Talk:Israel–Zimbabwe relations

introducing off-topic material

The WP:UNDUE introduction of off-topic material about the PLO in an article about Israel-Zimbabwe relations will not be tolerated. Attempts to commandeer this article are unacceptable. I advise you not to start an edit war.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

in fact the passage about the lemba is offtopic (even if they are jewish) and should be deleted i'd say.--Severino (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If these people's ancestors came from the Holy Land, then it is on-topic. If you have something constructive to add to this article, you are welcome to add it.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Severino that this be off topic, so I remove it. No source give or state in the paragraph state why it important and should be include to article on commercial and diplomatic tie between Zimbabwe and "Israel". --Ani medjool (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

this article is about bilateral relations between zimbabwe and israel. even if the lemba really had roots in what is now israel, they wouldn't be relevant for this article. unless, their existence would influence (in a positive or negative way) the relations between the two countries. see also Wikipedia:NOR.--Severino (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason we are ignoring the initial issue of PLO relations? This is an article about Israel. Those sentences are unrelated to the article and should be removed. Breein1007 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

this is not an article about israel but about the zimbabwe-israel relations. and the relevant sections deal exactly with that as other users have already assessed as one can see in the edit history.--Severino (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, is there a reason you are ignoring the issue? You are repeating yourself like a broken record. Israel-Zimbabwe relations. There are 2 parties involved. Israel and Zimbabwe. The PLO certainly isn't affiliated with Israel. Does it have some connection to Zimbabwe's foreign policy that I'm unaware of? If not, the information needs to be removed. Breein1007 (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

you are ignoring the answers. there is no obligation to refute the allegations that the material is offtopic again and again. israel's occupation policy of course is mirrored in it's relations with zimbabwe.

is there a reason you ignore the offtopic issue of the lemba raised here? .--Severino (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Rhodesia

Israel's support for the rhodesian minority regime, especially military, of course must not be ignored, all the more as it's something like the background for the present-day relations. --Severino (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

there are many details in The Israeli Connection: Whom Israel Arms and Why by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi.--Severino (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Severino, if you have sourced information to add, please do so. Actions are stronger than words. --Shuki (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

of course, but feel free to add the concerning information yourself.--Severino (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wha? You started the section with a concern and you want me to add the info? Are you paying by the hour or flat-rate? --Shuki (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ha ha ha. --Severino (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Lemba - in or out?

I have been following this edit feud (not quite a war) on whether the Lemba are on topic or not with some interest. To start with, let me say that I have no vested interest here, being neither Jewish nor African.

My gut feel is that it is not so terribly off topic that it deserves an automatic death sentence. However, in the interests of fairness, I reviewed two similar articles: French_canadian_relations and French-American_relationship.

The French-Canadian article (which is indeed about France and Canada, not a discussion of the amours of French Canadians ;-) ) speaks about the French population of Canada at great length, because they have (or have had) a big impact on the relation of the two countries. However, in the France-US article, while there is necessarily discussion of Louisiana, there is no discussion of the Cajun population in Louisiana who came from France via Canada, presumably because they haven't really had an impact on the relationship of the 2 countries.

So, applying this logic to this article, we should delete the poor Lemba, or, as I would prefer, note the fact that while these people are there, they don't seem to have had any effect on the warming of relations between the two countries...in fact, I'll put that edit in, and see if we can stop this...

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm comparing it with Ethiopia–Israel relations where more African Jews are mentioned. I think that it should stay, but certainly kept in check so not to breach undue weight. --Shuki (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking of it in terms of "if someone discovered one day that there was a tribe of people living in Zimbabwe who are apparently really descendants of the Jewish nation from early on, and given the high level of importance that Israel places on Jews worldwide, would that someone reasonably wonder if there was some relationship between the existence of the Lemba and the improving relations between Israel and Zimbabwe?" Of course they would. So we state the bare facts: (1) there are Lemba in Zimbabwe, (2) relations between Israel and Zimbabwe are improving, but (3) despite the possible connection, there doesn't seem to be any documented evidence of (1) contributing to (2). And if you want to know more about the Lemba, we've given you a nice link to the article that is actually about them. I don't think we need to say anything more...unless someone discovers that the Lemba DID have something to do with it ;-)

hahaha, my explanation is longer than the paragraph I put in the article ;-)

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, allmost all of the ethiopian jews were brought to Israel with two extensive operations; something that has not occured here.--Severino (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My argument for it staying is that Israel is always seeking out new sources of immigrants, and the Lemba at 70K+ would constitute a massive new pool for aliyah. Any such mass migration would be completely relevant to relations between the two countries, so I don't think it unreasonable to mention. Other than the former Soviet Union, with secularisation of Jewish families, I get the impression that the pool of potential immigrants is dwindling.

There used to be similar misgivings about the Falasha amongst some Jews in Israel.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

in case of mass immigration the lemba would be relevant for the relations.--Severino (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, MacRusgail, I have to say "math agat" (thanks) for your attention to this article, but I see that this edit (which I will reluctantly revert) flies in the face of the "off-topic" problem. I agree that the Lemba are interesting and deserve a mention here - but 95% of what you are inserting is either already in the Lemba article or should be. This article, as the others have noted, is about relations between Israel and Zimbabwe, not the history or possible future of the Lemba. Might they go to Israel? Maybe. We don't know. Might any such migration affect relations? Well, maybe, but we don't know...and as Severino correctly points out, if it happens and changes the relationship, that's when we'll put it in here. You have already seen other editors remove any mention of the Lemba at all, and I think my compromise is quite reasonable: stick what little we know, point to the Lemba article, and let it go at that, rather than reproducing a bunch of content from that article here, when we haven't seen any evidence that the existence of the Lemba has actually had any effect on the subject of the article at all, which makes it, by definition, off-topic.

If you'll come up with references and documentation that the Lemba have affected the relationship of Israel and Zimbabwe, then I'm all in favor of expanding the scope. If you come up with any evidence that the Lemba are even talking about moving to Israel, then I'm in favor of at least referencing that. But I don't see any evidence that anyone is even talking about it...

Look at what the latest BBC story says:

Despite their centuries-old traditions, some younger Lemba are taking a more liberal view.

"In the old days you didn't marry a non-Lemba, but these days we interact with others," says Alex Makotore, son of the late Chief Mposi from the Lemba "headquarters" in Mberengwa.

"I feel special in my heart but not in front of others such that I'm separated from them. Culture is dynamic."

The younger Lemba are not only not talking about moving to Israel, they're starting to intermarry more with other locals.

Until you can present some evidence that these things are happening, it remains in the realm of speculation...which speculation would be relevant in the Lemba article or whatever article there is on Israel bringing home Jews from around the world, but not here, for reasons that have been made perfectly clear.

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Lemba section is pretty brief, but since Israel takes an interest in all Jewish populations around the world, I think they are relevant. They should at least get a mention and a short explanation. (Incidentally why is there no article on Zimbabwe-SA relations?!)--MacRusgail (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, Israel does take an interest in Jews worldwide, but as you can see at the Lemba article, there appears to be some debate over whether the proper authorities would consider the Lemba to be real Jews.

I think that this issue is a very legitimate issue to place in the last section of the Lemba article, and I would encourage you to add some other information there, as what's there didn't seem to present the same view as what you shared here.

However, in the case of this article, I believe that it would be better, giving the lack of any indication that the Lemba's existence has had, as of yet, had any impact on the article's subject, that it would be better to have this kind of discussion of what the Lemba's possible "Jewish" status and possible use of the "right of return" in the article specifically on the Lemba themselves.

Oh, as for the possible 'Zimbabwe-SA relations', do you mean this article South_Africa_–_Zimbabwe_relations?

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Rhodesian Bush War

The military help for Rhodesia took place against the background of this war (and not in peacetime), as also the source says! Also, Rhodesia's transformation to Zimbabwe, which is mentioned in the sentence in question ("independence"), was a result of this war. Therefore it's indispensable to mention it. Stop whitewashing.--Severino (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The map is wrong

The map shows the Gaza Strip and West Bank as part of Israel. This should be corrected. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

i had to click 2 times into the map before i could see that you're right. i don't know if the wrong map was created on purpose or because it was considered too elaborate to sketch in the borders into the small dimensions. for the sake of accuracy, it should be changed.--Severino (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I am wrong on the part of West Bank. The circle seems to denote it. But Gaza Strip is shown as a part of Israel. Compare the map in this article with for example this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Israel_Australia_Locator.png. You can see the difference. However, it is also wrong to mark the Palestinian territories (like in this map with Australia and Israel) as light green as if they have something to do with Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Israel–Rhodesia relations

I don't think there is a point in having separate articles for Rhodesia and Zimbabwe. Not only is it the continuation of the same state, but there isn't even a main article on the foreign relations of Rhodesia (or Zaire etc. for that matter). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

agree.Kreecher (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support on the basis that Zimbabwe was formerly known as Rhodesia and it makes sense. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, isn't this merge proposal non-controversial anyway? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)