say why Israel did the op and what the outcome was. Therefore, rocket attacks went up, Cast Lead was done, rocket attacks went down. Where'stheanykey (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

DPs and Holocaust survivors

First of all what is a DP? It is not jsut a Jews displaec by the war. Millions were displaced by the war. (what does that mean?). It was a title given by the allies to Jews who were given asylum after the war. The British worked to restrict its applicaiton to Jews, because they were being asked to admit them into Palestine. Secondly what is a refugee? Who defines your status? Third, what is a Holocaust survivor? Does it mean you survived a camp or just that you lived in central Europe during the war? If you hid in the forest are you a holocast survivor? According to this http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005129 170,000 Jewish DPs and refugees migrated to Israel from Europe between 1948 - 1953. but it cites no sources and does not explain how the terms were defined.

This source gives 350,000: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19630341

This source gives 500,000: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/new-israeli-study-finds-signs-of-trauma-in-grandchildren-of-holocaust-survivors-1.424480

Good figures here: http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Eye+on+Israel/Society/4)+The+Mass+Migration+of+the+1950s.htm

This source is interesting. Its in Hebrew and says that half the Israeli soldiers in the 1948 war were holocaust survivors: http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=16227 This source http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/he/exhibitions/survivors/book/yablunka.pdf says that if you add in migrants from 1940 onwards, 2/3 of the Israeli army were holocast survivors.

Finally there is the issue of Jews who migrated before 1948. Weren't German Jews refugees? I think we will need to give a short explanation of the problematics. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

See this this discussion. 250,000 Jews were only DP living in camps in Germany, Austria and Italy after the war. There were also of course many more Jewish refugees in Eastern Europe (3 million European Jews survived the Holocaust and the war), among these 270,000 immigrated to Israel, as the current version says with proper reference. Regarding Jewish refugees and Holocaust survivors who made Aliyah before Israel's establishment (1939-1948)... well, that's why I wrote this.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
In 2005 there were nearly 400,000 Holocaust survivors in Israel, the nation with the largest population of survivors anywhere (500,000 survivors worldwide). Of course many Holocaust survivors living in Israel passed away between 1945 and 2005. If we consider that, according to Michael Berenbaum in The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined, Indiana University Press, 2002, p.734, The following three years [after 1948] are known in the literature as the 'years of mass immigration'. (...) The Jewish community in Palestine (...) received 717,923 immigrants in those three years, among them 373,852 Holocaust survivors'... and that 250,000 Jewish refugees were brought to Israel during Bricha in 1945-48... well, that would be a total of more than 600,000 Holocaust survivors and Jewish refugees from Europe who settled in Israel. No to mention all the survivors and European Jews who made Aliyah after 1951. Anyway, were are not talking about how many survivors lived in Israel, but we are talking about the Aliyah during 1948-51 and I think the current version is enough (after all, numbers are OK: 136,000 + 270,000 + 300,000 = 700,000).--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
According to these article, one million persons classified as "not repatrifiable" (DP) remained in Germany and Austria after the war. Not all of them Jewish though.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Kings 1, 11:34 Ahijah the Shilonite

The Tribes of Israel were divided by Ahijah the Shilonite in the book of Kings 1 and is specifically mentioned in the chapter 11. At least 10 of the 12 Tribes of Israel were taken from Solomon, the Jewish ruler at that time. Question, how can I improve this quote before posting?

34 “‘But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon’s hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees. 35 I will take the kingdom from his son’s hands and give you ten tribes. 36 I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name.

— First mention of the tables in Kings 1, 11:34-11:36[1]

Twillisjr (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

UN membership

ONLY the UN security council can create new states. The General Assembly has no independent authority and only meets twice a year. All power at the UN is in the hands of the security council but requires acceptance by the five permanent members. That the UNSC gave the decision of how to handle the British Mandate of Palestine to the GA was highly unusual. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Where in the Charter of the United Nations does it say that "the UN security council can create new states"? [8]. Trahelliven (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question! Article 4: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."

The Security council must reccomend you before the GA can vote on membership. Reference: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter2.shtml

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected

Hi all. I have fully protected this page due to sockpuppetry. Since there is no consensus to PC2, I will not apply it. However, if there is an overwhelming consensus, I'll consider WP:IAR. If the preferred option is still to semi-protect the page or if any other options are considered, please list them. I am keeping a watch on this thread. Elockid (Talk) 23:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain this in plain English? Telaviv1 (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2013

Ran against the edit roadblock while using DAB-solver; Please correct the following:

  • [[Socialist Zionists]] → [[Socialist Zionism|Socialist Zionists]]
  • [[Palaestina]] → [[Syria Palaestina|Palaestina]]

GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: I've fixed the Palaestina link, but the Socialist Zionists one didn't seem to be broken. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The Socialist Zionists is a disambiguation page. Socialist Zionism is the corrected target. Thanks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
+1. Ijon (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Elockid (Talk) 22:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


Edit request 10 March 2013

1. The image of the western wall on the top right is in my opinion inappropriate because it is showing a religious site rather than a "national" image. We need a less in-your-face image. 2. the image of the temple in the "Persian and Hellenistic rule" section needs to be moved two sections down to the "Herodian kingdom" becaue that particular model of the temple relates to that period. Before that it was just a small building of some sort. 3. There is a single reference to the "mufti" in the article. We need to expand his title to the Mufti of Jerusalem and he deserves a few more references.

Telaviv1 (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings+11&version=NIV
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Israel/Archive_3&oldid=1136797096"