In the current article which treats on the modern names for biblical sites, there is an entry for the "Country Name." As is known, many of these biblical sites are in Israel, also known as Palestine, being the same geographical country. However, there has been an attempt to politicize the "Country Name," by writing either "Palestinian territories" or "Israel," as if it were two separate countries. It is my view that we ought to be apolitical about the "Country Name," and that wherever these two designations apply in this particular article, we should write both "Palestine/Israel." In this way we keep this issue neutral, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy in Palestine-Israel articles. Any other views on how we should proceed here? Please add your comment.Davidbena (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep separate Palestine/Israel, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Separate - we should follow convention used throughout Wikipedia. David, I share your frustration with this throughout the encyclopaedia - for example, the significant overlap between the History of Palestine and History of Israel articles - it would be much better if for history we had a single name that everyone is happy with. But until wide consensus is found to change it, we refer to everything within Israel-1967 as Israel and everything within Gaza and West Bank-1967 as Gaza and the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Onceinawhile - How should a case like Shiloah/Silwan be treated?...It's currently listed on the table as "Israel," but in 1967 (before the war) this was part of the West Bank, then administered by Jordan. Since then it, along with the rest of East Jerusalem, has been effectively annexed by Israel, but under the system you describe above it should be listed as "Palestinian Territories," since it's part of the West bank, and was not under Israeli control before 1967. And outside of East Jerusalem there are numerous other towns and highways in the West Bank which have been de-facto annexed into Israel, so making distinctions can get pretty messy. -2003:CA:83CB:8100:AD6C:7400:E6F5:B509 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have actually two issues here, in addition to the above country status, we also have the field Province/Region in the Old Testament places. Should be use Judea/Samaria there (in addition to present Governorates), or should we use the present Governorate, for all? Huldra (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Present Governorate, for all, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Huldra: since this article makes an infusion between old and new, where there is an entry for "Province/Region" perhaps we can agree to restore its original designation, where only the administrative districts were used as defined in Districts of Israel. Why would anyone want to politicize this article, by giving separate designations for "Israel" and "Palestine"? It makes no sense to me, and it betrays the reality on the ground (i.e. it's one country occupied by two peoples).Davidbena (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on these two questions is that we should stick with the modern designations and status quo, e.g. Israel or Palestinian Territories, and the modern name for the region or province. Debresser (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone want to politicize this article, by giving separate designations for "Israel" and "Palestine"? Because the Palestinians that live there are not citizens of Israel, they are stateless persons who are recognized by the international community as having certain rights, but do not have full citizenship rights in Israel or freedom of travel (either within the country or abroad). Also Israel voluntarily entered into certain agreements with its allies regarding those boundaries, and that seems to be the strong preference that is reflected in these agreements. Third, Israel is not able to administer the areas as regular law enforcement jurisdictions because they are not part of Israel, and the Defense Regulations are in effect. It is legally and technically a belligerent occupation. This is not "politicizing". There are probably other issues as well, but until these issues are resolved, I don't think we will find WP:RS to support a name change.Seraphim System (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Seraphim System:, you have articulated your case very well. If I might but ask your indulgence for a little while, allow me to explain Israel's position vis-à-vis the Arab population that shares the same country with us. If we were to re-track in history, we'd see the whole picture a bit better. Jews and Arabs who lived in Palestine prior to 1948 were both subject to foreign powers: the British, the Ottoman Turks, the Mamluks, etc., etc. During the British Mandate (Mandatory Palestine), strong national feelings began to rise among both sides, each ethnic group hoping to establish its own independent state. Tempers flared and there was general unrest. This led to a political struggle and, eventually, a military struggle, each side vying for the control of Palestine. A country that had, heretofore, been undivided, suddenly became divided in 1948 by Jordan's conquest of regions now known as the "West Bank" of the Jordan River, and Israel's hold of the other maritime regions of the country, with half of Jerusalem. In the 1967 Six Day War, Israel restored the county's territorial integrity as it had been before 1948 when the Egyptians captured Gaza, and before 1946 when the Syrians took over the Golan Heights held by the French. You see, Israel saw the country as indivisible, although the Arab States and most Western countries agreed to the country's proposed partition (an idea, mind you, that was first suggested by the British in 1937). Even before the rise of the Jewish State of Israel there had been a long history of hostility between local Jews and Arabs, where the local Arabs prevented land sales unto Jews, and discouraged Jewish immigration to Palestine, and where both sides had had altercations, and, sadly, this same mindset and temperament has been carried-over unto the younger generation, with perpetual wars and fighting. This then is the reason why Israel has implemented "Martial law" in the conquered territories, until such a time that conditions change. As for Israeli hegemony or "sovereignty" of the country is concerned, I think that if we were honest with ourselves, this cannot be denied. Even the Palestinian Authority acknowledges Israel's authority, however unpleasant it might be. As another editor here once wrote, the same can be applied here: "You may not like it, your government may not recognize it, the United Nations can denounce it, but that doesn't change reality. Whether Israel is in lawful possession of the territory, whether the United States is in lawful possession of Washington, D.C., or whether they were stolen from their previous inhabitants, doesn't change the fact that they are the custodians of the land." Hopefully, the condition of our fellow Arab citizens will improve in this country, and both sides will lay aside all hostility, working together to build a common and shared future.Davidbena (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing: You say that the areas under discussion are "not part of Israel." Then, if I might humbly ask, what are they? "Occupied territories"? That, my friend, is a misnomer, perpetrated by the media. In historical terms, many Israelis who took part in the wars to reclaim the country of Palestine (from Jordanian occupation) were themselves formerly called "Palestinians" prior to 1948, and whose fathers were evicted from places in the "West Bank." This is a fact that cannot be denied. "Palestinian Jews" (now called "Israelis") – both they and their children – simply restored Palestine's old borders in 1967. Secondly, for these lands to be called "occupied territories" would have first required there to have been a sovereign in those territories, but this was not the case, as the country had formerly been under the control of foreign powers (Great Britain and Jordan).Davidbena (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davidbena: Some facts for you:
- "Occupied territories" refers to Military occupation (see also List of military occupations). At its simplest, it means control of a country without providing citizenship. Israel have not "annexed" the West Bank (like they have for East Jerusalem and the Golan), so the only other form of control is occupation. This is an either-or scenario. If they annex it and provide citizenship, it will no longer be technically an occupation.
- Look at the table and charts in United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Proposed_partition. You will see that your characterization of the situation is a gross exaggeration. There were a tiny number of Jews in the area which became the West Bank.
- As to sovereignty, firstly Jordan did not "occupy" the West Bank, they "annexed". See Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Residents became full citizens of Jordan. Secondly, the Palestinians today have the same amount of sovereignty over the West Bank as Israel does over 1948-Israel; this is ultimately based on , the UN Partition Plan and international recognition.
- Finally, no partition plan, peace plan, great power or world organization, at any point, proposed that the West Bank should become part of the "Jewish state". Why? Because it was 99%+ Arab.
- Onceinawhile (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Our debates have possessed our dear friend, User:Onceinawhile, so fully of the subject that he has put forth "hard facts" to our alternative way of looking at this country. This rejoinder will admit of no doubt as to the soundness of our position, and will dispel the difficulties raised by him. First:
- Israel has no need to "formally" annex the country, as Jordan did, since Israel holds the country as de facto annexation, rather than de jure annexation. The reason for this is that Israel wishes to avoid a situation whereby it provokes an international or public outcry, who, for the most part, have taken a stance against Israel and its legitimate claims to the country. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar, wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign."[1] Israeli diplomat, Dore Gold, has stated that the language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967.[1]
- If there were ever a "tiny number of Jews in the area which became the West Bank," it is merely because of the history of the Jewish nation in its own country, a people who were expelled from their own country, and where it was even outlawed by Hadrian for Jews to settle in Jerusalem![2] I will remind you that Vespasian put the entire country of Judea to the sale (see Sicaricon)! This will explain why the Jewish population was diminished, whereas foreigners came for purposes of husbandry and took over these former places belonging to native Jews. Prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, Jews had been evicted from East Jerusalem, Silwan, Hebron, and the older Kfar Etzion. Before then, because of Palestinian riots and disturbances, there had been a fluctuation of populated Jewish areas, namely: Ein Zeitim, Safed, Beit Shean, Kfar Uria, Hartuv, among other places. Now, if the criterion for citizenship is the prevalence of a demographic majority in spite of the changing times, as you propose (when you thought that the Arab population should take over the helm of government in this country owing to their being the majority in the "West Bank"), then the traditional pre-1949 borders of Palestine proper does indeed have a Jewish majority at this time (excluding Gaza), and they are therefore entitled to their right of governance over the land.
- By "Jewish State" is simply meant Israel's ancestral homeland. This view is still in keeping with the age-old tradition of allowing non-Jewish citizens to settle the land. As is known, foreigners have always lived within the traditional boundaries of the "Land of Israel," as defined by the boundaries settled by the returning exiles from Babylonia. Today, the term has more of a political connotation, insofar that a secular Jewish government controls the country whose borders coincide roughly with the traditional boundaries of the "Land of Israel."
- The 1947 UN "partition plan", though recognized by many nations, was merely a proposal, and, therefore, it is not binding upon Israel. This was overshadowed by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and where all sides (Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Israel) entered and retained parts of Palestine only by force of arms and, as events later came to be known, by the merciful protection of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, even though Syria and Jordan and Egypt could offer no tenable legal justification for their presence within the frontiers of the former Mandated Territory of Palestine. No sooner had the 1948 Arab-Israeli war come to an end and the armistice agreements signed without UN approbation than another war was in the brewing, this time over the innate hatred of the Arab states for Israel and their refusal to accept the objective existence of Israel, and their repeated declarations and intention to annihilate the State (considering themselves to be in a formal state of war with Israel). Thus, after the applicability of the "traditional law of war" following the breach in the terms of the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan in 1967 (which terms you can see here), and where one of the stipulations of the Armistice Agreement states: "No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other," Israel found the legal basis on which to restore the country's territorial integrity, national sovereignty and unity. Violation of one of the terms meant, in effect, a cancellation of the agreement signed between the two parties. The 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan was dissolved, in accordance with an old Jewish maxim: "If the terms of the testament have been cancelled in part, it is deemed as cancelled altogether!" (כל דייתיקי דבטלה מקצת בטלה כולה) - Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 2:6). The entire country became, at that time, "free-for-all."
- As for your continued assertion that Palestinian Arabs are not "citizens" of Israel, that is incorrect. They are, in fact, citizens with a different set of laws, similar, if you will, to China's "one state and two systems" policy, with respect to Hong Kong. You see, the people of Hong Kong enjoy more privileges than those in Mainland China. It is Israel's prerogative to define its own laws in accordance with its security needs. Still, we accord due respect and safety under the law to all of our citizens. Be well.
References
- ^ a b Gold, Dore (16 January 2002). "From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Israeli Security, Regional Diplomacy, and International Law). Retrieved 30 June 2017.
- ^ Eusebius IV.6, citing in the name of Ariston of Pella who writes: "...Hadrian then commanded that by a legal decree and ordinances the whole nation should be absolutely prevented from entering from thenceforth even the district round Jerusalem, so that not even from a distance could it see its ancestral home. ...Thus when the city came to be bereft of the nation of the Jews, and its ancient inhabitants had completely perished, it was colonized by foreigners..." (End Quote).
Davidbena (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davidbena: my mind is caught in a conflict, because (1) I can’t see how this discussion is helping us build an encyclopedia, (2) you seem like a good person who is open minded (so I enjoy the discussion), and (3) every topic we discuss starts from the base level of propaganda nonsense (so it’s hard work).
- So let me try to answer quickly, as a compromise. I am very familiar with the legal “debate” about occupation. It is a propaganda technique to ensure people “miss the wood for the trees”. I could debate the Fourth Geneva Convention, the UN resolution and the Armistice agreements with you for weeks and months, and we would not get any closer to a mutual understanding. Everything in this world can be justified through legal reasoning, in both directions, if you try hard enough. It’s why OJ Simpson was acquitted, and why the supporters of Apartheid South Africa or the Jim Crow laws couldn’t see just how abhorrent the subordination of their fellow human beings had been. If your brain is relying on such technical legal arguments to feel comfortable about the inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, I hope your heart is telling you the truth.
- On a related point, your Jewish exile statements are also significantly distorted by propaganda. See for example Israel Bartal here [1].
- “Jewish state” means different things to different people. The issue at the heart of the conflict is that the Jewish state concept has always been seen to imply subordination to the Palestinians. It doesn’t have to be so, but the ultra-right wing in Israel has never been kept properly in check. Most importantly, why can’t it be a “Jewish and Palestinian state”? After all, many Muslim and Christian Palestinians were once ethnic Judeans, if not religiously Jewish (note the double meaning at Ioudaioi). I am not sure what you mean by “foreigners”; the region has always had a mix of religions. There is no single “native” religion in the region. Again, “Jewish and Palestinian state” would go a long way to solving this problem.
- On the demographic majority, your point on carving out Gaza is exactly what the Israeli right wing have in mind. From a moral point of view, why not carve out Tel Aviv as well? Tel Aviv is in the “Biblical Philistine” area after all! Fantasy aside, the idea of excluding two million Palestinians in order to ensure Jewish majority in a fully annexed state may be attractive to Jewish nationalist, but it is horrifically amoral given what it would mean for the Gazans. Most importantly, it will mean that the regional anger against Israeli policy will not dissipate, and hatred will continue. It’s a simple question - Israel can choose the path of reconciliation or continue to be seduced by the disease of exclusivist nationalism.
- Onceinawhile (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Onceinawhile:Your suggestion of using " “Jewish and Palestinian state” - as if Palestine was antithetical to anything Jewish, or as if "Palestine" was dichotomous or different to the "Land of Israel" - is grossly misleading. The word "Palestine," being a geographical place, should not be used politically, but rather apolitically. Israel is a Jewish country by history, in spite of its diverse ethnic groups, just as all of Europe is comprised of countries of Christendom, though it too may have diverse ethnic and religious groups among them, and the Arabian Peninsula is an Islamic region of our world, although other religions may actually live there.Davidbena (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo: @Davidbena: the beauty of "Jewish and Palestinian State" is exactly because there is nothing antithetical about the two terms. The terms overlap in a Venn diagram, such that it includes everyone who claims the right to the land.
- Separately, when you say "Israel is a Jewish country by history", what do you mean? If you mean that the land between the river and the sea is only (or even mainly) Jewish by history, please note that that is an ignorant, damaging and bigoted view, held only by those who have never read the history of the region or else the most ignorant of ultra-nationalists. See History_of_Palestine#Graphical_overview_of_Palestine's_historical_sovereign_powers for example. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My friend, your comment arouses wonder. On one hand, you speak of the words Jewish and Palestinian in terms of ethnicity, saying that there is nothing antithetical about the two words for the same country, yet find it strange to say that the country is steeped more in Jewish history than in any other history. Why do you wish to expunge this fact? Of course, this is not saying that the histories of other peoples (e.g. Crusaders, Arabs, Byzantines, Romans, Grecians, etc.) did not also play a role in shaping the history of the country. Of course they did, just as the Berbers played a role in shaping the history of Christian Spain (Andalusia)! Even a cursory review of history will show you that. The important thing to remember, however, is that in all of these foreign conquests of Palestine ("the Land of Israel"), the Jewish nation has been central to their conquest. Even a Jew told Omar where to build the shrine known as Kubbat es-Sakhra (later, the "Dome of the Rock") on the Temple Mount. Look at the history of the Temple Mount and you will see Jewish history written all over the place! Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. The same can be said for the other two Abrahamic religions, both of which are a similar age and heritage to Rabbinic / Talmudic Judaism, and both similarly resulted out of the classical Ioudaioi. No modern group has a supreme claim over the history of the country; anyone claiming their group does simply hasn’t looked properly. I’m sure there’s a whole other debate to come out of this, but I respectfully wish to bring this discussion to a close, as it is now too far removed from the point of the article. I will not respond further. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think that I should have included Gaza in the territorial census for the "West Bank", since, after all, Israel lays no claims to Gaza and Israel has given to them autonomous self-rule, which it still has (aside from strictures put into place around the Gaza Strip because of its militarization)? You look upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with "western lenses" and you seem to slight the logic of Israel's rightful claims to its own country. We can just agree to disagree here. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davidbena:, your historical story missed some crucial points (e.g. it was the Jewish Agency and the WZO which pushed for partition), your description of the concept of sovereignty is incorrect, and you ignored the crucial point in this whole mess - citizenship.
- Citizenship is the key problem, not “martial law”. Israel controls the lives of millions of people to whom it is not accountable. That sounds bland, but it is a fundamental misalignment, and is the main reason that Israel feels “different” to other countries, and the main reason that the state is able to treat Palestinians like animals.
- Why won’t Israel offer citizenship? The answer is known as the “demographic threat”.
- The reason that the position you have described is so abhorrent and inhumane, is that you imply that the land belongs to Israel but the people do not. You might say “oh I think we are all the same”, and you’d be right, but if Israel offered citizenship to all Palestinians, it would not be a Jewish state any more. It would be a country for all religions, the way it was for thousands of years before 1948.
- Onceinawhile (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, it was the British government that first decided in 1937 to divide Palestine between the Jews and Arabs, as we learn in "The Survey of Palestine under the British Mandate: 1920 - 1948," published by the British Mandate government printing office in Jerusalem in 1946, p. 166:
- "The commission, under Lord Peel, was appointed on 7 August 1936 to investigate the cause for the outbreak of the Arab rebellion and the way the Articles of the Mandate were being implemented. Between November 1936 and January 1937 the commission studied the situation in the country, and in June 1937 published its recommendation to abolish the Mandate and to divide the country between Arabs and Jews."
- The UN also took the same position in 1947. The Arabs, however, rejected the 1947 proposed UN Partition Plan. War soon broke-out, with Egypt sending troops into the country to help secure the country for an Arab state, without any recognition of Israeli sovereignty. In the end, the borders were defined (delineated) by the outcome of war, and the Jordanian army taking-up positions within the territories meant to be part of the Arab state (at least by the failed plans of the British and UN), although in scope considerably less than what was originally intended. While Jews may have agreed to the partition at first, soon the territorial integrity of Israel/Palestine became the primary objective in the minds of the country's political elite. As for the Arab citizens of our country, Israel has tried many times to ameliorate their condition. However, what Westerners often misunderstand about Israel's policy towards its multi-ethnic citizens is that, like in other Middle-Eastern countries, Israel wishes to preserve the Jewish characteristics and make-up of the State for which it was founded. The Arabs are, indeed, our fellow citizens of this country. Aside from security check-points in areas prone to insurrection and violence (and where suicide bombers have passed in the past), they are not discriminated against, and are often given work permits in Israeli towns and cities. They have their own municipalities and local councils and governing bodies, each made-up of their own people (the Palestinian Authority). Yet, because of the long history of hostility, the majority are also excluded from holding government positions in the Israeli government, but can hold them in their own local councils. Like in other Middle-Eastern countries, Israel in this regard is not a completely democratic state, since the ensured security and safety of its Jewish citizens and their lifestyle within their ancestral homeland, along with fraternal considerations and religion, take precedence over democracy. Still, we can respect our fellow Arab Muslim, Christian, Samaritan and Druze citizens, and accord them with all the protection and human dignity guaranteed by the law.Davidbena (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davidbena: the Palestinians are not citizens. They cannot vote in Israeli elections. That has nothing to do with “safety and security”. As a result, Israel has slowly built policies which treat the Palestinians as animals, without any accountability. Few Israeli voters care; it has been going on longer than most have been alive. Those impacted have no recourse. They can’t vote against. So the Palestinians suffer, whilst in Israel the majority of otherwise educated and good-hearted citizens look away. To get back to the point related to this article, Israel simply cannot have sovereignty over the land without making the people citizens.Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course they're citizens! Each person born in this country, or naturalized therein, has his/her State ID. Arabs can vote for their own municipalities. Perhaps you are confusing "citizenship" with "governance." Perhaps you should be reminded that Jews have lived in the country known as the Land of Israel (Palestine) for 2,000 years while being subject to foreign powers. This did not take away from their citizenship. Even when there were Jewish kings in the country, the first being King Saul and the last one being Agrippa II, there were foreign nationals or citizens of other ethnic backgrounds living in the country who were always subject to the ruling class. They paid taxes and did not dare to fight against the ruling power. Moreover, in a monarchy, no one votes! Authority is passed down from father to son. This did not make the people any less citizens! Today, however, our situation is different. The vast majority of Israel's Arab or non-Jewish citizens are happy and live quiet, unmolested lives. The few that are chastised, are those who challenge Israel's authority. Enough has been said about this.Davidbena (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "The vast majority of Israel's Arab or non-Jewish citizens are happy and live quiet, unmolested lives. The few that are chastised, are those who challenge Israel's authority." Lol, who taught you this fairy-tale? Huldra (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Huldra: the most amazing part is that David is including West Bank and Gaza Strip Palestinians in that statement.
- David, please don’t believe anything that anyone tells you, including me of course. Just go and see for yourself, with your own eyes and ears. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: I was referring here to the majority of the Arabs living in the so-called "West-Bank," but I was not referring to Gaza. In their case, it's fair to say that they have brought their hardships upon themselves.Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "it's fair to say that they have brought their hardships upon themselves" ..I think this is the most outrageous thing I have ever seen you say. Blaming the victim much? I wonder....if anyone said that the Holocaust was caused by the Jews themselves...how long would it take for that person to be lynched? Not long, I suspect. Rrrrright, we get it: all Jewish victims are 100% innocent, while for all Palestinian victims "it's fair to say that they have brought their hardships upon themselves". Huldra (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Truthfully, space should not be allotted here for a discussion about Gaza, since Israel lays no claim to Gaza, anymore than it does to Sinai. Here, we're talking about the Jewish State of Israel and overlapping that term with the "Palestinian territories" in the West Bank. If though you're questioning Israel's humanitarian role towards Gaza, Israel expressed its willingness in 1993 to give autonomy to the people of Gaza, and Israel duly disengaged from Gaza in 2005, when the Gazans were then given full-autonomy. However, the militant sort in Gaza sought innovations against Israel by importing lethal weapons to be used as part of their "armed resistance" against Israel. This led to Israel putting a naval and land blockade on Gaza in 2007. This, however, did not prevent the militant sort in Gaza from making home-made rockets which they indiscriminately used against Israel. Tunnels were also made for smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and also to wage attacks against Israeli positions in Israel. What does a country like Israel do under such circumstances? Sadly, the innocent children are the largest sufferers, who die from the collateral damage inflicted by bombs meant for those firing rockets at Israeli positions.Davidbena (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davidbena:This article explains the reality. See point 6 on citizenship
- Onceinawhile (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What Israel does to the belligerent sort in our country is largely dictated by Israel's special security needs. Don't forget that there is a long history of hostilities. Gaza is a perfect example of this, where Israel gave to them full-autonomy, but they used this liberty to import lethal weapons to be fired at Israeli cities. Even so, Israel provides them with water and electricity! What is needed is a time of healing and introspection. Your "Huffington Post" article is terribly misleading and inaccurate. It describes Israeli settlements in the country as being in "occupied Palestinian territories." If it means by "occupied territories" that Israel ought to return to the pre-1967 borders, bear in mind that Jordan held "East Jerusalem" and the "West Bank" between 1949-1967, and that its inhabitants were under occupation by Jordan as well; in saying so, we're back to square one. If it means, however, "occupied territories," in the sense that native "Palestinians" are being held under the dictates of an Israeli government and that Israel should return to the pre-1967 border without its own presence in that territory, this too is problematic, since Jews living in the country prior to 1948 were also called "Palestinians!" This, therefore, makes them just as much a part of the "Palestinian equation" as are Arabs, and they would be equally entitled to the land as anyone else. In the final analysis, the question has little to do with "occupation" in the pure sense of the word, but rather with wanting to be given a sovereign state and territory of their own (which they've never had before), at the expense of Jewish hegemony. Peace can be had if the Arabs, generally speaking, will agree to live with Israel, without any pre-conditions. Mutual respect and goodwill are needed, and which for the most part already exist between the two peoples. You'd have to come here to see it for yourself. I, for an example, being an Israeli, work at a place where there are Arab co-workers, and they come from areas controlled by the PA. Be well. PS- if you wish to discuss in depth the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is not the place. We cannot use Talk-Pages as a chat forum.Davidbena (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with your last sentence, per WP:NOTFORUM. The rest is hopelessly confused. You clearly care passionately, perhaps too much. Anyway, good luck to you. If you ever want to understand another perspective, you know where to find me.
- As to this article, I think the debate is resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- After "re-wording" some sentences, here and there, I think now the Israeli position is very clear to our readers. Happy editing!Davidbena (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ”The Israeli position”?! I thought I was discussing with you an individual, not the national propaganda! Onceinawhile (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You are discussing these issues with me, and I have done my best to show the reality as most Israelis see it. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Feedback service asked me to comment on this, but the topic has turned into a political debate. I suppose Israel/Palestine would be my preferred solution, but I have no intention of becoming embroiled in the debate. Nobody is going to win the debate anyway:
- TIME magazine: Seventy years after Israel’s declaration of independence, the conflict appears to be returning to its roots. The Israeli government is demanding that Palestinians recognize the right of Jews to their own state in historic Palestine. The Palestinians are demanding the right to return home. The two goals cannot be reconciled. And the passing of time has done little to quell the yearning for them. http://time.com/5273108/back-to-the-future-israeli-palestinian-conflict/ Peter K Burian (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Peter. As someone once wrote: "What was once imagined as a single land has become an assortment of territories. These territories bear multiple names and different legal statuses, and their boundaries are often blurred" (END QUOTE). The "Historical Palestine" is now construed with the politically-charged word, "Palestine", the country so-called by all its inhabitants prior to 1949, and home of the Arab-Palestinians who long for a state of their own. Likewise, the "Historical Land of Israel", at least in the minds of Arab-Palestinians, is now construed with the modern, political State of Israel. To many, both words (Palestine vs. Israel) seem to be mutually exclusive, when they ought not to be. The proper way of addressing this issue in articles such as these and which are plainly apolitical in nature, is, in my view, to add the neutral words of "Israel/Palestine" for the country's geographical location. I have seen this done in peer-reviewed articles where the writer does not wish to offend anyone.Davidbena (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|