Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Self-Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel

The current title "Israeli Declaration of Independence" is incorrect. To be independent you need first to exist! Israel didn't exist before this self-declaration! So the correct title would be "Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel" as in www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00hb0

An even more correct title would be: "Self-Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel"

Warning: The user "No More Nice Guy" doesn't exist or doesn't have a talk page, yet he's actively reverting edits!!! How's this possible???

173.45.200.99 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Declaration instead of Proclamation

The term used in the article and in its title is "Declaration" but for some reason the paragraph "Proclamation Ceremony" is different. For the sake of consistency I suggest to replace "proclamation" with "declaration" in this paragraph, unless there are convincing arguments to the contrary. Hoheys (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Self-declaration is more appropriate as the Zionist representing the then Jewish Palestinian minority, self-made the declaration without consulting with the remaining majority population of Arab-Muslims and Christian population. So they actually broke out of the previous legitimate state of Palestine, a previous province (Vilayet) of the late Ottoman Empire before their British occupation.

I also added some clarification about the self-declaration event, its contextual history, and its protestation by the Arab-Muslim Palestinians and their supportive other Arab-states.

The Background section offer then more details about the history of the self-declaration and the induced conflict. √∀~` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.200.99 (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

On independence: conception vs birth

On these matters, timings and cutoffs etc., I take a view that is actually based on external criteria: mainly, self consistency. I do not accept that the USA became independent in 1776, Indonesia in 1945 - or Israel on precisely this date in 1948. Rather, I regard those as moments of conception, with independence being like a birth attained sooner or later but always after conception. I take this view, as any other implies (say) that the Confederate States of America attained independence in 1861 only to lose it in 1865 - something that is in fact true of Texas' time as the Lone Star State. For me, US attainment of independence was in 1783 - as any earlier point was capable of being overtaken by events. This in no way affects the real significance of 1776 as a mythic event, an input to the people of the USA; it's just that it's only the declaration, not the achievement.

This approach is criticised in some quarters - for instance newsgroups, where the coincidence of my applying the approach to Israel is sometimes misread as being antisemitic. But I am actually applying something more general. However, rather than jump straight in, I am going to canvass this sensitive area and outline examples of the sort of specific change I want this article to reflect. For instance, the declaration was not based on the views of the Israeli public - there was no such public until after everything had taken effect. And, to me, independence was only really attained at one of two possible points: UN recognition, or the end of that war itself (analogues of 1783 and 1781 for the USA respectively, so I prefer the later of the two dates).

Now, with a view to making this self consistent and consistent with other things (like the possibility that there would have been no state of Israel, whether because of the Arabs or Hillel Kook and the like), what changes of wording and/or of cutoff dates would work and not be felt as antisemitic? In this sensitive area it is far too easy for people to feel a different rational approach is simple prejudice, and I want to head off that form of anti-rationalism as much as I can in advance. A vain hope, I'm sure. PML. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.5.75 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 April 2003

Page move to "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel"?

Surely this page should be moved to "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel" . ed g2s • talk 19:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Moving this to talk: "No Arab nations were at the time members of the League of Nations, and hence the Arabs of Palestine lacked Arab support, although they got the support of other muslim countries (such as Pakistan and even India and Yugoslavia which had large Muslim minorities)." - it is unclear who makes this argument. Why would the Arabs decide Jewish self-determination? How many Jewish nations were at the time the members of the League of Nations? If we are going to discuss this point (this article is a wrong place), we should note the fact that 20+ Arab nations were carved out of the Ottoman Empire (note, this number does not include non-Arab states such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, etc.) ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: The request for citations

There is some background on the whole topic of the story surrounding the signing here

This Line Wasn't Needed--85.250.231.91 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS

I noticed Humus claimed that The Guardian is not RS. LOL. Are Arutz Sheva and JPost the only RS for him? Fine. Read this from JPost [1]. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 08:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

First, Nielswik: do not tag major edits like this as "minor" and use edit summaries. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I set my default mode to minor. I'm changing it latter. Anyway, I just added another name, and that's not major edit. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 09:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please set your defaults responsibly because it looks like you use them to deceive. From now on let's assume that you do know how to use Minor edit and Edit summary. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Second, Nakba is Palestinian exodus and not the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Naqba is Israel's creation. Even JPost said so ... during a speech marking the anniversary of what the Palestinians consider to be the "catastrophe" (Nakba) of Israel's creation. ... [2] and of course guardian Al-Naqba:The annual "day of catastrophe" marked by Palestinians on the anniversary of Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948 [3]. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 09:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Only one article should use Naqba as "another name", you cannot stick it everywhere you want. See also 1948 Arab-Israeli War. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Third, newspapers are good for news and not good for encyclopedic definitions. Guardian is good for nothing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I heard pro-Israeli editor denied Al-Manar as RS before, but this is the first time i heard Guardian is not an RS. Please stop attributing non-Israeli sources as non-RS. I have no idea what is your definition of RS, but according to wikipedia definition The Guardian definitely is. Why don't you think so, anyway? It is a terrorist organization? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 09:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Look CNN: Palestinians mark the anniversary of what they call "Al-Naqba" or "day of catastrophe" -- the creation of the Israeli state, The Israel Project: AN-NAQBA - Literally means "catastrophe." The Muslim name for Israeli Independence Day. If you think CNN is not RS, let me know what is your definition of RS. Where is your sources that it is palestinian exodus anyway? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 09:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly sources for encyclopedic definitions, please. If you insist that "Naqba" is "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel" then it should be removed as "another name" from other terms. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously an Naqba is the creation of Israel. I have no idea why it appeared at other articles. Ask people who added it. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 16:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS should settle this. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What did you mean by RS? After you rejected the reliability of CNN, Guardian, even your pro-Israeli JPost, I have no idea what to do. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 04:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

AUSTRALIA

Australia was also one of the first countries to Recognise Israel along with the others already noted. I feel that Australia Sould be added to the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.180.194.93 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Declaration of Establishment!?

There was no such declaration - it was called "Declaration of Independence" and it is generally referred to as such. Calling it something else reduces the usefulness of the entry in the encyclopaedia. Any thoughts on this? Whether or not calling it "Declaration of Independence" makes sense is a separate issue, and not really relevant to any entries concerning history of Israel. If there are no objections, I will create an entry for "Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel" copy contents of this entry to it, and redirect this entry to it. Michael Voytinsky 17:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the basis for your statement. The government of Israel refers to it as the "Declaration of The Establishment of the State of Israel". (The link to the document on the government web site is in this article under External Links.) The body of the document also uses the word "establishment." I realize that these are translations from the original Hebrew, but the Israeli government seems like a pretty reliable source for the terminology of its own history. 6SJ7 17:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In Hebrew it is הכרזת העצמאות, which is Declaration of Independence, that one website is not a basis for it to be written like that and doesn't make it an offical stance by the Israeli government. Also, Declaration of Independence is the standard English term for not only Israel, but most countires. Epson291 09:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the translation, as I cannot read Hebrew. However, I don't see how you can say that the English version of a phrase appearing on the Israeli government web site is not the official "stance" of the Israeli government. It seems pretty official to me. I am not going to change this back, I will just note that you have now created a situation where the name of this document on Wikipedia now differs from its name all over the Internet, including the official Israeli government web site. This also raises the question of whether an editor's translation of a phrase, when it differs from the translation by other sources, is "original research." 6SJ7 20:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an added note, I do not mean to imply that I think the Israeli government web site is always correct in its translations from Hebrew into English; in fact, I know of at least one example where the same Hebrew phrase is translated into at least two different English phrases on different pages, suggesting that one or more of the translations are "incorrect". (See Talk:Deputy leaders of Israel.) But it raises the same issue I mentioned above, that is: How is Wikipedia supposed to decide which is "correct", when some of us know the "source" language and some of us don't? 6SJ7 00:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For הכרזת העצמאות, the "הכרזת" means announcement, declaration, or proclamation. "העצמאות" means independence or self-sufficiency. So the particular person who made that webpage descided not to do a translation of the Hebrew term at all rather just a descirption of what the paper was (which contains the phrase 'establishment of the state of Israel' near the bottom). It was a "declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel" just as much as it was a "declaration of independence.", though the latter term is the same as the Hebrew and the standard "phrase" for many other countries (Declaration of independence).

An offical Israeli website, the website for the parliament (knesset), http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm or http://www.knesset.gov.il/lexicon/eng/megilat_eng.htm, has both (though using "proclamation" instead, and on the second website only uses the direct translation from Hebrew. Epson291 07:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Main Page

Shouldn't it say "Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion publicly read Israel's Declaration of Independence in Tel Aviv."
It would be more clear as to which country they are referring. Just my thoughts.
Blindman shady 04:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For effect of translation in the World

Segundo consta, os palestinos na extinta Palestina e inclusive os judeus, não conheciam o hebraico em 1947 mas sim o árabe, no entanto como existe em exposição na Knesset, um documento original dessa declaração, escrito em hebraico, tudo leva a crer que trata-se de uma sobreposição de caracteres hebraicos sobre as letras de um idioma existente. Seria interessante então, que informassem (a titulo de tradução) sobre qual idioma foi plotado os caracteres hebraicos, isso é, se foi escrito em inglês com caracteres hebraicos, ou em árabe (já que era o idioma da região) com caracteres hebraicos?.

Outra dúvida que é oportuno incluirem aqui: A quem foi endereçada essa importante declaração? Aos ingleses ou aos palestinos?

Por favor, traduzam-me essas dúvidas para que a meu filhinho de 5 anos de idade, possa contar com a tradução do "Microsoft Word" e desse modo, conhecer as palavras que sustentam as bases de Israel.

Improvement

Very nice - I especially like the lesson that if you want to be notable - don't write the first draft! Johnbod 03:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This page should be redirect to Israeli Declaration of Independence. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Open issues for this article

There are a few open issues this article should address:

• It should state explicitly the borders of the new state of Israel immediately after creation. The article only implies that the borders initially followed the UN resolution, as does the text of the Declaration itself. It'd be good for somebody who knows with certainty what the deal was with that.
• There's a printing issue with the Declaration itself where the article doesn't print text next to the declaration.
• Does the 1:45 time refer to am or pm? I assume pm but it should be explicit in the article, e.g., "1:45 in the afternoon...".
• minor issue: we should also choose serial comma, or no serial comma. I vote serial comma.

The article could be expanded more but it is in decent shape. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

picture of independence hall is of the one in America

Good catch. I fixed this. Someone thought they were just correcting a spelling error, but there are 2 images, Independence Hall.jpg (a building in Philadelphia) and Independance Hall.jpg (a building in Israel), and the incorrectly spelled one is the one that belongs in this article. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving this here ...

... as it's not clear what it means in the section it was placed:

"The General Assembly of the United Nations had resolved that a declaration to the effect of "No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex" would be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed state before independence. The General Assembly resolution mandated that the stipulations contained in the Declarations were to be non-derogatory and they were to be "recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See if the new Background subsection "United Nations Stipulations" clarifies this. harlan (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Similarity to the American Declaration

I found a fascinating article about the similarities between the Israeli declaration and the American declaration. I was thinking about incorporating info from it into the "drafting" section, but thought I'd discuss it here first as to how to do it best. Here's the link: http://chnm.gmu.edu/declaration/troen.html#pgfid=1000642 --GHcool (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nakba

There is some hairsplitting going on regarding the inclusion of a brief statement which says that some citizens observe the anniversary of the declaration, and call it Yom Ha'atzmaut, while Palestinians observe the same day as the Nakba. It is manifestly notable, since the Knesset decided to adopt Nakba legislation that applies to Israeli-Arabs.

The applicable policy says "Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV), instead of supporting one over another, even if you believe something strongly. Talk (discussion) pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better."

The published view of the Palestinian population about the "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel" is that Israel has been a catastrophe for them from its very inception. See for example Ministers to review revised 'Nakba Law' That article says "Ministerial Committee on Legislative Affairs will discuss softened version of motion banning marking of 'catastrophe' of Israel's inception."

The mandates were legally classified as dependent states, see the American Law Encyclopedia Vol 3 [4] They had their own citizenship laws, administrations, courts, passports, and etc.

The intention of the League of Nations for the mandatory regime in Palestine was that it would lead to Palestinian independence. In 1937 the members of the League of Nations Mandate Commission advised the Jewish Agency leadership that their desire for a Jewish state in Palestine was incompatible with the terms of the mandate. see Letters to Paula and the Children, David Ben-Gurion, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press, 1971, page 135.

Most historical accounts emphasize the fact that the Declaration of Independence was not made within the UN-backed transition plan framework and did not adopt the UN recommended boundaries. See for example the published minutes of the discussion in People's Council. [5] The declaration was made on 14 May, while the Mandate was still in effect. It was an act of secession that effected the civil and political rights of the non-Jewish citizens of Palestine. harlan (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the page about the Israeli Independence Day mentions that many Arab-Israelis celebrate the "Nakba." And what do you mean "most historical account" don't see that the Declaration of Independence was in the UN-boundaries? Please Wilkerson, stop your spin, and attempts to say things you cannot back up. It was not a secessionist movement, as there was no state to secede from, especially given that the British left the next day, and it was timed as such, obviously. Also, the Arab delegation REJECTED the partition, and when the armistice lines were laid out, Israel on the world map and when recognized by the nations it was after the agreements, was recognized within the armistice lines.Tallicfan20 (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The link to the American Law Encyclopedia explains that the mandates were states. Most historical accounts describe the conflict as a civil war. see for example: Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War, By Benny Morris There was no legal requirement for the Palestinians to accept the partition of their country under threat of the use of force or the use of force. The mandate provided that it did not effect the nationality of Jews in other countries. It also stipulated that the laws were supposed to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who took up their permanent residence in Palestine. Mr. Eban opposed a Security Council resolution to obtain an advisory opinion from the ICJ regarding the legality of Israel's unilateral declaration. see S/PV.340. A similar case involving a unilateral declaration made by the officials of Kosovo is pending before the ICJ.

The United States stipulated that it would only recognize Israel if it claimed nothing beyond the boundaries outlined in the UN partition plan. [6] The armistice agreements themselves stipulated that the armistice lines were not permanent political boundaries. President Truman told King Abdullah of Transjordan "I desire to recall to Your Majesty that the policy of the United States Government as regards a final territorial settlement in Palestine and as stated in the General Assembly on Nov 30, 1948 by Dr. Philip Jessup, the American representative, is that Israel is entitled to the territory allotted to her by the General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947, but that if Israel desires additions, i.e., territory allotted to, the Arabs by the November 29 Resolution, it should offer territorial compensation. see FRUS Volume VI 1949, 878-879.

At the 386th meeting of the Security Council the representative of the Soviet Union, Mr Malik said: "In our opinion, the territory of the State of Israel has been determined and delimited by an international instrument, that is, the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947, and which remains in force. He also said "That resolution is an international legal document entitling the State of Israel and the Arab State in Palestine to their creation and existence, and nobody-–except, of course, the General Assembly-–has a right to revoke it."

Ha ha ha! Just one example of a distortion you made in your above diatribe, you made Mr. Malik into "the representative of the Soviet Union", when in fact Mr. Malik was the representative of Lebanon, an Arab country that fought AGAINST the establishment of Israel in 1948. One wouldn't expect a dispassionate opinion from him regarding Israel, would one?

Moreover, you should go back and read UNGA 181. It repeatedly emphasizes that the partition plan is a RECOMMENDATION. That means NOT BINDING. No amount of distortion will ever take those words out of the text. RECOMMENDS. RECOMMENDATION. PLAN. Non-binding terrminology, par excellence.

The partition plan was rejected by the Arabs, not implemted by the British, and not adopted or implemented by the UN Security Council, which passed instead Res. 44, urging the General Assembly to go back and reconsider the future government of Palestine. Moreover the Partition Plan recommended boundaries were never confirmed into Israeli legal code.

To pretend that the Partition Plan boundaries constitue legal international boundaries in international law is nothing but a fraudulent "after-the-fact" assertion, with no basis in fact. JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.153 (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is nonsense! Resolutions are not international law, they are recomendations, suggestions, thats all. Resolution 181 was in any case illegitimate under UN charter article 80. The UN had no right to bring such a resolution to the general assembly. All the land west of the Jordan river had already been deemed Jewish land by the San Remo treaty and the British Mandate. Acquired rights cannot be taken away even by the UN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivish (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I also gave you a link to the discussion between Rosenblueth and Ben Gurion on boundaries. There is much more published material in the Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981 Edited by Netanel Lorch. David Ben Gurion, D.Z.Pinkas, Menahem Begin, Arieh Altman, and many others said that they did not accept the UN boundaries.

During the US Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the The Colonization Of The West Bank Territories By Israel in 1977. The legal status of the partition plan and the minority rights provisions were addressed by Dr W. Thomas Mallison. He stated that territory was only allocated by the UN on condition that Israel guarantee all persons equal and nondiscriminatory rights in civil, political, economic, and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly, and association." He said "The refusal of the State of Israel to comply with the nondiscriminatory requirements of the Palestine partition resolution, its main claim to title, puts in serious jeopardy its claim to legal title to the limited territory allocated to it by the resolution."

For more information see: "The Declaration has Two Faces: The Interesting Story of the ‘Zionist Declaration of Independence’ and the ‘Democratic Declaration of Independence’," Tel Aviv University Law Review (Iyunei Mishpat) Issue 23, 2000: 473-539. and MKs debate protection of 'equality' in future constitution. harlan (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 03:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Declaration of Independence (Israel) → Israeli Declaration of Independence — Match usage in lede; more natural. —Cybercobra (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Matches similar style for other countries (though not all). Skinsmoke (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Always prefer full text over use of qualifiers.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New section needed

The article as written makes passing allusions to the unrest occurring at the time of the declaration ("trapped in besieged Jerusalem", etc.), but doesn't really discuss it as the background against which the declaration was written and adopted. This should be included, likely it its own section, at the end of the historical/background discussion.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The genocidal Azzam quote

It seems highly questionable to report the genocidal Azzam quote at the end of the Aftermath paragraph as fact, when it is called into question elsewhere on wikipedia with cited references (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#cite_note-84), and is quite out of character considering his previous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Hassan_Azzam#cite_note-29) and later (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Hassan_Azzam#cite_note-34) actions.

If nobody convinces me otherwise I'll rephrase or remove it.

(I hope I'm making sense, I'm quite new to the whole wikipedia editing thingie) Perraberra (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote was indeed made by Azzam Pasha on October 11, 1947 (not in April 1948 as had been commonly reported. See the Wikipedia article on Azzam Pasha for details. I don't see how the change of date softens the contents of the quote, though.

I deleted it. The two most recent published comments about this quotation by serious historians have both cast doubt on it, see discussion here (which will be extended soon since I found the original source). It is also not appropriate to this article, which is not about the Arab-Israeli War that is treated extensively in other articles. Zero^talk 01:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It should not have been deleted. The quote was indeed made, though not in April 1948 as commonly reported. Azzam's words were found to have come from a time several months earlier, in an October 11, 1947 interview in the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar el-Yom.

In that interview he is reported as saying:

“ "Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades. I think the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will exceed the Palestinian population." ”

JD

UNGA Res. 181 is not a "requirement" to anything

UNGA Res. 181 is not a legally binding document, and does not subject anyone to any requirements. It was a recommendation (the very term used in the document itself), and was never adopted by the UNSC as the basis for any action or implementation. Wikipedia's twisting of the language of the document to suggest it is a legally binding document is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.45 (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Introduction: Correct wording of Declaration

Noon

1 The word declaration in English is intended to have a legal effect and that is why the English translation uses that word. Announcement would impliy that it had already happened.

2 The words in capitals are the key words in the Declaratation and are in capitals because that is how the appear in the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs from which they were copied and pasted.

3 Nowhere in the Declaration do the words Judea or Samaria appear.

4 I have, however made a wikilink of ERETZ-ISRAEL in the Declaration to the article Eretz Israel.

5. The only reference to where the new state is located is in Eretz Israel Any attempt to describe its location elsewhere is inconsitent with the text of the document.Trahelliven (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite having been reverted twice, the only objection expressed to to my amendment to the introductory paragraph was that part was in capitals (Also you inserted a load of text into the introduction in capital letters - - Number 57). I simply copied and pasted from the Israeli Ministry of foreigh Affairs version. Noon reverted but, in respect of the introductory paragraph, gave no reason. I will accoedingly put back the intruductory paragraph without the capitals.Trahelliven (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your last edit is correct and well sourced. I think it's the best wording for the lead. Noon (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas and Noon

In my view, whatever else the lead must contain all the operative words, declared or declaration and establisment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. I therefore think that the alteration by Lihaas is unsatisfactory.

The subsequent amendmwnt by Noon is, in my view, correct, but it unnecessarily breaks it up into two sentences, causing the repetition of the words, was made. I prefer my version.Trahelliven (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have slightly amended the wording.Trahelliven (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Context and content

This section is unnecessary. The text of the Declararion speaks for itself and the introductory comments are in most cases not an accurare summary.Trahelliven (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have received no comments and I therefore propose to delete this section in a week's time. Trahelliven (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not agreed: the section is absolutely relevant. It summarises and presents the "Israeli Declaration of Independence", which is exactly what the entry is about. Deletion of the section amounts to vandalism. 85.165.26.128 (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

85.165.26.128|85.165.26.128

I was polite enough to give notice that I intended to delete the section. No-one objected and therefore I deleted it. In the circumstances, as I understand the etiquette of the talk pages, for you to revert in those circumstances is a breach of those rules. You are new to Wikipedia and may therefore be unaware of the rules. May I also suggest that you obtain a username.

The commentary to the section makes a political statement, the inclusion of which is inappropriate:-

The European Holocaust of 1939–45 is part of the imperative for the re-settlement of the homeland.

They assumes that the modern Jew without giving a reliable reference is, in a meaningful way, a genetic descendant of those who left Palestine in ancient times - [7] Yahoo is not meant to be a reliable reference. It just suggests that the basic assumption of Zionism is not universally accepted:-

It acknowledges the Jewish exile over the millennia, mentioning both ancient "faith" and new "politics

It speaks of the urge of Jews to return to their ancient homeland.

In the following comment the use of the term Israel is incorrect. The immigrants referred to all arrived before the modern state of Israel was established:-

It describes Jewish immigrants to Israel in the following terms

In the Resolution, the reference to the Arab state always precedes the reference to the Jewish state:-

It recommended the establishment of a provisional government for the Jewish State and the Arab State, which would be subject to certain constitutional requirements and guarantees.[32] It recommended for the inhabitants of each State to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that constitutional form of government. On the issues of sovereignty and self-determination

In the Declaration the the term takes steps is used in refernce to economic union rather than pledge. The commentary assumes that the political statements are necessarily correct.

Pending resolving the discussion, may I suggest you self-revert? Trahelliven (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only is your response rather pompous, it is also wrong. In the circumstances (WP:BRD), you made the bold edit of removing the section, someone else reverted it. Now you discuss. You do not get to revert again. Number 57 14:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

I addressed a number of the comments in the article, one at a time. It would be helpful if you would address my comments in the same way. Trahelliven (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

NMMNG

AndyTheGrump

I have been in a discussion with No More Mr Nice Guy in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ‎ (→‎Greater Israel: New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies). I amended the article on ‎Greater Israel by adding the following:-

The website of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies has a page on the Geography of Israel containing a description of Israel's borders, including the following:- Egypt to the south and Jordan to the east. The map of Israel shows the West Bank simply as Samaria and Judea. The map notes that both Samaria and Judea were Under Jordanian Rule Until 1967. The website notes that the Board of Deputies is the official elected representative roof-body of the Jewish Community in New South Wales,..

Without a reliable source, I deliberately refrained from giving any interpretation. NMMNG, however, made the following comment:-

'You need a reliable source to describe what's on that web site. It's called WP:V. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

To my mind the comments in this article under Context and content, clearly break the rule as annunciated by NMMNG. Apart for writing one article for the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs[8], who is Shelley Kleiman? I think the comments should br deleted for this reason and the reasons mentioned above. Trahelliven (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between describing what's on a map and connecting it to a concept in an article without the source making such an explicit connection, and quoting from a document that's the subject of an article. That said, I think the text connecting the quotes in that section is OR. I'm sure it should be possible to source such commentary from a RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why Trahelliven has asked me to involve myself in this discussion. I have already made clear on the Reliable sources noticeboard that unless there is a suggestion from secondary sources that the opinion of the NSW Board of Deputy's views on the subject of the borders of Israel is considered relevant to the question, we shouldn't, and thus there is nothing more to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG

I have no intention of looking for RS; this is a matter for those who wish to keep the section, including Number 57 who also has a message on his page. Trahelliven (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying this text is unverifiable? Otherwise I suggest you read the first section of WP:V. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG

I am not saying that the text is unverifiable. I am just leaving it to someone else to verify. Trahelliven (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG I have not heard from Number 57. You might br interested in my discussion on UNGA resolution 67/19 of 29 Novemver 2012, where I think it would be better to include the resolution without comment. In that cse, it is probably too early to get RS on what it means. Would I be a little premature in the present case to delete the whole sedction and simply insert the declaration as per the Israeli Foreign Affairs website. Trahelliven (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think including the whole text is a good idea. That's what links are for. We should include those portions of the text RS decide to highlight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG

I agree with you that inserting the text of the whole document is unnecessary. In the absence of anyone being able to do find the RS to support the comments within a reasonable time, I think they should be deleted. I will insert a further link in the infobox to the MFA translation.

I then noticed at the bottom of the infobox the following:-

Purpose: Declare a Jewish state in parts of the British Mandate for Palestine after its expiration.

I have difficulty with the statement. The translation by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs [9] describes the location of the new state as IN ERETZ-ISRAEL. Where does the phrase in parts of the British Mandate for Palestine come from?

I think it should read: Purpose Declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. Trahelliven (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

I addressed a number of comments (see above) on 02:16, 3 August 2012. It would be helpful if you would address those comments in the same way. Trahelliven (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC). Trahelliven (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't follow your reasoning - it's very difficult to read your comments. Why exactly do you want to delete this bit? Number 57 20:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

1) The following two comments have no RS. Each implies that the modern day Jew is a descendant in a real genaelogical sense of those who left Eretz-Israel two thousand years ago.:-

a) It speaks of the urge of Jews to return to their ancient homeland:.

b)The European Holocaust of 1939–45 is part of the imperative for the re-settlement of the homeland:

2) In any event the whole section is couched in emotive and flowery language, quite inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Trahelliven (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

United Nations stipulations

1 I am not sure of the relevance of the section. I suggest thst the whole section be deleted. Any objections? Trahelliven (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of Israeli declaration of 14 May 1948

Number 57

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel, there is discussion Re - the use of the term, Eretz-Israel being a reference to borders?. I took part in that discussion. Unfortunately it never came to a consensus.

You prefer the following wording for its purpose:

Declare a Jewish state in parts of the British Mandate for Palestine after its expiration.

1 The Declaration uses the words Eretz Israel.

2 Even if Eretz Israel can be translated as Palestine, does that translation necessarily mean the same as the area of the British Mandate? The article on Eretz Israel gives severeal Biblical references which suggest that it may include part of Egypt.

It is easier to use the words of the Declaration as translated by the Israeli MOFA.[10] Trahelliven (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason the caption on "purpose" in the DOI article uses the phrase Mandate Palestine is because that is the common name for the territory, whereas "Eretz Israel" was the Jewish name for it (this is why the article on the territory is not called Eretz Israel"). The link you provided also states "On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel.", which suggests the phrasing of the purpose is correct as it stands. Number 57 09:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

1 Eretz Israel is NOT the Jewish name for the area of the British Mandate. It is the name for the territory roughly corresponding to the area encompassed by the Southern Levant (also known in English as Canaan [after the original inhabitants of the land according to the Bible], Palestine [after what Roman Judaea was renamed after the Romans ended the Bar Kochba revolt, Syria Palaestina], the Promised Land [after the Biblical promise of land to Abraham and his grandson Jacob (called Israel) and his sons in perpetuity], or simply the Holy Land [after its intense religious signification in both the Jewish and Christian religions]). [11] 2 The opening words of the MOFA website - [12], omit the vital words A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL. These words are in the operative words of the Declaration of 14 May 1948.

The vital words IN ERETZ-ISRAEL indicate that the new state may not necessarily be limited to the area of the British Mandate. Trahelliven (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm bemused by your response. To deal with your two points:

1. The British Mandate was known as Eretz Israel. You have selectively quoted the Land of Israel article and have conveniently ommitted the British Mandate section, in which it notes that "in 20th century political usage, the term "Land of Israel" usually denotes only those parts of the land which came under the British mandate." But anyway, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so please see the Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary which states "Under the British mandate, Eretz Yisrael came to designate the area of the Mandate."
2. The MOFA link does not "omit the vital words", but rather states "On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel."

Also, please indent your comments correctly, as it's making the discussion difficult to read. Number 57 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

1 The opening words of the Declaration of 14 May indicate that the the term Eeretz Israel was used in the original Biblical sense of The Land of Israel rather than refering to the area of the British Mandate:-

ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

2 The dictionary - http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Eretz_Yisrael.htm gives three separate meanings. It defines the use of the term Eretz Israel, in the context of the modern Jewish homeland, as being in the general area of Palestine. This is distinct from the third meaning, the area of the Mandate. If you want to rely on dictionary, the correct term to use is in the general area of Palestine.

3 The simplest thing to do is to use the key words of the document itself. Eretzz Israel, Ipsissima verba. Trahelliven (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

At the very least the words, parts of should be deleted. The term Eretz Israel is not in any way limited in the Declaration. Trahelliven (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you aren't making any sense - it's not the simplest thing to do as that is not what the territory was called before the establishment of Israel. Also, do not edit my comments to make it look like I started by addressing you by name. Number 57 08:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

1 The entry commencing - The reason the caption - was om my talk page and therefore presumably addressed to me.

2 The entry commencing - I'm bemused by your response. - , by the use of the second person, is addressed to someone. If not me, to whome is it addressed?

3 Is the section commencing - Sorry, you aren't making any sense - addressed to me?

4 Trahelliven - is not my name: it is my username.

5 I moved the first two entries to - Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence - for convenience sake. I then took the view that clarity required the addition of my username. Trahelliven (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to refer to someone by name in a discussion if your comment is directly below theirs. Hence as you are the only other person in this discussion, all my comments are aimed at you. Number 57 12:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

I take the point. I came across the talk page Talk:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 -Names Neither Palestinian nor Israeli Refugees. I am at a loss where one person's entry starts and finishes.

More importanrly, if the Declaration does not refer to parts of Eretz Israel, and Eretz Israel is the same as Mandatory Palestine, how can you talk about parts of the British Mandate for Palestine? Trahelliven (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Because that's the area that was controlled by the Yishuv. Number 57 14:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

I simply do not understand your comment? I am nor sure what that refers to. Trahelliven (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

For completnes, I have copied below from the Section headed 24 Context and content the following:-

I then noticed at the bottom of the infobox the following:-

Purpose: Declare a Jewish state in parts of the British Mandate for Palestine after its expiration.

I have difficulty with the statement. The translation by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs [9] describes the location of the new state as IN ERETZ-ISRAEL. Where does the phrase in parts of the British Mandate for Palestine come from?

I think it should read: Purpose Declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. Trahelliven (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I now wish to make a number of points:-

1) Your revert of 09:23, 7 December 2012 is less than 24 hours after your revert of 20:33, 6 December 2012. You are therefore in breach of the following rule:-

All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

2) On 26 November, I tried to involve you again in the discussion on the section Contents of the resolution I even put a note on your talk page, but you never responded.

3) You are inconsistent. You insist that I provide a secondary source, but you provide no source at all, merely saying You don't need a source for everything. This is clearly true and factual. If anything is clearly true and factual, it is the use of the very words of the key part of the Declaration, as translated by the Israeli MFA.

On or after 04:57, 8 December 2012, I intend to revert your revert of 09:23, 7 December 2012. 09:23, 7 December 2012. Trahelliven(talk) 11:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Formatting amended Trahelliven (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Using the exact wording of the declaration is not particularly useful. The infobox is for providing an overview of the declaration, not for repeating it. The specific section for the purpose needs to explain to the reader what happened, and so using phrases like "Eretz-Israel" is far less informative than "British Mandate".

As for responding to your previous request for comment, I had nothing else to add, particularly as it seems very difficult to discuss matters with you due to your odd formatting of talk page discussions. Number 57 12:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

PS my apologies for the revert within 24 hours - for some reason I thought 1RR was limited to certain troublemakers who had been warned as to their conduct (perhaps this was previously the case) rather than all editors. But saying you will revert as soon as your 24 hours is up is effectively gaming the system (and contrary to BRD). Number 57 12:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

I have tidied up my last edit. A few question:-

1) My overview of the declaration is different from yours. Mine is subjective. Is yours?

2) Where in the declaration does it state that it would become effective after its (meaning the British Mandate) expiration?

3) How about using Land of Israel?

4) The only indication of the location of the new state was that it was in Eretz-Israel, not in parts of anything. Where did you get the phrase in parts?

4 Why do you insist on me providing a Reliable Source, when you say in respect of youself You don't need a source for everything? Trahelliven (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe we have already discussed the usage of primary sources as opposed to secondary ones. It's trivial to find a secondary source that explains what the DoI is talking about, in fact, we have some already in the article. Why do you insist on quoting the primary source? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

1. I don't understand the question.

2. You may have a legitimate point here.

3. Land of Israel was not the common name of the state at the time, hence why the article is at Mandatory Palestine. This could probably also be reworded (the article on MP was moved to its current title relatively recently)

4. I didn't get that phrase anywhere, it was already in the article.

5. I'm not insisting on you getting a reliable source for anything. Where have I demanded one?

6. Please stop reverting. Per BRD, you should discuss any changes to the stable version and get consensus for making the change. There is clearly no consensus at present for your version (nor the removal of the Context and Content section).

Perhaps based on the above, we could reword it to say "Declare a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine shortly before the expiration of the British Mandate"? Number 57 21:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas

1) Your suggestion assumes that Mandatory Palestine is the term to use for Eretz-Israel. An article by Shelley Kleiman for the Israeli MFA uses Land of Israel for Eretz-Israel[13]. Any number of websites[[14]][[15]] suggest that it is a very old term that predates the Mandate. To avoid having to decide which meaning is the correct one, I prefer the term to remain as Eretz-Israel.

2) Does shortly before the expiration of the British Mandate refer to the time when David Ben-Gurion read the proclamation or when it was to take effect? Presumably the first. I would move the phrase to the beginning. I would be happy with The evening before...

In answer your points:-

1) Any overview of a document is subjective.

2} The time at which Israel comes into existence is not mentioned. It is the Provisional Government that comes into existence with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate.

3) See above.

4) Parts of appears in the article only in the disputed purpose and in the phrase, Jews from other parts of the world.

5) Your reverting edit of 20:33, 6 December 2012 at the very least implied it.

6) I agree that I was a little premature in reverting, but not in making the first edit of 20:03, 6 December 2012. Trahelliven (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas? But anyway, the phrase needs to refer to the name of the territory before independence. For Wiki purposes, that is Mandatory Palestine. The timing refers to when the declaration took place. I'm slightly confused by your various suggestions for amending the phrase. What is your suggestion for the entire phrase? Number 57 20:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

(My apologies. I am in discussions with Lihaas on res. 67/19. Particularly when editing, I find working out when one edit finishes and starts becomes easier if the name of the party to whom it is addressed is put first. I can glance quicly down the left of the page. This time I made a mistake.)

Eretz Israel (or Land of Israel), as used in the Biblical sense is a wonderfully vague term, depending on which book of the Old Testament you read. I have absolutely no RS to say that the drafters of the Declaration wanted to expand outside the area of the Mandate. Have you got RS to suggest that they did not? If the drafters used that term, who are we to alter it?

Shelley Kleiman in the beginning of her article for the Israeli MFA[16] translated it as Land of Israel. Would you be quite happy with that. Otherwise ,I prefer it as I drafted it. Trahelliven (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Eretz Israel is inappropriate here. We should refer to the common name of the area in which the declaration was being issued - that was Mandatory Palestine. Number 57 15:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

Are you suggesting that, when one member of the Yishuv referred to where he lived, he/she would commonly use the term Mandatory Palestine?. " I live in Mandatory Palestine". In the Declaration itself, the translation of one key paragraph starts:-

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel;. The declaration is of course wrong: it did not call for the establishment of anything. It is however noteworthy that it uses the term Eretz-Israel rather than Mandatory Palestine. Trahelliven (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Trahelliven (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I will simply point again to the fact that the article on the territory is called Mandatory Palestine. Number 57 09:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

It is quite clear that we shall never agree. You maintain that Mandatory Palestine, rather Eretz-Israel is the term to use . I think a citation should be provided to that effect. With the insertion of citation needed, it would now read:-

Declare a Jewish state in parts of the British Mandate for Palestine after its expiration.. Trahelliven (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The citation needed tag is clearly meant to disrupt the article, as no-one can seriously contest the fact that the declaration was issued in Mandatory Palestine. Number 57 20:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

I have never denied that the declaration was issued in Mandatory Palestine. A glance at the map will show that Tel-Aviv is is located in what was once Mandatory Palestine. Trahelliven (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Trahelliven (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So why are you proposing putting a cn tag on that fact? Number 57 21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

It would not matter if Ben-Gurion was in the middle of the Atlantic when he read the declaration. The purpose of it remains the same. The suggestion that the area to which the declaration relates is Mandatory Palestine rather than Eretz-Israel in the Biblical sense is not supportrd by RS. Trahelliven (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What? Are you seriously claiming that Ben-Gurion was not declaring an independent state in Mandatory Palestine? Number 57 21:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

PS - if you're really in need of a reliable source for this, try the NYT on 15 May 1948: "Ben-Gurion, started to read the proclamation, which in a few hours was to transform most of those present from persons without a country to proud nationals. Then he pronounced the words "We hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, to be called Israel," Number 57 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

Thenk you for the NYT reference.

1} Unfortunately I could not find the exact point in the Paper.

2) The full text of the Declaration may not have been available in the United States the next day. Even ELIAHU EPSTEIN, the Agent, Provisional Government of Israel, when he asked Truman for recognition, assumed that the new state was proclaimed within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of 29 November 1947[17]. Trahelliven (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just search for the word Palestine on that page. Number 57 09:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

No wonder I did not find it! I searched for the phrase Eretz-Israel. I note the NYT uses the term Palestine, rather than parts of Mandatory Palestine, as you do. What are the word in the official Hebrew version? Trahelliven (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In answer to my rhetorical question, I think that the answer is אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל [18] and [19]. A translation in this website uses Palestine [20] Can you find a translation that, in relation to the key section of the declaration, uses parts of Mandatory Palestine or even simply Mandatory Palestine?

A rendering of אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל in Latin script must be Eretz Israel, a strict translation must be Land of Israel and a loose translation may be Palestine. Trahelliven (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you demanding a translation that states Mandatory Palestine? It's the same thing as Palestine, just a different name for it, and as we have the article at Mandatory Palestine rather than Palestine or Eretz Israel, that's what the statement should read. Your attempts to obfuscate the discussion are beginning to descend into wikilawyering. Number 57 16:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

I wish to make the following points:-

1) I was not demanding anything; I was merely asking a question.

2) I do not think that you will find an Engish version of the declaration that translates אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל as Mandatory Palestine.

3) Mandatory Palestine is not the same as Palestine. The former is used to describe the geopolitical entity under British administration, carved out of Ottoman Southern Syria after World War I which came to an end on 15 May 1948. The latter has many meaings, of which only one is an abreviation for Mandatory Palestine, the term Palestine having been used since time immemorial and still being used today to desxribe the geopolitical entity consisting of the Gaza strip and the West Bank.

4) When one has a law degree, it is helpful to talk like a lawyer in a very complex legal situatiom. Trahelliven (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

So what exactly is your point at present? We just seem to be going round in circles. Number 57 22:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

There is no basis in any context in describing the intended location of the new state as - in parts of Mandatory Palestine as against - in Eretz-Israel. Trahelliven (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is, because that's what secondary sources say. See WP:V. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG Which Secondary Sources? Trahelliven (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably every single one that deals with this issue. For example, #57's NYT link above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

NMMNG

In the NYT[21], the key phrase is given as, We hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, to be called Israel,. The sentence does not limit it to the area of the Mandate. In any event, I would consider the NYT to be RS as to the fact that that the proclamation was made, but not as to the mwaning of some of its terms.

On a completely ndifferent point, the British Mandate for Palestine is not a place but a legal document. If you are correct on the concept, the term to use would be Mandatory Palestine, which is a place. Trahelliven (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hence why I suggested rewording it to read "Declare a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine shortly before the expiration of the British Mandate. The reason for the current wording is that the Mandatory Palestine article was located at British Mandate for Palestine until relatively recently. Anyway, it's clear there is no consensus for your proposed change to Eretz Israel, so can you at least agree to an appropriate rewording such as my proposal? Number 57 09:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57: It is fine for it to read Declare a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine shortly before the expiration of the British Mandate but I wish to insert citation needed. Trahelliven (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, that's just being disruptive. See the NYT article above. Number 57 12:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

I have already commented why the NYT article takes it no further. Please amend the article as agreed and I shall insert citation needed as indicated previously. Trahelliven (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly not "as agreed" if you are going to be disruptive by inserting an unnecessary citation needed tag. I still can't understand why it's not clear to you that the declaration was being made in Mandatory Palestine. If you read declaration, it states "On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel". Therefore in the declaration, Eretz Israel is clearly the same thing as Mandatory Palestine, as the UN did not call for the establishment of a Jewish state in parts of Jordan or whatever some people claim Eretz Israel includes. Therefore, when it later states "ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL", it would be fairly clear to any reader that Eretz Israel here is again referring to Mandatory Palestine, particularly as the sentence refers specifically to that UN resolution. However, "Eretz Israel" is the declarers preferred name for the area commonly known as Mandatory Palestine, hence why we have the article located at that title and why we should be using the term Mandatory Palestine. Number 57 22:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

All the points that you have raised in your last edit, I have covered previously. I am now adding the citation needed tag. Trahelliven (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry you're unwilling to accept clear facts, but disrupting the article because you can't get your way is highly inappropriate. Please tell me how you fail to follow the logic of my previous point. How do you interpret that as Eretz Israel meaning something other than Mandate Palestine? Number 57 11:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

1) Eretz-Israel is a Biblical term, that, despite my ignorance of Hebrew, I believe translates into Land of Israel. Mandate (Mandatory) Palestine is a term used to describe that part the area of the British Mandate for Palestine west of the Jordan River, under direct British administration from 1922 until midnight 14 May 1948. Members of the Yishuv might also use the term to descrribe the area of the Mandate. If the term is to be used by non-Jews, the meaning is more likely to be the the biblical meaning. The opening two paragraphs of the declaration[22] indicate that it was used in the biblical sense. Trahelliven (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

2) If you consider that I am wrong, please provide RS to that effect. I am reverting the removal of the tag, Trahelliven (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You are evading the question. The declaration clearly states:

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel

The UN resolution, the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, refers to Mandatory Palestine. Therefore when the declaration goes on to state

ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL.

Are you seriously saying that this is not referring to the same thing? Number 57 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

PS - if you're going to persist with the citation needed tag, then I'll use the NYT reference, which at least one other editor believes is sufficient. Number 57 22:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

1) Resolution 181 (II)[23] did not call for the establisment of anything, It merely recommended the adoption and implementation of a Plan of Partition of Mandatory Palestine.

2) If David Ben-Gurion had wanted to be strictly accurate in relying on the UN resolution, instead of IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, he would have said IN THOSE PARTS OF MANDATORY PALESTINE SET ASIDE FOR THE JEWISH STATE BY THE PLAN OF PARTITION IN RESOLUTION 181(II) OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 29 NOVEMBER 1947. He did not do so. By 14 May 1948, the Yishuv forces had already taken possession of areas set aside for the Arab state, which they had had no intention of surrendering. Further, certain factions of the Yishuv, particularly the followers of Revisionist Zionism, wanted to leave their options open and keep the possible future boundaries as vague as possible, including possibly expanding into Jordan, which they maintianed was part of the homeland promised by the Balfour Declaration. The description of the location of the new state was left as vague as possible. It was not limited to Mandatory Palestine, and certainly not to parts of it.

3) As I indicated before, the NYT is RS as to the making of the proclamation, but not as to its meaning or interpretation. Trahelliven (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

I note that you first reverted my insertion of a citation tag at 11:35, 14 December 2012. I then reinserted the tag at 19:54, 14 December 2012‎. You reverted it for a second tme at 21:51, 14 December 2012‎, an interval of 10 hours and 16 minutes since your first reversion. This was a breach of the followin rule clearly set out at the top of the Talk page:- All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. I am astonished that you were unaware of the rule. Even though 24 hours has not passed since my reversion of 19:54, 14 December 2012, your reversion being in breach of the rule, I am entitled to revert your reversion of 21:51, 14 December 2012. I shall proceed to do so. I shall revert your reference to the NYT. I indicated earlier that it was not RS on the issue of the interpretation or meaning of the declaration. Trahelliven (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am astonished that you clearly do not understand what a revert is. The edit at 21:51 was not a revert, as I was adding a reference, not reverting to a previous version, and as such is a new edit. Also, you do not get to revert inappropriate reverts.

I indicated earlier that the NYT article is a reliable source, and was supported by another editor on the matter. You will need consensus to remove it. The article clearly refers to Palestine in the context of Mandate Palestine - this is like someone trying to argue that a source referring to China is not a RS because it doesn't specify that it's the People's Republic of China. Number 57 11:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 57

I am planning to put a notice on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. To enable me to complete the 'Dispute overview' box, what is the exact proposition for which the NYT is the reference or RS? Trahelliven (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Trahelliven (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If you really think the question is seriously worth asking, it is: "Does "Palestine" in the NYT article refer to Mandatory Palestine?" However, I can't believe you even need to ask this. Would you query whether the BBC is referring to PR China or Taiwan in this article? What other state was there called Palestine at the time? Number 57 22:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit and revert 173.45.200.99 and revert by Trahelliven of 28 November 2012

I substantiall agree with the sentiments of the edit by 173.45.200.99. Unfortunately, there are matters that need to be pointed out:-

1 Lord Balfour had long since died (19 March 1930)

2 The British Mandate ended the day before: it was not about to end.

3 The Declaration was made, not by Zionists in Europe, but by Zionists in Palestine.

4 You certainly need a reference to support what 173.45.200.99 alleges was the the motive of the European states in exporting the Jewish European problem out of Europe.

5 It is not appropriate to insert such a bold edit as an anonymous editor. I hope you are not a sock puppet.

I believe the remarks should be removed. Trahelliven (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The main matter that needs to be pointed out is that his edit is completely unsourced. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Context and content

I have a number of questions about this section

1 The section commences with a flowery introduction. The document commences by drawing a direct line from Biblical times to the present. They do not come from the reference immediately following them - [24]. Where do they come from? If they do not come from the refeence, what purpose does the reference serve?

2 The section then gives equally flowery word introducing each quotation from the declaration. From where do they also come.

3 In any event what is their purpose? The quotations from the Declaration speak for themselves. Trahelliven (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be an arbitrary cutting of the declaration that was made to comment and analyse this. Given these comments do not come from a scholar and are not sourced, that sounds like a WP:OR. I am not in total disagreement with these comments but they do not comply with the rules. They may be removed with the full section. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have copied below a comment that Ykantor inserted in the edit summary of his edit of 20:19, 9 December 2013‎ (a comment that more properly belongs here).

Traheliven: You have done it. a 100% vandalism, let see ifyou dare to vandalize [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Annotated_text_of_the_Declaration the U.S.A

If the comments in the margin of the section Annotated text of the Declaration (USA Declaration)) did not contain a reference from where they came, their inclusion would be objectionable as being Original Research, in the same way as the equivalent section in this article on the Israeli Declaration is objectionable. However the comments in the USA article are not expressed to be the views of the Wikipedia editor of the article but are inserted as the views of Stephen E. Lucas. the author of the article, The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence, [25]. On the assumption that Stephen E. Lucas is a Reliable Source, he is properly cited. Trahelliven (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To put it in more simple terms:-

In the article on the Israeli document, the comments do not quote a source. In the article on the USA document, the comments do quote a source. Trahelliven (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

More rumblings on the article title

Apropos of the dispute over the article title, from page 19 of Joseph Andoni Massad's Persistence of the Palestinian Question, Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians (2006):

Following the Zionists’ unilateral "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel" on May 14, 1948, five Arab armies intervened in Palestine to reverse the establishment of the Jewish settler-colony or to safeguard the portion allocated to the Arab State. ... This war became known in Israeli ideological pronouncements as the “War of Independence” and the officially named "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel" was to be renamed in popular discourse (although never officially) as the "Declaration of Independence."

From the preceding, and from the fact that the first sentence refers to the establishment, rather than the independence, of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, it would appear that the proper title for the article is "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel".

    ←   ZScarpia   18:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Further, independence assumes that the entity is already in existence; the effect of a declaration of independence is merely to alter the entity's legal and political status. In 1776, what became the states of the USA already had legal and political status as colonies of the British crown, not a proper analogy. Trahelliven (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The first three paragraphs of Context and aftermath do not contain a single reference. In particular, it boldly states the aims of the Arab states in their invasion/intervention of 15 May 1948. Trahelliven (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This source is very intersting and we can appreciate the careness of the author in the choice of his words but it is not a "well-known" and recognized author on the topic (As far as I know).

It must be taken into account that numerous reliable sources (I would even have said nearly all...) talk about the "Israeli declaration of independence". So, per WP:Fringe and having in mind that wikipedia doesn't report the truth but what is reported by WP:RS, I would not change the title.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If "Declaration of the Establishment" is the correct/official title, then I think that the best approach would be to use that as the title of the article, using "Declaration of Independence" as a redirect and including a note to the effect that the Declaration is commonly referred to as that.

Doing a quick Web search on the former title brings up the the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Jewish Virtual Library pages which use it as their titles also (1 , 2 ). It also brings up a Historama page which, although it refers to the Declaration of Independence throughout, confirms that Declaration of Establishment is the official title: "The document is commonly referred to as the 'Declaration Scroll' but in the official government publication of laws and legislation of 14 May 1948, it is actually called the 'Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel'."     ←   ZScarpia   16:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Several Basic Laws, and also the important Law and Administration Ordnance of 1948 (official English translations), called it the "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel". That is also the most common name used in formal contexts by the High Court, at least in the official English translations I can reach. On the other hand, the court often uses "declaration of independence" in less formal contexts, suggesting that they don't consider the difference to be important. Personally I can live with either, though the "Establishment" version seems to be more precise. Zero^talk 23:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Could it be a problem of translation from Hebrew ? I mean: are there differences in Hebrew between the "Independence of a State " and the "Establishment of a State" ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Would it be permissible/beneficial to add a statement to the effect that the declaration is more formally known as "The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel."     ←   ZScarpia   13:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. If anything, that should be the main bold text in the introduction. Number 57 13:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the edit of 19:57, 13 January 2014‎ by Poliocretes with the comment - it was not the religious nature of the state they were convening for.

There was no need to declare independence. The British Mandate was to terminate within about 48 hours of 12 May 1948. Based on Resolution 181(II), the gathering was simply to declare the establishment of a Jewish state in contrast to an Arab state. There is no suggestion that Jewish is used in a religious sense as against an ethnic sense. Trahelliven (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Minhelet HaAm Vote

Hi, Pluto2012, concerning your recent revert

While the topic was indirectly discussed on several occasions in the 'purpose of Israeli declaration' section and the 'More rumblings on the article title'. The first show no consensus and a lot of references to UN resolution, the second has no consensus on wording and no supporting WP:RS other than WP:Fringe view concerning naming. As oppose to the source I added which directly refer to the vote of that Minhelet.

1. Since there was no consensus achieved based on WP:RS, its prudent to revert this to the long standing variant and continue discussion and avoid making assertion in summaries [26], [27], [28] which is correctly noted by others as POV pushing.
2. The sources I add refer directly to the vote undertaken by their administration and speak of its nature:

(the People's Administration - "Minhelet Ha'am") to agree to a declaration of independence at all - and that on a majority of one vote. [29]

13-member cabinet (Minhelet ha-Am - The People's Administration). This executive body convened on May 12, 1948, to decide whether to declare independence. [30]]

You don't believe that they are WP:RS for such nuance, you are welcome to update them with better WP:RS or ask for ref-improve or whatever is on our templates arsenal;0 however, removing sources that directly support the text, leaving it un sourced isn't ok.(Especially in our case where you reverted it to the unsupported variant above)--PLNR (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced the references with two academic sources. I hope this settles the matter. Number 57 23:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

With these sources, that should be ok. But JVL is not wp:rs as it was discussed at several places. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally I can't see what is the difference between declaring independence and declaring the establishment of a new state, and it is clear that most authors can't see the difference either. The paper by Friling and Troen, which 57 claims to "settle the matter", right in its first paragraph, quotes from Ben Gurion's speech (reading the document), "We hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called the State of Israel". The paper then uses "independence" and "establishment" interchangeably ("establishment" in this context appears three times in the paper). The book of Moaz and Mor (which is not really on the topic and should be replaced by something more specialist), also says "establishment of Israel" (p137). The Israel government uses both versions extensively, including referring to the document itself as the "Declaration of the Establishment..." as well as the "Independence Scroll". This site has examples of both. The Basic Laws call it "Declaration of the Establishment...", and that is what the High Court of Israel calls it in formal contexts (but they say "declaration of independence" too). Search in Hebrew for ההכרזה על הקמת מדינת ישראל to see a vast number of formal and informal uses of the longer name. I have on my computer at least 200 books and academic papers using the phrase "establishment of the State of Israel". A very explicit example is Rubinstein, Elyakim, "The Declaration of Independence as a Basic Document of the State of Israel", Israel Studies, Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 1998, pp. 195-210; this article refers to both the independence of the state and the establishment of the state over and over. It has some interesting discussion about the absence of mention of "independence" in the document that I haven't had time to digest yet. What is very clear is that one cannot "settle the matter" by selecting a few examples of one version. This article is incomplete until it mentions both, starting with the first sentence. Zero^talk 01:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought, maybe the "declaration of independence" led to the "establishment of the State of Israel". In either case its not the wording that was used in the recent edits. Anyway, i'll live you guys to it, have fun.--PLNR (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For my own part, in the absence of any other source, when a simple objective statement is involved, I think the Jewish Virtual Library can be used as a Reliable Source.

With documents care should be taken. The JVL version of the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15, 1948 [31] uses the term England throughout the document. The original [32] uses the term Great Britain. There are other minor differences. Bearing in mind that the JVL version comes from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (bottom left hand side), I suspect that the JVL version is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of the original English. Trahelliven (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If there was no other source, then what JVL would say would be for sure false.

And if there are other sources, they have to be used.

JVL is not a wp:rs and should be removed (and of course, if possible immediately replaced by a reliable one.)

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I recently commented about this on another place. While I tend to agree that some jvl articles leave some things unsaid, that can be said of many WP:RS. So our opinion aside, unless you have any official decision concerning JVL you can show. Any unexplained removal of sources is disruptive and should be reverted on sight.--PLNR (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sources on grounds of unreliability is not disruptive, but good editing. Zero^talk 12:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

PLNR,

You commented on the article about the JVL where you were answered.

The official decision is that only WP:RS should be used and a website edited by a pro-Israeli think-thank cannot be considered as a WP:RS for article dealing with history and for which hundreds of scholarly publications do exist.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to this official decision, or is it your decision after some unofficial discussion?--PLNR (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Zero, I do see a difference, the difference being, mainly, that one declares the creation of a new entity while the other declares the independence of some pre-existing entity from a second entity. Hence, the American and Rhodesian declarations of independence declared the independence of pre-existing entities, a group of North American, British colonial states and Rhodesia respectively, from the control of the United Kingdom. In the case of Israel, it came into existence by carving it out of Palestine on the extinction of the British mandate. Israel was coming into being and, in coming into being, it was not seeking independence from some other geopolitical entity. In Palestine, what there was was an internal inter-community struggle in the power vacuum which developed as the mandate came to an end then ended. A question which is often asked because Israel's Declaration of Creation is often referred to as a Declaration of Independence is, who was independence gained from? The answer given is usually 'The British', but, of course, that doesn't make any sense because the Declaration states that the provisions it mentions will start coming into force at the point in time that the mandate ended. As far as I know, the Declaration details how the apparatus of a state is going to come into existence, not how the shackles of some external power are going to be thrown off.     ←   ZScarpia   20:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that one can analyse it in that fashion. But I wonder how necessarily that interpretation is. I read so many learned people using the two expressions interchangeably that it is clear that many don't see the difference you do. Can't one say "now we are independent" without saying "now we are independent from X"? On the other hand, the comments that this paper makes about the nature of the document are interesting (feel free to ask me for a copy if you can't easily get it). It seems that Ben-Gurion deliberately avoided explicit mention of independence or sovereignty. Zero^talk 21:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you send me a copy of the paper? It's sitting behind a paywall isn't it? Thanks.

Don't declarations of independence declare that control from elsewhere is being thrown off or resisted, which implies, at the very least, that attempts to exert control are being made from elsewhere when the declaration is made? As far as what they say is concerned, isn't the essence of declarations of independence that a group of people is saying that, "as far as we're concerned, we are independent of X" or "we will be independent of X"? In the absence of an X, why would a group say "now we are independent"?

    ←   ZScarpia   23:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC) (extended: 23:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC))

Above, I quoted from page 19 of Joseph Massad's Persistence of the Palestine Question. Make of it what you will, here's the whole paragraph that the quote was taken from:

Following the Zionists’ unilateral “Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel” on May 14, 1948, five Arab armies intervened in Palestine to reverse the establishment of the Jewish settler-colony or to safeguard the portion allocated to the Arab State. The Israeli victory in the war which gave the Israelis control over 77 percent of Palestine resulted in the Zionist expulsion of close to a million Palestinians and the subsequent destruction of 418 Palestinian villages. This war became known in Israeli ideological pronouncements as the “War of Independence” and the officially named “Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel” was to be renamed in popular discourse (although never officially) as the “Declaration of Independence.” It must be noted that the Declaration did not proclaim Israel a sovereign independent state, rather it proclaimed it a “Jewish State.” This was done not as an oversight but as an explicit rejection of adding the words “sovereign independent” when an amendment to that effect was proposed. Thus, Israel was declared the state of Jews worldwide and not of its citizens (165,000 Palestinians remained in the territories of the State of Israel). Nevertheless, the “Declaration of Independence” and its derivative correlate the “War of Independence” became the operative terminology in popular parlance as well as in the ideological discourse of apologist politicians and academics. Independence from whom, however, remains unclear. After all, the British had already left voluntarily without being party to the war. The Arab armies had not been in occupation of any Palestinian land prior to the Zionist “Declaration.” The Palestinian people had no regular army and were being bombarded by the main-stream Zionist forces leading to their expulsion beginning as early as December 1947. From whom then were the Zionists declaring their independence? They could not have declared independence from imperial sponsorship as they had continued to be supported by the European Empires, including Britain. Such sponsorship and alliance, it may be recalled, was to lead to the tripartite Israeli–French–British invasion of Egypt in 1956 and the Israeli occupation of the Sinai peninsula following Gamal Abdul-Nasir’s nationalization of the Suez Canal Company. Therefore, renaming the “Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel” as the “Declaration of Independence” had a more important meaning in the ideological not the practical realm. Israel’s establishment in 1948 followed and coincided with the independence of many formerly colonial territories.Naming the “Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel” as the “Declaration of Independence” is then to be seen as an attempt to recontextualize the new Zionist territorial entity as one established against not via colonialism. Also, given the waning of the European empires, this renaming was equally an attempt to rehistoricize the new Zionist era as a post-colonial one.

    ←   ZScarpia   23:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What I make of it, is that you guys/gals can't stay on topic. You already presented this in "More rumblings on the article title" section above, where it was noted as WP:FRING. IMHO this paragph in full is also a hue POV piece that warped its terminology assertion(sorry I don't see anything here to support it other than him stating it as a fact) in so much peculiar terminology of its own and assertions that even I can spot the BS. If you have something specific concerning Independence start\continue the discussion where it's appropriate, otherwise please take your Israeli/Palestinian arguments to YOUR talk or some political forum.--PLNR (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Recognition of the State of Israel by the United States

1 On 14 May 1948 David Ben-Gurion read the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.[33]

2 The following day President Truman signed a document, the key part of which reads:-

The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new state of Israel.[34]

3 On 31 January 1949 President Truman signed a further document, the key part of which reads:-

The United States Government is therefore pleased to extend de jure recognition to the Government of Israel as of this date.[35]

4 What neither document says is that the United recognizes the State of Israel, de facto or de jure. In fact for the documents to make sense, it must be assumed that the United States government had already done so.

5 To summarize either document as recognizes Israel is simply incorrect. Trahelliven (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not incorrect at all. If he is recognising the government of the State of Israel, he is clearly recognising the country - you can't have one without the other. There are multiple sources that simply state that Truman was recognising the State, including official ones

• United States Department of State: Office of the Historian "U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day."
• Truman Library "On May 14th he acted. America recognized the new state of Israel."

I have no idea why you are trying to complicate the issue so much. All you are doing is confusing readers. Number 57 21:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the sources say that President Truman recognised Israel, but the writers of the sources are at most historians not lawyers: this is a legal question, not an historical question. For discussion on diplomatic recognition [36]Trahelliven (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is not a legal question: it is a matter of simple English. Trahelliven (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point and I think that at the university, I would follow you.

But I agree with Number57 that :

• most sources don't use that nuance
• the only added value is to confuse readers given at the end it doesn't change anything.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I would go for exactitude, which in this case appears to be that the US government gave de facto recognition to the provisional government, though it would be best to bring secondary sources to bear on the issue.     ←   ZScarpia   10:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it was de facto recognition is already in the article text. However, as I stated above, I think it is muddying the waters to focus on the techical legalistics that the US recognised the government, because it's the same thing – the statement quoted by Trahelliven ends with "the new State of Israel", which shows that the country itself was also being recognised. Number 57 12:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

To call an attempt to be factually exact about the form that the US recognition of Israel took muddying the waters is obscurantist and contrary to the nature of encyclopedia writing. It would be better to let the reader make up his or her own mind about what is implicit in Truman's letter rather than impose an interpretation. Contrary to the assumption you appear to have made, the reason I italliscised the phrase de facto wasn't to emphasise it, but because it's standard to do that with foreign words and phrases in written English.     ←   ZScarpia   19:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? I would say that insisting on focussing on the technicalities is the definition of obscurantist when official and mainstream sources simply state that the US recognised Israel. Number 57 22:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on the source verification policy, I have no objection to the article stating that the US recognised Israel; what I do object to is your use of several invalid reasons for totally excluding any mention of the nature that the US recognition took. If Trahelliven still wants to add a description of that, what I would suggest is that is that it is included in a form such as: the United States recognised Israel the following day, that recognition coming in a letter from President Truman which stated, "the United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new state of Israel." It may be worth mentioning that the letter was drafted, if my memory serves me correctly, by the Jewish Agency's representative in the States and, further, as some sources point out, that Truman modified it by substituting "State of Israel" for "Jewish state".     ←   ZScarpia   17:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My mind is that the way the US recognized Israel is not relevant for this article. A compromise may be to add this in a note. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Over to Trahelliven ... .     ←   ZScarpia  , 05:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the Truman document of 14 May assumes that there was no need to recognise the new state (because of the resolution of 29 November 1947). All that was needed was to recognise the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new state ... .. I have no idea where that takes it. Trahelliven (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If, as I remember, the document was drafted by the Jewish Agency's representative in Washington, that would probably mean that it reflects the Jewish Agency's priorities rather than, perhaps, standard protocol.     ←   ZScarpia   03:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean the letter from Eliahu Epstein to Harry S. Truman with attatchments re: recognition of Israel, May 14, 1948. Official File, Truman Papers. [37]. It is rather curious document:-

1 Where does the phrase one minute after six o'clock originate?

2 The boundaries of the country were described as in Eretz-Israel, not by reference to the resolution of 29 November 1947 Israeli Declaration of Independence. Trahelliven (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It is "well-known" that the State that was recognized had purposedly no official border. That may be a reason why the US government didn't recognize this. Anyway I think the controversy around the fact that the State had no borders should be left for a dedicated section. In that section, the nuance that the US recognized the governement and not the state could be emphasized. Anyway, all this recquires the appropriate secondary source to avoir WP:OR. I am sure I read this somewhere but don't remember where. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere on some talk page there is a discussion of the "one minute past six" thing, which was probably intended as one minute past midnight in Jerusalem. If I remember correctly, there is no support for it anywhere outside Eppstein's memo, including in Israeli legal documents. Zero^talk 11:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This reminds me something... I think the conclusion of the discussions was that the "one minute after" was just an original presentation of one scholar. I think it was assumed he had done so not to give any doubt about the date of 15 May whereas 14 May midnight was unclear. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

When I referred to the letter signed by Truman recognising the provisional government having been drafted by the Jewish Agency's representative in Washington, I did mean the letter signed by Truman, not the letter sent earlier giving assurances about the way that the creation of Israel would be enacted. Thus, Truman re-worded parts of it, particularly by substituting the phrase "State of Israel" for "Jewish State". There's a six hour time difference between Washington and Jerusalem. Therefore, one minute after six in the evening on the 14th in Washington was one minute after midnight in Jerusalem (the mandate ended at midnight at the close of the 14th in Jerusalem). There is evidence that Epstein was improvising, though, so it could well be that there's no real significance to that minute. The Declaration itself is supposed to have said that it would come into force when the mandate ended (midnight), not a minute afterwards. The Americans demanded assurances that the Partition Plan borders would be respected, which Epstein gave in order to obtain American recognition, but it is again thought that those assurances may have been an improvisation on Epstein's part.     ←   ZScarpia   22:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Lack of definite borders put the lie to Arab armies invaded Israel [38]. Trahelliven (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure it is linked to our discussion (?).

Anyway, I have just read in The Birth... Revisited that Morris uses the following wording : "[Arab armies] invaded Palestine and attacked Israel", which I find quite fair. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That assumes the validity of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. see resolution 181(II) 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. that is after 15 July at the earliest. Trahelliven (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What Morris wrote reflects the Israeli view. The Arabs did not regard the intervention in that way. You'll note that the Israelis don't regard their attack on Jaffa and other areas which were supposed to become part of the Partition Plan's Arab state before and after the mandate ended as an invasion, which is an indication of the operation of a double standard. Morris is a reliable source, but that does not necessarily mean that his work is neutral. Other sources describe the Arab intervention differently. As the word 'invasion' has connotations, it is not neutral in all circumstances: you won't find, say, the entry of British and French troops into Belgium of Norway at the starts of the First and Second World War as invasions and should ask why not and whether it has any significance for the choice of wording here. It is true that the Arab forces did both attack border areas and invade parts of what was under the Partition Plan a Jewish State, so while it's not neutral to refer to an invasion of Palestine as a whole, it is neutral to refer to an invasion of what may be regarded as Israel proper.     ←   ZScarpia   22:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree even if I would say that the Israeli point of view is rather that "5 Arab armies invaded the new born State", which Morris nuances and makes him quite or more neutral. My prefered wordind is : "As soon as the Mandate ended, expeditionary forces from Transjordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq entered Palestine and engaged combat with the Israelis." Morris doesn't say the contrary and is more concise. My option nevertheless doesn't emphasize enough that out of these 4, 3 directly tried to invade Israel's territory.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Soviet recognition date

Having just reverted an IP who claimed Soviet recognition wasn't de jure (numerous sources state it was), I noticed when searching for a reference that there is a divergence amongst sources as to the date on which the USSR recognised Israel. Several sources state 17 May (which is what has been used here and elsewhere on Wikipedia), but numerous others (which appear to be reliable) state 18 May (e.g. here). Can anyone find a definitive answer, possibly from the Soviet archives or something? Number 57 08:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The source you give seems to have a good archival source. But I think I can explain the difference. The NYT of the 18th says "Moscow May 17. The Soviet Government, announcing tonight its recognition of the State of Israel,..." and in another article on the same day "Moscow May 17. The Soviet Union officially recognised the new State of Israel tonight...". So I think it is clear that the announcement was made in the evening of the 17th, Moscow time. However that doesn't contradict 18th in the Pinkus article, since that refers to when the Soviet Government officially notified Israel in writing. The passing of an official note could easily have been on the day following the public announcement. Zero^talk 10:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding de jure, the text of the Soviet announcement refers to "official" recognition, which clearly means "unqualified recognition". I see no reason to question the multiple sources that interpret it as de jure. Zero^talk 10:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for clarifying. Number 57 11:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"establishment of a Jewish state in [where?] to be known as the State of Israel"

Poliocretes has reverted a good faith edit of the text of the agreement, with the reason that "original doc is depicted above and clearly says EI, both your sources are translations, neither is the original". The edit showed both alternatives of "Palestine" and "land of Israel", with a third footnote explaining.

Searching for "establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, to be" gives 55 hits, most of which come from sources you would expect to get this right. I believe the discrepancy comes from a difference between the Ben Gurion speech of the declaration, and the final published version. FYI I was alerted to this by an interesting blog here.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The article contains a clue: "Although Ben-Gurion had told the audience that he was reading from the scroll of independence, he was actually reading from handwritten notes because only the bottom part of the scroll had been finished by artist and calligrapher Otte Wallish by the time of the declaration (he did not complete the entire document until June)". So the scroll that Policretes is referring to was not completed until June. The document read at the declaration used the word Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Seek and you shall find, and when one searches in English, one finds in English. But "Eretz Israel" is not a common English term, it's no surprise that it would be translated as "Palestine". It still is.

The declaration was made in Hebrew, and therefore discussion of what was said cannot rely on translations. Fortunately we have the original audio recording of the declaration here. The paragraph in question begins at 05:20. Ben Gurion does not say "Palestina", he says "Eretz Israel". Do you actually know what changes Wallish instroduced into the document? Do have a reference that says the document in front of Ben Gurion said "Palestine"? And if you do, does it even matter considering he said "Eretz Israel" and "Palestine" never made it into the final document? Poliocretes (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, and " אנו מכריזים בזאת על הקמת מדינה יהודית פלשׂתינה" comes up with nothing either. It's odd because Pessin's entire blog is based around this "mistake". Looks like the only people who made "mistakes" here were Pessin, and me.... Oncenawhile (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

After some poking around, I think I know what is going on here. Of course the authentic Hebrew text says "in Eretz Israel" and never uses the word "Palestine". However, on the same day as Ben-Gurion read the declaration, an English translation was provided to the press by the Peoples' Council. It was distributed by AP and published in lots of places, such as here. In this version, "Eretz Israel" is translated as "Land of Israel" in some places and "Palestine" in others. The operative sentence says "Jewish State in Palestine". A different English translation that also says "Jewish state in Palestine" is in the 1948 Jewish Yearbook of International Law. In those days "Eretz Israel" was considered more or less the same as "Palestine" and few people cared much about the difference. On the other hand, the version in the first volume of the authorized English translations of Israeli law says "Eretz-Israel" consistently. Zero^talk 08:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if Eretz Israel means Palestine, this does not necessarily mean Mandatory Palestine. Number 57 uses the term establishment of a Jewish state in the former territory of Mandatory Palestine. When the declaration was made, it was still Mandatory Palestine. It did not become the former territory until midnight.

Does in Eretz Israel refer to where the declaration was made, or does it refer to the location of the new state. Trying to resolve the ambiguity in the sentence without RS (none has been provided) is impossible. The only solution is to leave the words as they appear in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs translation. Trahelliven (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

When did the Declaration come into effect?

Using the Historama.com Independence Day 1948 article:

The timing of the ceremony is explained: "Meanwhile, Wallisch was in a panic: he had to organize the event before sundown - for 4pm - the following day, Friday, for if the ceremony ran late into the start of the Sabbath, no Jewish leader would sign the Declaration (as this would be against religious custom on a Sabbath)."

We have the letter from Eliahu Epstein, signing himself as an agent of the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, saying: "The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o'clock on the evening of May 14, 1948, Washington time [i.e. at one minute past midnight Saturday morning in Palestine, when the Mandate will have terminated]." There is some doubt over whether Epstein was acting on his own initiative over the wording of the letter, though.

The Declaration includes the paragraph: "We declare that starting from the moment of the end of the Mandate, tonight, at dawn of day Saturday, Vav [6th] in Eiyar 5608, 15th of May 1948, and until the establishment of the elected and regular authorities of the State in conformity with the law which will be decided by the elected Legislating Assembly ["Asifa Ha'Mekhokeket"] not later than the 1st of October 1948, the People's Council ["Moetzet Ha'Am"] will function as a temporary National Council ["Moetzet Medina"], and her executive institution, the People's Administration ["Minhelet Ha'Am"], will constitute the temporary government of the Jewish State, which will hereby be called by the name Israel." So, the initial governing body of Israel will start acting from the moment that the Mandate terminates at midnight.

Based on the above, I wrote in the Lead that the Declaration "declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel, which would come into effect on termination of the British Mandate at midnight that day."

Trahelliven objected that "the Declaration of 14 May 1948 does not say when it is to take effect" and deleted the last part of my sentence, which states that the Dreclaration came into effect at midnight.

So, what we do have in the Declaration is a statement about the government of the new state, that it will officially start running from the moment of termination of the Mandate. What is a fair way of representing that in the article? Taking into consideration Epstein's letter, I thought that stating that the Declaration would "come into effect" at midnight was reasonable.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

How about:
It declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel, whose initial governing body, a temporary National Council, would officially start operating on termination of the British Mandate at midnight on close of that day.
    ←   ZScarpia   12:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that the declaration comes into effect at midnight. Specifically from this passage of the declaration:

WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, 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".

It is clearly stating that the provisional government of the state (and therefore also the state) comes into being at midnight. I don't see how it could be read any other way, and I think your text should be restored. Number 57 18:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of ZScarpia. It correctly leaves open the ambiguity of when the new state was to come into existence as against the new government which was expressed to come into operation at midnight. Trahelliven (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how there is any ambiguity about when the state came into being, but if you need further evidence, this New York Times article states "The proclamation was to have been read at 11 P.M., but was advanced to 4 because of the Sabbath. Mr. Shertok explained that the proclamation had to be made yesterday because the mandate was to end at midnight and the Zionists did not want a split second to intervene between that time and the formal establishment of the state." I hope this clarifies further that the state was to come into existence at midnight. Number 57 19:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that would form the basis of a worthwhile addition to the article in its own right.     ←   ZScarpia   23:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it's probably worth mentioning in the Declaration ceremony section. Number 57 23:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

From memory, there was an internal debate about whether to declare the creation of a new state immediately or delay in line with the transisition period which was part of the UN Partition Plan, which might be worth investigation too (though, obviously, a delay wouldn't, in the light of events, have made sense).     ←   ZScarpia   23:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please answer the following questions about the New York Times article, which I found impossible to read;-

1 What was the date of the edition?

2 Did the journalist actually read the Declaration, either in the original Hebrew, or in an English translation?

3 What exact words did the journalist use about the date of the new state coming into existence? Trahelliven (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

1. The edition is from 15 May.
2. Who knows, but it's not relevant to the Shertok quote.
3. The exact words are "The Jewish state, the world's newest sovereignty, to be known as the State of Israel, came into being in Palestine at midnight upon termination of the British mandate."

The article is reprinted in full below the picture of the front page. Number 57 20:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Epstein in his note to Truman uses the phrase within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nation in its resolution of 29 November 1947 [[39]] The declaration says nothing of the sort. Epstein in the US at the time clearly had not seen the wording of the declaration. Any comment about the wording can be disregarded.

The reporter of the NYT can be relied on to talk about the events of the evening of 14 May. For him to say that the reading of the document was effective in creating the new state is a legal and political judgement arising from those events and legal considerations.

Did he consider Ben-Gurion's authority?

How about the following extract from resolution 181 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.[[40]]? Trahelliven (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have absolutely no idea how your comments are related to the question of at what time the state came into existence. Number 57 20:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Both Epstein and the NYT are relied on to say that the state came into existence at midnight. I say no reliance can be put on them at all. The extract from the resolution 181 suggests that the declaration read by Ben-Gurion on the evening of 14 May had no legal effect at all. The safest thing to do is simply say that declaration was read out, and in the absence of RS as to its legal effectiveness, simply set out what it contains. Trahelliven (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, on what basis are you claiming the New York Times is an unreliable source?

Secondly, whether the declaration had any legal effect is wholly irrelevant to what happened in reality - i.e. the state coming into existence at midnight. In previous discussions I have previously requested that you not focus on obscure legalities and instead concentrate on facts - this is relevant again here please.

Thirdly, if you need further sources citing midnight, try these

• Efraim Karsh, Rory Miller (2013) Israel at Sixty: Rethinking the Birth of the Jewish State Routledge, p174 ("the Jewish state came into existence at midnight")
• Cynthia Wallace (2012) Foundations of the International Legal Rights of the Jewish People and the State of Israel and the Implications for the Proposed New Palestinian State Charisma Media, p20 ("the State of Israel being born at midnight")
• Alfred E. Kellermann, Kurt Siehr, Talia Einhorn (1998) Israel Among the Nations: International and Comparative Law Perspectives on Israel's 50th Anniversary Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, p311 ("Israel proclaimed its independence with the termination of the Mandate for Palestine at midnight")
• Yaacov Ro'i (1974) From Encroachment to Involvement: A Documentary Study of Soviet Policy in the Middle East Transaction Publishers, p52 ("the annoucement of the establishment of the State of Israel at midnight")

There are shedloads more sources stating the same thing. We base Wikipedia on what reliable sources say, not the individual legal interpretations of editors.

Fourthly, the source you are using is a UN resolution from 1947, i.e. before this event happened, so is clearly not reliable source for what happened in 1948. That should be made even more obvious by the text at the top of the resolution states The UN Palestine Commission reported that it was unable to implement res. 181 due to the deteriorating security situation and was abolished on 14 May 1948"

Number 57 21:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there are any number of secondary sources that say that the Declaration came into effect at midnight. However, what is the primary evidence for that statement? I cannot imagine what a primary source, other than the document itself, would be? I can read the Declaration as well as any of the writers of the secondary sources (or at least the official Israeli translation). The Declaration does not say when it comes into effect. At most the Declaration says that at midnight 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". I think the article should leave the question open. Trahelliven (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

To reheat the arguments again:

1. It says quite clearly in the declaration that it comes into effect at midnight ("with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight")
2. The comments from Moshe Sharret in the New York Times are quite clear about it coming into effect at midnight ("Mr. Shertok explained that the proclamation had to be made yesterday because the mandate was to end at midnight and the Zionists did not want a split second to intervene between that time and the formal establishment of the state.")

Regardless, even if we did not have this clear primary evidence, it wouldn't matter at all. All that matters is what reliable sources say – questioning it and editing the article accordingly is WP:Original research and not allowed. I would strongly advise that you WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Number 57 20:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Official translation of the Declaration

Translation of the Declaration by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Land of Israel etc.

You may be interested to know that I have added the text of the Declaration of the State of Palestine to the Wikipedia article. Trahelliven (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

On reflection, perhaps the best thing to is not to set out the Declarations in full in their respective articles, but wikisource the Israeli Declaration (if not already done) and link it to the Israeli article as has been done with the Palestinian article. Trahelliven (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is true that I did not have consensus but I made a suggestion at 04:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC). I noted that both you and Number 57 had not replied so I assumed that you thought that relying on a Wikisource link was a good idea. Both of you have been active and should have given me an answer by now. I think including the full text as well as the wikisource link is unnecessary duplication.Trahelliven (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Baatarsaikan I have left a message on your talk page. Trahelliven (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the declaration should be set out here. I also agree that the link to Wikisource should be in the external links section. Number 57 12:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Transcription has no explanation of exactly what it is. It is true that readers who are familiar with the subject would probably recognise that it is a translation of the Declaration of 14 May 1948. Those coming to the subject for the first time would be left in the dark until they come to the citation at the end. Of course they may not go that far. My agreement to the inclusion of the full text of the Declaration being included in the article is simply that the Transcription be adequately described as I have suggested above.

==Official translation of the Declaration==

Translation of the Declaration by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Land of Israel etc.

I shall amend the article accordingly. Trahelliven (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

References

the declaration content

to Trahelliven: you deleted the declaration content and wrongly reasoned it: "Deleted These are political statements , mostly unsupported by RS". As I already told you, you should conform to the policy- WP:PRIMARY :"an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

• Moreover, please have a look at similar articles:
  • The full text of United States Declaration of Independence.
  • The full text of clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta still on statute.
  • The full text of Unilateral Declaration of Egyptian Independence
• I will appreciate it if you undo your deletion. Ykantor (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

1 Are you suggesting that the Declaration is a novel?

2 Please point out the relevance of the other three articles mentioned.

3 I shall not revert. Trahelliven (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The reference to a novel is an example. The policy is that primary sources may be cited factually. A novel may be cited as to its own text. A declaration of independence may be cited as to its own text. As noted above, two other declarations of independence are listed in full. I see no policy reason why the Israeli declaration cannot be cited. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Declaration being cited. My problem is with the introductory comments.

The document commences by drawing a direct line from Biblical times to the present:[10

The text underneath this comment does not mention the present.

It acknowledges the Jewish exile over the millennia, mentioning both ancient "faith" and new "politics":

This comment assumes that the modern day Jew is in a meaningful sense a genetic descendant of the Jews of Biblical times. This is not universally acknowledged.

It speaks of the urge of Jews to return to their ancient homeland:

This comment assumes that the modern day Jew is in a meaningful sense a genetic descendant of the Jews of Biblical times. This is not universally acknowledged.

It describes Jewish immigrants to Israel in the following terms:

The text correctly does not mention Israel which came into existence only upon the coming into effect of the Declaration.

The European Holocaust of 1939–45 is part of the imperative for the re-settlement of the homeland:

This comment implies that the Holocaust gave the Jews the right to resettle their homeland. This right is not universally acknowledged.

The new state pledged that it will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz Israel and appealed:

I have no problems with this or the following comments. Trahelliven (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I will appreciate it if you revert yourself and return the declaration's quotes. As stated by the help desk volunteer, Robert McClenon, " A novel may be cited as to its own text. A declaration of independence may be cited as to its own text.". This article does not fix a genetically relation between Jews. All it says is that the declaration claims so. For instance, the United States Declaration of Independence claims that all men are created equal , although at those times a lot of people wrongly believed that black people are inferior. But still, It is just a quote, and not a proof for the sentence. Ykantor (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I must apologise. I had no reason to believe that Robert McClenon was a help desk volunteer. I thought he just wanted to take part in the discussion.

We have come to an impasse. I shall not revert. Trahelliven (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that some of the comments appear intended to support the declaration, rather than merely describe it. The most clear example is "It acknowledges the Jewish exile..." which only makes sense if the commentator agrees with that concept (which many do not). If the comments are rewritten to carefully avoid commenting on the declaration but only noting its content, it wouldn't be so bad. In cases where the declaration itself is perfectly clear, I don't see the point of commenting at all. Zero^talk 12:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The new state pledged that it will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz Israel and appealed: Leaving aside the question whether this is a correct summary of part of the Declaration, there is another problem. If the new state came into existence only at midnight, as suggested by Number 57 above, how can it pledge itself to do anything some six hours earlier when it was still non existent? Trahelliven (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to a translation of the Declaration itself being included in the article. I just think that an introductory explanation is required such as -

==Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs translation of the Declaration==

The following is an English translation of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel taken from the website of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. - Trahelliven (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There was an interesting article in Haaretz a few weeks ago (original behind paywall; google the title to find bootleg copies) that touches on the subject of translations. Apparently the MFA translation and most other translations replace "Hebrew" by "Jewish" in a few places. It would be nice if those places could be marked. The story behind it is not clear, but it may have resulted from a disagreement between Ben-Gurion and Sharett over the relationship with the diaspora. Zero^talk 00:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I find three occurrences.
  Para 8: "the Jewish community", original הישוב העברי literally the Hebrew community
  Para 11 (the bold one): same thing
  3rd last para: "Jewish people", original העם העברי literally Hebrew people.
Note that when the Jewish people as a whole are mentioned, as in the first paragraph and the second last paragraph, the word יהודי "Jewish" is used. Only the Jews in Eretz Yisrael are called Hebrew. We need to be careful not to descend into OR here, but the article I cited can be used as a source of attributed opinion. Zero^talk 01:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Following the edit by Number 57 -

1 As a matter of strict usage the contents of the quotation are a translation from the original Hebrew rather than a transcription (of what?).

2 The heading Transcription is not part of the text. The Text, even though formatted as a quotation, does not actually indicate that it is a quotation. It has to be read as if it were ordinary text. It therefore presents the same problem as the text the subject of the discussion with Ykantor. In other words, the quotation needs some context, which my last edit provided. Trahelliven (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your second point makes no sense. Of course transcription isn't part of the text, but neither was your overly-complex heading. I think it would be fairly obvious to any reasonable reader (as to opposed to a despairing wikilawyer) that the text presented is that of the declaration. Number 57 22:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is a little wordy. How about -

Number 57

I draw you attention to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is referred to at the top of this talk page. I have therefore deleted your personal comment for a second time. As an administrator you should know better. Trahelliven (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit of 06:22, 8 January 2015‎ by All Rows4 did two things. It firstly reinstated the comment of Number 57, which I consider a personal attack. It also removed my defence of the deletion of the comment. I admit that I deleted Number 57's comment, but I justify my so doing on the basis of the note at the top of the Talk page - Avoid personal attacks. The only matter that needs to be decided is -

Is the use of the phrase a personal attack. Trahelliven (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Given your past behaviour, I think it's merely a statement of fact. What is more concerning is your belief that you can edit other editor's comments (and have done so three times so far). If you do so again, I will request a sanction. Number 57 10:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Both of you should read the policy regarding the removal of personal attacks on talk pages. It is discouraged, but not forbidden. A test of "where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack" applies. If 57 requests a sanction against T'ven, it will be necessary to argue that it isn't a "true personal attack", which will be difficult I believe. Conversely, if T'ven requests a sanction against 57 for making personal attacks, the opposite requirement applies. It seems to me that both actions would be a waste of everyone's time. What I think you should do is:

(a) 57 should <s>strike out</s> the accusation and T'ven should cease deleting it.
(b) The manner of presentation of the text should be rethought. I've been looking into this a bit. First, something doesn't become "official" by appearing on the MFA web page, and I don't think the role of the MFA here is significant. The only text which is "official" in a strict sense is the original Hebrew text published in the government Gazette (Reshumot). It isn't part of Israeli law but the High Court cites it often as rationale for its decisions. I'm not aware of an "official translation", but there is an "authorised translation" in the first volume of the series "Laws of the State of Israel" published by the Israeli government. At least, that's what my poor memory tells me. I will check this, and if it's true I propose we present it something like this: Section heading: "The text of the Declaration". Introduction: "An authorised English translation of the Hebrew text was published by the Government of Israel, as follows." With cites for everything, naturally. Zero^talk 14:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Stating that someone has been wikilawyering when they have spent weeks quibbling over something based on their own, unsupported interpretation of documents is not a personal attack, and I will not be striking through anything.

But anyway, if you can find the authorised translation, that sounds a good way forward. The heading should just be "Text of the declaration" - I think "The" in section headings is discouraged. Number 57 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the status of this translation Proclamation of Independence: Official Gazette: Number 1; Tel Aviv, 5 Iyar 5708, 14.5.1948 Page 1? Trahelliven (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The reference is almost certainly to the Hebrew text. I don't know where this translation comes from, but I'm guessing that when I visit the library with the "authorised translation" (probably Monday or Tuesday) I'll find it is exactly the same. Zero^talk 00:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Number 57 in his edit of 14:47, 8 January 2015 states that I had been wikilawyering. That is an accurate description of what I had been doing. I just did not like the phrase despairing wikilawyer: at the very least the use of the word despairing is derogatory. To justify my deletion of the phrase as to opposed to a despairing wikilawyer, I relied on the article - Wikipedia:No personal attacks - and in particular the phrase in the lead - Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.. That article is linked to the phrase Avoid personal attacks at the top of the Talk Page. I shall leave the offending comments in the Talk Page for the time being. Trahelliven (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Authorised versus MFA translations

As I promised above, I have obtained the "authorised translation" of the Declaration as published by the Israel government in the first volume (to Sep 30, 1948) of the English series "Laws of the State of Israel". I'll call it "AT". I did an exact comparison of AT and the MFA translation at [41]. Apart from two inconsequential commas and a hyphen, the only difference is at the end: AT has 'PLACING OUR TRUST IN THE ALMIGHTY' while MFA has 'PLACING OUR TRUST IN THE "ROCK OF ISRAEL"'. Note that this translation also has "the Almighty" but it also has some other small differences.

I propose to use AT in the article, with a note about some translations using "Rock of Israel". Any objections? Zero^talk 06:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The first official copy of the Declaration is surely that in the first government gazette of 14 May 1948.[42] It appears to use the phrase Placing our trust in the Almighty. I was able to copy and paste the phrase from the website which means that what is on the website is not a recently prepared document. Whether this is a transcription of an original English version of the gazette or just a correct (or incorrect) translation of the original Hebrew gazette of 14 May 1948 is a matter for further investigation. The Australian equivalent is clearly a photocopy of the original gazette[43].Trahelliven (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The reference "Official Gazette: Number 1; Tel Aviv, 5 Iyar 5708, 14.5.1948 Page 1" is to the Hebrew text. The same reference is given for the authorised translation I am citing. The official gazette is a Hebrew publication, that's why there is an authorised English translation published separately. I'm sure Number 57's understanding of the difference in translation is correct. Zero^talk 10:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Re the "Rock of Israel"/"Almighty" bit above, this is discussed in the article itself in the final wording section (referenced to this MFA page). The conclusion in the article is that "Rock of Israel" was agreed upon, as it was sufficiently ambiguous to please both the religious and secular parties. The wording in the declaration ("צור ישראל") does directly translate as "Rock of Israel", but presumably someone liberally translated it as "Almighty" as they approached it from the religious perspective.

As a result, I think we should use the "Rock of Israel" translation, as the alternative of using "Almighty" will contradict the earlier statement about using "Rock of Israel". However, a note could be included to state that it is also translated as "Almighty", and perhaps link to that section. Number 57 10:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable option. Zero^talk 10:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What percent of the jewish population was in the partition?

99% of the arab partition was arab according to the wiki article on the partition plan, and only 1%, so how does this article get the figure that 82% of the jewish population of palestine resided within the jewish partition? Does the jerusalem population of jews make up the 17% difference?TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 100,000 of 608,000 Jews lived in the Jerusalem area according to the data at United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine#Proposed Partition. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Article is Mistitled

The title is wrong and should be changed. The article itself is clear: "... formally the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel". So why does the title depart from the formal? What purpose or interest is served by a title that is incorrect and confusing? Israel was never a colony or subservient state so there wasn't even anything for them to become independent from. The title should be changed.50.100.30.200 (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is the answer. We go by the most common name, not the formal title. Number 57 22:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Israeli Declaration of Independence and the USA

"Eleven minutes after midnight, the United States de facto recognized the State of Israel." The given source does not mention "eleven minutes". I can't find any source verifying the eleven minutes. In his speech on December 28, 2016 John Kerry said: "The United States recognized Israel seven minutes after its creation." --Redhutmacher (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For some reason I cannot view the source, but Truman Library backs it up ("May 14, 1948, 6:11 p.m. eastern standard time: The United States recognizes Israel on a de facto basis.") Number 57 06:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I found two sources for 11 minutes quite easily. Zero^talk 08:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The telegram from Sec. of State Marshall to Epstein of the Jewish Agency, officially announcing the recognition, says that the president signed it at "6:11 Washington time". Zero^talk 10:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Status in international law

There is a reference to status in Israeli law. But what about status under international law? Surely that is a significant topic in itself, and deserves as least a paragraph.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

As the section on on Status in Israeli Law correctly points out, the Israeli Declaration of Independence is not part of Israeli law and not a constitutional law in Israel. Clearly that in itself resolves the matter of "status in international law". Jacob D (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Israeli Declaration of Independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524094913/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253 to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107030419/http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S%2F745 to http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S%2F745
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615041505/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213230126/http://www.hsje.org/forcedmigration.htm to http://www.hsje.org/forcedmigration.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israeli Declaration of Independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112220409/http://info.jpost.com/1998/Supplements/Jubilee/2.html to http://info.jpost.com/1998/Supplements/Jubilee/2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013182456/http://www.tam.co.il/23_4_2004/magazin11.htm to http://www.tam.co.il/23_4_2004/magazin11.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2017

Somebody please revert this edit, since the parentheses next to "Yom Ha'atzmaut" (how the holiday is called in Hebrew) contain precisely the translation of those words, which mean "Independence Day". Also the grammar and sentence look bad and confusing in its current form.--181.10.75.46 (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Technically the edit was correct because the article in question has been renamed; however, it did mean the text in the parentheses was now redundant so I have removed that instead. Number 57 10:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Epstein's letter to President Truman preceded Israel's actual independence by several hours. The mention of borders there isn't relevant.

At the moment that Epstein's letter was sent, the Mandate was still in effect and Epstein was still an agent of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, not yet of the Provisional Government of Israel, which as the letter itself acknowledges, was not to assume its sovereign powers until midnight at the start of May 15. Considering the fact that the Israeli Declaration of Independence itself makes no mention of borders, the Epstein letter cannot be cited as relevant to the issue of borders, since it (like the Declaration) preceded Israel's actual independence. The caption under the Epstein letter should mention this timing, which is rather critical, as a sovereign state cannot regard itself as bound by "commitments" made by agents prior to the sovereign existence of said state. Jacob D (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union qualified their recognition of Israel as a State, as "de facto" or "de jure".

The claim that the United States initially recognized the State of Israel only "de facto", and that the Soviet Union was the first to to recognize it "de jure" can be found frequently on Wikipedia and the wider Internet. It is in fact an erroneous statement.

The United States gave unqualified recognition to the State of Israel, with the qualifier "de facto recognition" applied only to its provisional government: "The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel."

By contrast, the actual STATE of Israel is simply recognized, without mention of "de facto" or "de jure". As noted by President Truman on October 24 1948: "On May 14, 1948, this country recognized the existence of the independent State of Israel. I was informed by the Honorable Eliahu Epstein that a Provisional Government had been established in Israel. This country recognized the Provisional Government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel. When a permanent government is elected in Israel it will promptly be given de jure recognition."http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13065 The switch to US recognition of Israel's government on January 31, 1949 as the "de jure" authority was based on the conclusion of the 1st Israeli elections and the establishment of a permanent government. This is duly noted in Truman's letter of de-jure recognition, that having been informed of the election results, "the United States Government is therefore pleased to extend de-jure recognition to the Government of Israel as of this date".

A further clarification of this point regarding the US position can be found in the monograph "Recognition of Governments in International Law", by Stefan Talmon (pg.62):"With regard to US recognition of Israel, Dr Jessup, Deputy US Representative in the Security Council, informed the Security Council on 17 December 1948 that 'so far as the Provisional Government of Israel is concerned, the United States did extend de facto recognition to that Provisional Government of Israel.' In this connection it is also of interest to note Dr Jessup's telegram of 13 July 1948 to Secretary of State Marshall stating: 'it is our understanding that US recognition of State of Israel is unqualified, that is, de jure, while our recognition of PGI [Provisional Government of Israel] was a de facto recognition of government [of] that state. Is this interpretation correct?' The Department, on 15 July, stated its agreement with New York's understanding and set forth its belief that 'in case of recognition of new states as distinguished from new governments no question of de facto as against de jure recognition recognition is involved'."

The text of Jessup's telegram and the State Department's response can be found in the link below: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v05p2/d460

As for the Soviet Union's recognition of Israel, its recognition of both the State and the Government of Israel on May 18 makes no mention of "de jure" or "de facto" recognition. Molotov's letter to Shertok states the following, "The government of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the State of Israel and its provisional government."An article on that date in the San Francisco Chronicle notes the following: "“De facto” means that the government actually is in operation and is the ruling authority in the territory in question. “De facto” recognition usually is extended to provisional governments. “De Jure” recognition means recognition of a government as the legally constituted authority and ordinarily is followed by an exchange of diplomat representatives. Molotov’s letter made no mention of “de facto” or “de jure.”" http://cojs.org/wp-content/uploads/SnFnChn5-18-48E.pdf

In short, the United States' recognition of the State of Israel preceded that of the Soviet Union by 4 days, and in neither case were the words "de facto" or "de jure" applied to the recognition of Israel as a STATE. Jacob D (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

I expect that your analysis is mostly correct, but we have to go with what high quality secondary sources give us, and there are many which don't agree. I also have some qualms: (1) one of your sources is a Democratic Party platform and so inherently inadmissible as evidence; (2) the fact that a senior diplomat needed to ask for clarification shows how unclear it was; (3) it is curious that the US statement avoids explicitly saying "we recognize the State of Israel" when it would have been so easy to do so. I believe that (3) was deliberate and is explained in a document about the wording of the recognition statement that can be found in FRUS 1948, Vol V, p1002 (Henderson to Lovett, May 16):

"In drafting this reply [i.e., the reply to Epstein's request for recognition] we have taken the following into consideration:
...
We have not, for instance, indicated whether by granting de facto recognition to the provisional government of the state of Israel we recognize the boundaries of the new state to be identical with those set forth in Mr. Epstein’s letter to the Secretary. At the appropriate time we might desire to indicate that our de facto recognition does not necessarily mean that we recognize that the frontiers of the new Jewish state are the same as those outlined in the recommendation of the General Assembly of November 29,1947, that those boundaries had been determined upon with the understanding that there would be an economic union of all Palestine and a special international regime for Jerusalem." (etc).

From this it seems that recognition of the State rather than of the provisional government was deliberately not stated in order to avoid giving the impression of approving particular boundaries. Zero^talk 06:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

Move the "Official translation" section to the top. I belive most readers entering this article are more interested in that one than they are in any of the other sections. Use R. Name Jr. (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: the full text is very long and would take too much space in the lead section. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: That's not what I was asking for. I think it should be moved to the first section after the lead. Use R. Name Jr. (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think this would be appropriate in terms of ordering. Number 57 11:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Could you at least place it below the "Background" section? Use R. Name Jr. (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I think the current placement is appropriate. Number 57 11:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Translation version as published in The New York Times

Published on May 15 1948. Sokuya (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Title?

Why is the title of this article different than what the article acknowledges is the formal name of the proclamation? It's inaccurate as well, because there was nothing for Israel to become "independent" from. Shouldn't an encyclopedia reflect reality? I think the title should be changed to the proper name: "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel" with a redirect for searches of 'Israeli declaration of independence'. Thoughts?

Because we use the WP:COMMONNAME, not the formal name. Number 57 20:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Related articles

Dear editor: Is it possible to add the following articles for related interest?

• Lozowick, Yaacov. Who Owns Israeli's History?, Tablet Magazine, Aug. 5, 2019.

• Shachar, Yoram. Jefferson Goes East: The American Origins of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, "Theoretical Inquires Into Law", Vol. 10.2 (2009).

(````) --Bill Garrison — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillGarrisonJr (talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear editor: what about adding this page proposing 9 paintings by the artist Dan Groover on the theme of Israel independence ? https://israelmodernart.com/shop/by-discipline/painting/by-theme/1948-independence-day-israel-25

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.33.197 (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

typo

Final Wording section, last sentence, "centering" spelled wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumy Goldson (talk • contribs) 20:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Reference 5 to NYT is a dead link

Would be better to use the NYTimes Archive version of the article. I just don't have the ability to edit it myself. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/world/480515israel-state-50.html Gwingle (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gwingle: Thanks for pointing it out - I've fixed it. Cheers, Number 57 17:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Changing the names of the authors to their chosen hebrew names

I think the proper way to introduce a human is by their chosen name, moat of the authors had a hibraization version of their name as it appears in their respective Wikipedia articles 2A06:C701:4689:6A00:DC4D:95EF:723:BD9B (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

the actual declaration text is missing

An entry about a document that does not hold the document translation is a m

An entry about a document that does not hold the document translation seems like a miss. Indy1972 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) MaterialWorks (contribs) 20:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Israeli Declaration of Independence → Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel – Official name, WP:NPOV, and WP:COMMONNAME per Google Scholar (1,180 for "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel" to 1,120 for "Israeli Declaration of Independence") إيان (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - A difference of only 60 for the Google Scholar results hardly demonstrates a common name. Google Trends also doesn't support the proposed title as the common name. [44] Any evidence for common name certainly doesn't justify ignoring WP:CONCISE by almost doubling the length of the title. Estar8806 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  • The Google Trends link provided by Estar8806 above is for the United States alone. Trends results are very different when you look at worldwide searches. إيان (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current title is more popular and concise. Dovidroth (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "More popular" by what metric? Because it's not by Google Scholar or Google Trends. إيان (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Neither of the two comments in opposition have addressed the issue of WP:NPOV, which is one of the five WP:pillars of Wikipedia and supersedes considerations of WP:CONCISE. "Israeli Declaration of Independence" is partisan, non-neutral terminology; the official "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel" is more neutral–not to mention more commonly used in reliable sources according to Google Scholar. إيان (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  • How on earth is the current title a NPOV issue? Number 57 11:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

    The term "Israeli Declaration of Independence" creates a WP:POVFORK for articles that need to link to the establishment of the State of Israel. The term aligns with the nationalist narrative that characterizes 1948 as Israel's "war of independence". (See, for example: Pappé, Ilan (2009). "The Vicissitudes of the 1948 Historiography of Israel". Journal of Palestine Studies. 39 (1): 6–23. doi:10.1525/jps.2010.xxxix.1.6. ISSN 0377-919X.)

    The name "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel", translated from the Hebrew הכרזה על הקמת מדינת ישראל, is the official name of the document, it is more WP:PRECISE, and it is more neutral and objective. Additionally, it's the WP:COMMONNAME in reputable, scholarly sources according to Google Scholar. إيان (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

    You don't understand what a POVFORK is, because there is no second article to be a fork here. And there really isn't a POV issue here. Calling the 1948 Arab–Israeli War the "Israeli War of Independence" would be a POV issue because that would be viewing the war from the Israeli perspective. However, describing the actual act of independence as such is not a POV issue because there is no alternative view to consider (unless one believes Israel did not become an independent country, which would be a view not based in reality). Number 57 20:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no neutrality issue with the current title. The longer version is more formal but the shorter version is fine. There is a lot of discussion of this in Archive 1 of this talk page. Zero^talk 13:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the link, but I've read through and did not find anything that was particularly convincing or conclusive. Number 57 claimed common name for "Israeli Declaration of Independence" a couple of times, but we have not yet been provided with a hard metric for this claim. إيان (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is the well known name of the document. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NPOV. Pg 6475 ^TM 01:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see a neutrality issue with the original title. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.