Jump to content

Talk:Israel: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 336: Line 336:
:2 The wording, ''with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948)'' does not refer to the time at which the Declaraton comes into effect; rather it refers to the moment in time when the People's Council starts to act as a Provisional Council of State.
:2 The wording, ''with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948)'' does not refer to the time at which the Declaraton comes into effect; rather it refers to the moment in time when the People's Council starts to act as a Provisional Council of State.
:3 NMMNG has reverted my edit. If the words in the Declaration ''in Eretz Israel'' are not intended to define the boundaries of the new State, then presumably the letter from Mr Epstein is the first document that does. It is therefore important and should be included. [[User:Trahelliven|Trahelliven]] ([[User talk:Trahelliven|talk]]) 19:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:3 NMMNG has reverted my edit. If the words in the Declaration ''in Eretz Israel'' are not intended to define the boundaries of the new State, then presumably the letter from Mr Epstein is the first document that does. It is therefore important and should be included. [[User:Trahelliven|Trahelliven]] ([[User talk:Trahelliven|talk]]) 19:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
::"Presumably" doesn't work. You need an RS discussing the letter and its implications. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 20:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:31, 13 July 2012

Template:Vital article Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Former featured articleIsrael is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 4, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
June 23, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
April 20, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article

Non neutral sentence

It says in the lead: "Portions of these territories, including east Jerusalem, have been annexed by Israel, but the border with the neighboring West Bank has not yet been permanently defined."

This implies that East Jerusalem is Israel and is so permanently. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are splitting hairs. At least as it reads to me it states simple facts that Israel has annexed portions of the west bank (which includes East Jerusalem) but nothing has been set in stone because of world wide opposition. The sentence specifically states that nothing has been "permanently defined", so I am not sure how you think it implies that East Jerusalem is permanently part of Israel?

While the pre-1967 borders are commonly mentioned by various interest groups, I think a fair number of organizations and governments agree that the status of the borders of the west bank and even all of Jerusalem have yet to be determined. Like the CIA world fact book says: "The current status of the West Bank is subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation". This is just my thought on the issue.

Thanks,

Theo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theotokan (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading it incorrectly, the sentence implies that Israeli annexed territories are part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This phrase is poor and should be removed or changed. The phrase implies that east jerusalem is permatently defined as part of Israel, which is a breach of neutral point of view. I did not see anything claiming that nothing has been "premantly defined" as you claim. meitme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Acceptance and rejection of 1947 Plan of Partition

In the talk article of the article on the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, I got into discussion on the extent to which the Jews accepted rhe Plan. On balance the paragraph Jewish reaction now seem satisfactory.

In the current article it is stated quite baldly that the Jews accpted the Plan. That is clearly too simplistic.

My second problem is that the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not in any event an appropriate reference. Has anyone any suggestions on what to do?Trahelliven (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, remove the information as unsourced political statement by a contender in the conflict.Biraqleet (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced and correct. The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy

Why not simply say that that the Jewish People's Council accepted the plan until 14 May 1948, when the wording of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel did not limit its boundaries to those set out in Resolution 181(II) for the proposed Jewish State. Trahelliven (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn`t the partition plan in itself be given at least one sentence here? It is a major element of Israel`s history, and the reader receives no information on what the plan was. I suggest at least informing the amount of land and population composition of each new state proposed by the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy
Your way of putting it seems perfect. The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan. Trahelliven (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common name

Is there any objection to beginning this article, "Israel, officially the State of Israel,..."? This is what similar articles do, and WP:PLACE supports it. As this is a sensitive article, I figured it was better to err on the side of caution and ask here before changing it. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has objected, I went ahead and changed it. Please let me know if anything is amiss. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article on Palestine found it necessary to indicate that it is “also known as Land of Israel“ in both English and in Hebrew among the names of Palestine, wouldn’t it be fair to add “also known as Occupied Palestine ‘filistin al-muhtallah’” to the glorious names of the state at the beginning of the article? Hundreds of millions of people know it only with that name.173.74.22.141 (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and we can add "Zionist entity" too. (eye-roll)
Palestine is about a geographic region that is sometimes called the Land of Israel. Palestinian territories, Palestinian National Authority, or State of Palestine might be analogous to this article, and none of them use that phrase. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the state of Israel as such is not recognized by many states and by hundreds of millions of people. To them, the state of Israel is "Occupied Palestine," and when they refer to the Israeli governement they say "The Occupation Regime in Palestine," when they refer to the Israeli establishment they say the "Zionist Entitiy," (no eye-roll) and so on. That is something somehow unique to Israel because of its nature as colony of foreigners in a historical region and it should be stated clearly to comply with the wikipolicy of including all valid POVs. And before you give me some rhetorical argument, I give you a few pointers. First, Israelis and Zionists themselves hold this view to be true when they complain that Israel's own existence is not recognized by so many countries and so many people. Second, contrary to the propagated pro-Israeli view which makes the conlict between the Arabs and Israel about "disputed territories" in Gaza and the West Bank, the real conflict (apart from the Occupied Territories which in that view is only a matter of necessary pragmatism) is the DISPUTED STATE itself. It is simply either a State of Israel, or a State of Palestine. Those who recognize the first as a de facto state look for the State of Palestine somewhere else on portions of historical Palestine. Those who do not accept colonization and occupation as valid and permanent consider it "Occupied Palestine."173.74.22.141 (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People can call Pluto "cheese" and we'd still call it Pluto on Wikipedia. As has been pointed out, State of Palestine does not call itself "Israel" in that article despite it having the same (if not worse) limited recognition problem. Palestine does, but that is describing a geographic area, not a national entity. Land of Israel similarly describes a geographic area, and that article does state that it is additionally called "Palestine." That works for a geographic area, but not for the article on a national entity. Those that do not call the State of Israel "Israel" have a lot more of an issue than just the name. They probably also don't recognize the currency, or the language, or the flag, or the... are you suggesting we change all of these to have the alternative for those that don't use what this article is about? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about Pluto but I know that even though the article is about Israel, it should be stated that some countries and some people do not recognize that it exists as a state but as an occupation. A country can exist or not exist but its status as such can still be disputed. For example, Taiwan exits as an independent state but it should be made clear in that page that Taiwan as a state is diputed by China which considers it just a renegade province. Tibet, which is part of China and not independent, should be clarified as being considered occupied by many and viewed as should be independent. Northern Cyprus is independent as a matter of fact and recognized by Turkey, but everyone else considers it either occupied by Turkey or a renegade province. Etc. Therefore, it is quite important to state that the State of Israel is not recognized as existing at all and does not figure in the minds of many. It even does not appear on their maps. Don't you think this is a unique and an important aspect to include?173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And as far as I know, Wikipedia is not intended for the propagation of Western, American or Israeli views, but rather to provide a balanced universal view.173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another P.S. I tried taking a picture with my subject saying Pluto and it did not come out looking good. Thus, by experiment, Pluto does not equal Cheese.173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of recognition is separate from what this should be stated for the name. This article is about the State of Israel. If countries choose not to recognize it, then that is an issue that is covered separately from "what is the State of Israel called." That is an issue discussed in the foreign relations section of this article, and the full page on Foreign relations of Israel, and International recognition of Israel. Thus, despite any posturing to the contrary, we do cover the issue of recognition. It just is not an issue relevant to the name of the state those countries are or are not choosing to recognize.
To go with your example of Taiwan, that article does discuss recognition issues and Chinese claims, but does not put "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" as one of the names, as that is not what the article is about. There is more weight given to the recognition issue in the Taiwan article, but that is because it is far more of a glaring issue. Taiwan does not have the recognition of the United Nations and is recognized by only 23 out of 193 nations of the world, less than 12%. Not one of these is a major power, western or otherwise, none even approaching growing powers such as Brazil. Israel, on the other hand, has full UN recognition and is recognized by some 157 nations out of 193, or more than 80%. This includes the major world powers, both Eastern and Western, and growing powers such as Brazil, India, Turkey, etc. The issue of Israeli recognition should be and already is covered. It does not need to be covered with the same weight as that of Taiwan as their two situations are entirely different in scope and scale. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you are telling me that if, say, I make an article about Yahweh I should not say that other people call Him God the father or Allah or El or whatever becuase since I used the name Yahweh, and He is recognized by a major world religion(s), then I have to talk about Him only from a Jewish POV? Or if we talk about Allah then we can only say what Arabs say He is? Of course not. Your point about Tawian is well taken. However, be it that Tawian is an independent state or a renegade province still does not raise the issue of it being called "Taiwan" but the argument is about its classification. With Israel, like I said before, the argument of both camps revolve around if we do have a state called Israel or its complete negation and calling it Occupied Palestine. Notice that in the second name, again, Israel does not exist, and we are still talking about the same political entity, defined as the same geography with certain borders, same population, same resources in the ground, etc. So what I am asking about is not related primarily to recognition and how many for vs. against, but the fact that for Israel there some countries for, some countries against, and some countries do not even know that it exists on the face of earth. To them, and they are many, it is simply called something else in reflection to a different but valid view of reality.173.74.22.141 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are getting away from the point here. The point is that the extremely few nations that view the State of Israel as 'Occupied Palestine' is irrelevant here (and is discussed on the Land of Israel page. These are fringe views well outside the mainstream of nations. Israel as a political entity is recognized by the United Nations, the European Union, the United States--as well as the vast super-majority of most smaller nations and political organizations. Even mentioning the word 'occupied' is unnecessary, POV, and frankly false. 07:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that most of the world's countries do recognize Israel and Israel is a member of the UN etc., but to say that the non-recognition would be a fringe opinion doesn't ring true. The Arab bloc in general doesn't recognize Israel and Israel is often referred to using the phrase "Zionist Entity" or similar expressions. --Dailycare (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add Faisal–Weizmann Agreement

Hi,

could you please add Faisal–Weizmann Agreement to the history part (it was the first Israeli-Arab agrements that talked about jewish entety) 109XXX (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew/Arabic languages

The languages should appear like this:

{{Main|Arabic language|Hebrew language}}

Main articles: Arabic language and Hebrew language

Tourism

The southernmost City of Eilat is most important for Israel's Intern, and reducibly, extern tourism. lye on Israel's shore of the Red sea and a neighbor to the Jordanian city of Aqaba, it hosts a respectable number of luxury hotels and some resorts, Eilat is an important dying area, rich in night life, and a juxtaposed marine & promenade, in which, a prolonged line of restaurants, and a grand Stall Bazaar which takes place every Monday and Thursday[281], and respectively aimed for tourists. Eilat is also a stop to comers from the Sinai border of Egypt to Israel. The city has it's own airport.

What? --62.163.152.44 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Tel Aviv, (Tel aviv-Jaffa), titled by Israelis as the "sanctuary of secularity"[282][283] by some, and also regarded as the "night life capital" of Israel. in this city of passion and promise, many hotels, most of whom are sea-viewing. central TA is loaded with night attractions: Pubs, Clubs, Dance-bars, Meeting-Bars, etc, and Restaurants working 24/7 or until the morning. it's also an important place for the LGBT community, and was nicknamed: "The Gay capital of the Middle East". Jaffa, on the other end, contains an old city, and is historically archeologically superior to Tel-Aviv. Jaffa, like Acre, lively resemble the passed periods of Ottoman, and (in lesser extent), Crusader rule.

A city of passion and promise! When do we leave? --62.163.152.44 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's being fixed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a great edit, IMHO. Think some of the copy should have stayed in, just had the lunacy edited out... --62.163.152.44 (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust survivors

"At the same time, thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors and refugees from Europe sought a new life in Palestine," I am sure it were actually millions. --41.151.64.150 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2005, there were 400,000 Holocaust survivors living in Israel (hundreds of thousands is a more accurate term, 250,000 of them settled in Israel between 1945 and 1948).
Also there were 3 million Jews in Europe at the end of World War II. Most of them were not Holocaust survivors, but Eastern European Jews living under Soviet control, unlike Jews who lived in Nazi-occupied Europe (the majority, 6 million, perished in the Holocaust). For example, my own grandmother was born in Rovno, but she moved with her family to the USSR during the 1941 German invasion, so they were not considered Holocaust survivors, although she lived for a short time in a refugee camp in Pocking.
I think these are the correct numbers.--Jabotito48 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit "hundreds of thousands" was correct. Somewhere there are actual estimates, but I didn't find any just now. Only some fraction were in DP camps, so your reasoning is not conclusive. However the sentence is written as a sort of emotional plea and should be replaced by something more encyclopedic. It is not true that they all wanted to go to Palestine. The fact is that better destinations like the USA were almost completely closed to them and Palestine seemed like the only option. The sentence also seems to imply that all these refugees actually tried to reach Palestine, but only thousands did that. There were also thousands of legal immigrants to Palestine from Europe. All the details would be too much for this article; I'm mostly concerned with getting the wording to not sound like a slogan. Zerotalk
From Tom Segev's book The Seventh Million, between the end of World War II and Israel's independence, 140 ships carrying 70,000 people attempted to reach Palestine, of which the majority were stopped by the British. The representatives of the Yishuv (including Ben-Gurion) certainly believed that the survivors wanted to go to Palestine. Ben-Gurion estimated that 60-70% wanted this (Segev, 119-120). But Segev also writes: "It is difficult to know how many of those streaming westward intended from the start to reach Palestine" (124) I agree with Zero that people didn't necessarily come out of the camps as fervent Zionists. They wanted to get out of Europe and the Zionists not only wanted them and were willing to support them but were also the only ones who were actually facilitating them leaving the DP camps.
Here's my proposed rewrite: "At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors and refugees sought a new life far from their destroyed communities in Europe. The Yishuv attempted to bring these refugees to Palestine but many were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps by the British."GabrielF (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These wordings sound good to me except the hundreds of thousands that overestimate the number.
According to the Holocaust Museum, there were around 250,000 DP after WWII. 80,000 reached the USA; 136,000 went to Israel and 20,000 to other countries. [1].
I suggest to write : "At the same time, an important part of Jewish Holocaust survivors and refugees sought a new life far from their destroyed communities in Europe. The Yishuv attempted to bring these refugees to Palestine but many were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps by the British."
81.247.71.163 (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake: 250,000 Jews were DP (136,000 went to Israel). However, after Israel was established, other hundreds of thousands reached the country. As I said before, in 2005 there were 400,000 Holocaust survivors living in Israel.--Jabotito48 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Grodzinsky, In the Shadow of the Holocaust, ca. p118, the number of Jewish DPs in Europe might have peaked at 220-260K at the end of 1946 (about 20% of the total of all DPs), but he says no official figures are available for the Soviet zone. Also I think the 136-140K figure is for all European DPs going to Israel before and after May 1948. I agree with either wording except that I don't think "rounded up" adds anything. Zerotalk 11:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In 2005 in Israel, there were indeed about 400,000 people older than 60 (see here). That means that they were born before 1945 and that the "survived the holocaust [period]" but most of them were Sabras, came from Arab lands or from the Russian immigration. Only a few part of these survived the concentration camps. Take care of propaganda Jabotito : you live in a country where citizens have been manipulated for more than 65 years. 81.247.71.163 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say anything about "people older than 60". I said 400,000 Holocaust survivors.[1][2] The definition used by Israel for survivors is: European Jews living in territories under Nazi occupation between 1933 and 1945 (not just people in concentration camps). You should remember the majority of these people died BEFORE 2005, therefore weren't included in your table.
By the way, I'm from Argentina and I don't swallow Marxist/Pallywood's propaganda anymore, my opinion is based on facts. You have no reason to worry.--Jabotito48 (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could hardly have 400,000 holocaust survivors in Israel in 2005 given there were around 400,000 people above 60 living in Israel in 2005 but it doens't matter much.
Oh... If you are not a sabra it means that you are more deeply glued in the "narrative" because you community has to "justify" a way or the other its "right to participate and exist" in Israel's life. That was studied by Anita Shapira. That is a common, normal and sane human reaction. There were plenty of "you" in the past here and there will be plenty "you" in future. If you want to develop an encyclopaedia, you have to read and study many scholar books dealing with the topics that you want to edit. For Israelis and Jews (whatever their politics views) who wants to edit Israel-related articles, it is also required that they study the psycho-sociology of their nation. Thousands of hours of work. 91.180.72.97 (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit. We don't create specific requirements for editors based on nationality or religion. GabrielF (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How come if someone said something similar about Arabs or Muslims or even Europeans, they would be instantly banned, but it is okay on Wikipedia to say such things about Jews?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 (talk • contribs)

United Nations Special Committee On Palestine: Resolution of 29 November 1947

Telaviv1

Your revert goes as follows:

On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which recommended creation of Jewish and Arab states in Palestine with Jerusalem to be administered by the UN.

My objections to your oversimplifcation are as follows:-

1 The Report of UNSCOP has two plans, the proposed plan of the majority in Chapter VI and the proposed minority plan in Chapter VII. The plan in Resolution 181(II) was strictly speaking neither plan. It was the plan of the majority with some modifications. Your version implies there was only one plan in the Report and that it was adopted without modification.
2 The Report did not recommend either plan, It merely contained alternaiive plans, one plan proposed by the majority and one proposed by the minority.
3 The UNGA adopted a resolution, not a plan of partition. The plan was to be adopted and implemented by others.
4 The plan in the Resolution contained three complely separate entities, an Arab state, a Jewish state and the City of Jerusalem. Your version does not make that clear. Incidentally in both the Report and the Resolution the reference to the Arab state always precedes the reference to the Jewish state. Is there any reason why you reversed them?

I am reinstating my version of 29 May. Trahelliven (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How come?

Howcome you are using the King James Version of the Christian Bible to explain the biblical history of the Jews? That makes no sense. You wouldn't use the Koran to explain it would you? Opportunidaddy (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was the KJV and not the 1917 JPS translation, which is based on it? If it is the KJV, the reason is not malice but laziness. Nobody has bothered to use a Jewish translation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template not displaying properly.

I'm getting a "template:Navboxes" displaying at Israel#External_links that should be showing international memberships. Is it just me? When I preview it seems o.k., but when I save the edit it is still messed up. Any pros out there who can fix that? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slight spelling/grammatical error

"The conflict erupted in 167 BCE, with the Maccabean Revolt, which succeeded to establish an independent Hasmonean Kingdom in Judah, which later expanded over much of modern Israel, as the Seleucids were gradually ![loosing their control]! of the region." Edit to "losing" or "loosening". Thanks.

Done. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a problem with the article

there are 2 photos of israeli air planes, i think they aren't such fit to this article, but to another who deals with israeli made weapons, thanks.

Conflicts and peace treaties

Please add the summary templates to the "Conflicts and peace treaties" section, like that:

Main articles: Wars involving Israel and Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
Further information: Arab–Israeli conflict and Israeli–Palestinian conflict

--87.225.60.1 (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How Israel was established

So, won't you write something about how Israel was established?!, As far as i know, Wikipedia does accept all true things that you write, so go on and write about Israel and how Bloodthirsty it really is, of course i have read some other articles that talk about countries and how they were established, so we need you to show us how Israel was established and how many Palestinians has Israel killed, or you are afraid of something?, am i going to be blocked?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.152.150 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The confrontational tone could be done without. 66.183.104.162 (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Israel was established by the declaration of its establishment. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. The US immediately recognized this as true. talknic (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for some years now there are 6 district courts and not 5 as mentioned in the legal part of the artical.

Shimron Yariv 85.64.85.238 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...independent from the British Mandate for Palestine" statement is not supported by the sources

"to be known as the State of Israel, a state independent from the British Mandate for Palestine." Not supported by the Primary Sources 9 and 11.
Palestine wasn't under any Mandate or the control of the British when the declaration came into effect. The territory declared as Israel was never British, so Israel didn't secede from Britain. Israel was declared independent of ........ talknic (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure i see the problem with the wording? The CIA world factbook says "Independence - 14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)". which is inline with the article wording too. Israel did not secede from Britain, but its independence was from the British Mandate of Palestine, if is not from that what was it from? The declaration of independence was made the day before the British mandate expired, and Israel came into being after it expired. Was there something in between it? BritishWatcher (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the phrase, a state independent from the British Mandate for Palestine should be deleted. The operative words of the Declaration of 14 May 1948 do not contain such a phrase. Further, the use of the phrase suggests that the Mandate was to continue in some form as when the Colonieas of America declared independence from Britain. Despite its universal use, I think that it is wrong even to talk about Israel obtaining independece. The word establishment in the Declaration of 14 May 1948 is correct and quite sufficient. Trahelliven (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA factbook supports the wording, and the sentence makes sense. I see no problem with it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, "to be known as the State of Israel, a state independent from the British Mandate for Palestine" doesn't really make sense. If it is supposed to mean that Israel seceded from the Mandate, that is not the plain meaning of these words. Better think of some wording which is clearer, or just delete it. Zerotalk 10:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ive no problem with the wording being changed if there is a better way of saying it, but i dont think its right to go down the path that appeared to be suggested that there was not "independence", Israel did become independent from the British Mandate of Palestine on its expiry, which is what the sources say and the declaration specifically states about the expiry of the mandate. I dont see how it is that different from other nations independence where one power ceases to have power or authority and then a new state is formed and independent instantly.
Looking at the full paragraph in the article, how about spitting the sentence in two and putting the mandate expiry at the start of the second sentence? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or something like..
"Following the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan to replace the British Mandate for Palestine, On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[8] and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel after the expiry of the British Mandate the next day." BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change "On" to "on". Not sure about "the next day" since the mandate expired at midnight. How about "...from the expiry of the British Mandate that evening"? Zerotalk 12:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - //Following the 29 November 1947 adoption of resolution 181 by the United Nations General Assembly, on 14th May 1948 David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. The declaration came into into effect at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.// talknic (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer BritishWatcher's version. Why is Washington time important again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with BritishWatcher's suggestion. We don't need to get into the legal details. --Dailycare (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dailycare/NMMNG -- A) BW's suggestion is a bit of a ramble. For the sake of readers, surely information ought be imparted concisely per WP:MOSINTRO. There's no need to elaborate on Ben Gurion's status in the Lede, B) "the next day" is rather vague. Is there a problem with the exact time, given by an official Israeli representative? talknic (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have problems with some of the suggestions

1 Where does the phrase, one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time come from? In any event on the face of it, the Declaration was to take place immediately, What was to take effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate was the the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel".
2 If you mention the resolution of 29 November, you should also refer to BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT.
3 In the operative part of the Declaration, the word independent is not used.
4 Israel was a successor state to the the British Mandate, rather than independent of it.
5 Ben-Gurion did not declare the proclamation: he merely read it.

In my view the sentence should read:

On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved a proclamation which declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.[3] Trahelliven (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trahelliven -- 1) From the official representative of the Jewish Agency to the US May 15th 1948 [2]
"... the Declaration was to take place immediately" It couldn't. Palestine was under the control of the British until midnight May 14th 1948. 'independence' means not being under the control of any other entity. The declaration could not come into effect until after the Mandate ended.
2 "If you mention the resolution of 29 November, you should also refer to BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT" The resolution is already mentioned. There's been no move to have the other reference.
3) In the Declaration "AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY" UNGA res 181 "C. DECLARATION - A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence."
4 "Israel was a successor state to the the British Mandate, rather than independent of it" Under what mandate, convention or resolution did it become a successor state?
Re - your suggestion .. Mention should be made tho that the declaration only came into effect only after the Mandate expired talknic (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
talknic
My comments to your comments are as follows:
1 From the official representative of the Jewish Agency to the US May 15th 1948 [2]
"... the Declaration was to take place immediately" It couldn't. Palestine was under the control of the British until midnight May 14th 1948. 'independence' means not being under the control of any other entity. The declaration could not come into effect until after the Mandate ended.
I agree that the Declaration could not come int effect until 15 May. It has been suggested that the premature proclamation of the declaration makes the latter invalid. If you want to amend the Declaraton by refering to the letter to President Truman, that should be made explicit. Should you not also rectify the Declaration by including the reference in the letter to Truman of the limiting of the boundaries of the new state to those set out in the Resolution of 29 November?
2 "If you mention the resolution of 29 November, you should also refer to BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT" The resolution is already mentioned. There's been no move to have the other reference.
3) In the Declaration "AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY" UNGA res 181 "C. DECLARATION - A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence."
2 and 3
If the declaration was relying on the Resolution of 29 November alone, the declaration was two months premature since the Resolution contained the following provision:
3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below.
4 "Israel was a successor state to the the British Mandate, rather than independent of it" Under what mandate, convention or resolution did it become a successor state?
Israel became a successor state to the British Mandate by operation of international law, See Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_state. Trahelliven (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have another thought. You can talk in the abstract of a country being independent. You can talk of Israel being independent of any existing country but you can't talk of being independent of an entity that no longer exists. i.e. the British Mandate. Trahelliven (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trahelliven -- I've tidied your indentation for others. Hope that's OK
"Israel became a successor state" Read carefully ... based on a perceived historical relationship the new state has with a prior state. Which prior state? Especially as no one will allow the mention of Palestine being a Provisional State per the LoN Covenant and the LoN Mandate for Palestine.
"you can't talk of being independent of an entity that no longer exists. i.e. the British Mandate." precisely!
The "Declaration of the Establishment of" is different from 'come into existence'. There were three parties to the deal offered by UNGA Res 181, The Jewish Agency, the Arab States and the UN. The Jewish Agency and the Arab States had until 1 October 1948, wherein, if the Arab States had decided to declare independence and remember it cannot be mandatory for any entity to declare independence, then "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine".
BUT by default of becoming independent Israel was no longer in Palestine. An Independent state cannot be in another entity.
Furthermore the Provisional Israeli Govt acknowledged on the 22nd May 1948 "territories outside the State of Israel" also acknowledging the existence of "Palestine" talknic (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Independence from the British Mandate of Palestine is how it is viewed. it does not have to necessarily be worded in such a way, but that is what happened. I too was not that keen on "the next day" in the suggestion i made above, but how about if it is more specific.
Following the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan to replace the British Mandate for Palestine, on 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[8] and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel after the expiry of the British Mandate at midnight that evening." ? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
or that night. or at midnight on 15 May. What ever is clearer. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Independence from the British Mandate of Palestine is how it is viewed." Pity to be mis-informing people, because that is NOT 'what happened' out by a minute. One very important minute when the territory allotted for the Jewish State was not under the control of any entity but the Declaring party.
Re - your suggestion. A) the description of Ben Gurion's positions does not belong in the Lede. B) It wasn't 'that night' it was at one minute past midnight, which is the AM and it wasn't at midnight on May 15th. Why not give the precise time? talknic (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with the Declaration of 14 May 1948 arise from the ambiguity of it legai basis.

1 The Resolution of 29 November 1947 - legal
2 The Jewish historical links to Palestine - historical
3 The use of the term Eretz Israel - religous.

The words Following the adoption of a resolution by the United Nations ... implies only the first. The use of the term Eretz Israel implies that the boundaries of the new state might exceed those given in the Resolution. Further, as I indicated above, the declaration was two months premature. This amounted to two breaches of the Resolution. The wording of the Declaration gives no indication of when it is to take effect. We do know that Ben-Gurion read the declaration some hours befor midnight on 14 May, Palestine time.

To avoid all these complications in describing the event the wording should be made as concise as possible. Trahelliven (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trahelliven -- That's for somewhere else. The issue here is "...independent from the British Mandate for Palestine" statement is not supported by the sources" talknic (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC):Trahelliven -- That's for somewhere else. The issue here is "...independent from the British Mandate for Palestine" statement is not supported by the sources" talknic (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trahelliven -- "the declaration was two months premature". You're misreading UNGA res 181. There were three parties to the deal offered by UNGA Res 181. The Jewish Agency, the Arab States and the UN. The Jewish Agency and the Arab States had until 1 October 1948 to select a non political party to declare independence. For The Jews it was the Jewish People's Council and; From the resolution: "The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, not later than two months after the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, hold elections to the Constituent Assembly which shall be conducted on democratic lines."
If both parties declared by 1 October 1948, "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine". Neither party could be obliged to declare 'independence'. The Arab States didn't and; the corpus separatum was never instituted. Israel did.
Only the territory that became Israel changed status. corpus separatum was never separated from Palestine, only Israel was. Which is why UNSC resolutions 252 says "actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status;" and; UNSC res 476 says "1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"
Re the term "Eretz Israel". It was already accepted. [3] talknic (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This simple wording avoids all these problems:
On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved a proclamation, immediately read by David Ben-Gurion, which declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.[4]
I have sdded the reference to Ben-Gurion.Trahelliven (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trahelliven -- Formatted again for others to be able to follow.. OK?
The 'problem' is: not imparting knowledge to readers. Like, the precise time it came into effect? Why purposefully omit valuable information? Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic! talknic (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to give the time of the declaration becoming effective, you need to give a reference to the documents refering to the time. As far as I am aware the only document is the letter from ELIAHU EPSTEIN seeking recognition from the United States, where the time is shown as one minute after six o'clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time, Israel–United States relations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Recognition_of_the_state_of_Israel. I am curious to know where Mr Epstein got that time. You might also note that Mr Epstein makes the curious (and incorrect) statement that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947. If you want to add more facts, I think further material should be added, possibly in the way that I did in the article, Israel–United States relations. Trahelliven (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trahelliven - (indented your post OK? Please help make it easy to follow)
If there are no other sources giving the precise time, the Epstein letter is the majority view.
"Mr Epstein makes the curious (and incorrect) statement" The Israeli Govt, in its statement to the UNSC 22nd May 1948, confirms Mr Epstein's statement. The suppression of knowledge is not the notion behind an encyclopedia. talknic (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talknic - I hope it meets with your approval, I stll do not like the word independence in this context. Trahelliven (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still like BritishWatcher's version. You people have received several explanations by several editors on why Epstein's letter should not be used, but you keep coming back to it. That's tendentious. To recap, this is a letter by someone who was not on the ground at a time of war and conflicts with the official policy of the leaders who were in fact on the ground. Quoting it extensively is UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NMMNG I must confess I have forgotten the details of the discussions we might have had about Mr Epstein. Could you remind me again. In particular where was he at the time? Who exactly gave him authority to contact the US President? His letter indeed seems to be in conflict with the Declaration of 14 May which on the face of it seems to claim the whole of Eretz Israel for the new state. Trahelliven (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein was in Washington and the deceleration does not on its face claim the whole of Eretz Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The “a state independent from the British Mandate for Palestine” imo really should be removed from the lede, it suggests to the reader that the British Mandate for Palestine continued after Israel's independence in the rest of the former mandate after May 15th 1948. If that were the case, the Palestinians would probably also have their state by now. As far as the time is concerned, I cannot see why it is important, the 14th was a Friday, and therefore the mandate expired on Friday night, the Jewish Sabbath, which, like every other day of the Jewish calendar, begins in the (early) evening, and the declaration was made before the beginning of the Sabbath. The declaration states that it is “with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948)” – coordinating Jewish and common dates are a bit of a problem, but I don't think that that bothered anybody. I also think that Ben Gurion should not have that much center stage in the sentence, and that the Jewish People's Council should be mentioned, not the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization. What about something like:
I agree re: Jewish People's Council. I still think the word independent/ce should be in there somewhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1 I agree that the version by Ajnem is the best I have seen.

On 14 May 1948, the day on which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council declared in a proclamation read by David Ben-Gurion the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.

2 The wording, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948) does not refer to the time at which the Declaraton comes into effect; rather it refers to the moment in time when the People's Council starts to act as a Provisional Council of State.
3 NMMNG has reverted my edit. If the words in the Declaration in Eretz Israel are not intended to define the boundaries of the new State, then presumably the letter from Mr Epstein is the first document that does. It is therefore important and should be included. Trahelliven (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumably" doesn't work. You need an RS discussing the letter and its implications. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "40% of Holocaust survivors in Israel live below poverty line", Haaretz, December 29, 2005.
  2. ^ "Social Safety Nets" (PDF), In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation (Swiss Bank), September 11, 2000.
  3. ^ Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel: 14 May 1948
  4. ^ Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel: 14 May 1948
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&oldid=502128924"