Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 1

Sir Anthony Knyvet

He was Governor of Portsmouth in 1544 and supervised the construction of Southsea Castle. Is this the same man that we have an stub article about: Anthony Knyvett (Black Rod)? Alansplodge (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

They appear to be two different gents both named Sir Anthony Knyvett.[1][2] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha! Many thanks - I was getting very confused. Alansplodge (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have now created a stub article, Anthony Knyvett (1507-1554). Many thanks Clarityfiend. Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Alansplodge. And you too, Alansplodge. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Views on the afterlife

The ancient Greeks believed that death was horrible, eternal, and inevitable, which seems to be an odd combination shared by nobody else (not even atheists, who probably believe death is neutral rather than horrible). How did the Greeks not go insane with such a pessimistic view, since death was very common in the ancient world? Is there any other religion that views death in this way? --140.180.242.9 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just curious. Where did you get the idea that "The ancient Greeks believed that death was horrible, eternal, and inevitable"? If you can tell us that it may give us a lead to their other thought processes (before they went insane). HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone had to go to Hades, some made it to the Elysian Fields. StuRat (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, where they invented baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Baseball was invented by dead Greeks? Who knew? --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Check it out for yourself: Elysian Fields ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the scene in the Odyssey where Odysseus calls up the ghost of Tiresias does present a pretty negative view of death. What I question is the belief that nobody else held similar views. The Navajo, as I understand it (mainly from reading Tony Hillerman books) traditionally hold a very negative view of the afterlife. Looie496 (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why we're talking as if death and the afterlife are synonymous terms. There's a lot more to a house than just the door, which is what death is in relation to the afterlife. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no house. Just the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The building inspectors will never approve. The makers of Blazing Saddles seem to have cottoned on to the general idea, though. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was remembering Odysseus' conversation with Achilles in the Odyssey:

"In book 11 of Homer's Odyssey, Odysseus sails to the underworld and converses with the shades. One of these is Achilles, who when greeted as "blessed in life, blessed in death", responds that he would rather be a slave to the worst of masters than be king of all the dead. But Achilles then asks Odysseus of his son's exploits in the Trojan war, and when Odysseus tells of Neoptolemus' heroic actions, Achilles is filled with satisfaction."

Hades also seems to be a gloomy place in general. From our article: "In older Greek myths, the realm of Hades is the misty and gloomy[19] abode of the dead (also called Erebus), where all mortals go. Later Greek philosophy introduced the idea that all mortals are judged after death and are either rewarded or cursed." --140.180.242.9 (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The early Biblical notion of Sheol seems very similar to the Greek Hades. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In what way? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In the sense that it was seen as an underworld of gloom and semi-oblivion, that made no distinction between the good and the evil, and that people like Samuel could be called up from. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bible indicates that Sheol describes the grave, which is to say that both the good and the evil is called to the grave. Sheol, as used in the Bible does not refer to a place, but to the actual state of death. "Samuel" was not called up, but a deceiving spirit in disguise instead, the Bible is quite clear on the state of the dead. Only God can restore life to the dead. The Bible does not support the idea of the afterlife in any case, there is only life and death. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I know this is becoming a tangent to the OP's question, but Plasmic, it's not clear to me that the Samuel conjured up by the witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28 is not in fact Samuel. The verses make it fairly plain that Saul, who knew Samuel in life, recognized him, and there is absolutely no suggestion in the passage, by Saul or anyone else, that Samuel did not in fact appear: http://www.esvbible.org/1+Samuel+28/ I'll admit that a large number of theologians have interpreted the passage as you do--that is, that it was a "deceiving spirit"--but that interpretation is not demanded by the text itself. I think it's fair to say that this passage, at the very least, suggests that Jewish ideas about death, the spirit realm, and the afterlife may have been more complicated in the era during which the books of Samuel were composed than they later have been understood through the lens of Christian exegesis (and I'm saying this as someone who identifies as Christian and takes a serious layman's interest in exegesis). Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that the Books of the Bible can be cross-referenced, then it becomes impossible for that subect to be Samuel. This depends entirely on whether or not you acknowledge that the Books are interconsistent. If you don't acknowledge this then my arguement is pointless. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I challenge your false dichotomy. I cannot see any reason to believe that the author of 1 Samuel did not think that the Witch of Endor successfully called on Samuel's spirit. And the spirit appears to give Saul accurate information, so there is no reason within the text to regard the spirit as 'deceiving'. Your assertion of 'interconsistency' is a very tall order, and an obviously unproven claim. Which other texts do you think give us reason to think otherwise?

It's not apparent that the author of 1 Samuel regards calling up a spirit as the same as 'restoring life to the dead'. There's a clear contrast with the most relevant story from Hebrew scripture, which is Elisha raising the Shunamite's son in 2 Kings 4. I also think that no credible scholar would ever claim, as you do, that 'the Bible does not support the idea of the afterlife'. New Testament examples are plentiful: I particularly direct your attention to Jesus' words to the dying thief, "I tell you truly, you will be with me in Paradise today", but also to Jesus' use of 'Abraham's Bosom' and related concepts in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. And in the Hebrew scriptures, there's 2 Samuel 22:6 and Psalm 18:5 (which certainly do seem related and interconsistent), where David specifically refers to Sheol by name, and Psalm 16:10 - "You will not leave my soul in Sheol", which makes it clear that the soul is conceived of as having an existence beyond the outward life of the body, and that Sheol is a potential trap or prison for it.

It looks like you want us not just to accept that the books of the Bible can be cross-referenced, but that doing so delivers an interpretation which suits the teaching you have accepted. I submit that (a) except where the explicitly call on the reader to recall another scripture, the books of the Bible can be read in isolation, and that (b) reading them in both their scriptural and historical contexts may lead to interesting and productive insights - about Judaism, Christianity, and the ancient Near East - but that it does not lead ineluctably to the conclusions you are attempting to press on us.

For my part, I regard the Bible's teaching on the afterlife to be partial and inconclusive, but most definitely not non-existent. And I think it's fair to say that the early image of Sheol, especially as illustrated by the books of Samuel and Psalms, does have some correspondence with beliefs about the afterlife found in Mesopotamian and Greek sources from both before and after the time those stories are set, and when they were likely to have been set down in something approaching their present form. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing this with you if you don't fully understand your own premises. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And what do you suppose my premises are, and in what way do you think I don't understand them? Because I have a degree in this stuff, and I like to think I have a reasonable clue what I'm talking about. Alternatively, you could actually address the points I've raised, rather than attacking my intelligence or integrity. I'm concerned because the OP asked a reasonable question, and your responses so far represent fairly obvious misinformation on the topic at hand. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess that is the only thing that we have in common, we've both concluded that the other is misinformng. I didn't address the points you raised, because to make a succesful argument, it is necessary for both parties to first be in agreement over the premises used in making said argument. Since we don't agree over your asserted premises, my rebutal would be as useless as lever without a fulcrum. I did not attack your intelligence or integrity, I merely made an observation. I didn't address your premises either, as I can see from your personallity that it would be a futile task. In this context, I don't see meaning in degrees or personal achievement, understanding comes by the Spirit. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

They do seem strikingly similar. I wonder if the Greeks could have influenced the Hebrews or vice versa in their views of the afterlife. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

They very well might have. The Jewish people were living in the middle of the Hellenistic world for quite a while. While the Biblical period predates much of that period, for centuries many Jewish people lived in "Hellenistic Jewish communities, and it is quite likely there was significant cross-pollenization. See also Septuagint, a major and widely used Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. Again, while Hellenism occurred too late to be considered during the times the Hebrew Bible describes, later Jewish traditions would certainly have not been immune to such ideas, being in such close contact with the Greek world. --Jayron32 06:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There were some Greek influences, but they should not be over-exaggerated. Before Alexander's conquests, Judea was a kind of minor inland province, somewhat insulated from sea-trading, and not quick to embrace foreign theological concepts. The scribes and priests of the Jerusalem temple, or the Babylonian exile, would have had zero knowledge of or interest in Greek literature. Even for a few books of the Hebrew Bible where it's widely considered possible that they were written after Alexander, and that there may be significant general overall Greek influences -- such as "Ecclesiastes" -- it's still extremely difficult to point to any particular passage as being specifically influenced by a passage in any Greek work, and there's a distinct paucity of Greek loanwords... AnonMoos (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I stated exactly what you stated. When I said "Again, while Hellenism occurred too late to be considered during the times the Hebrew Bible describes..." what I meant by that was "Hellenism occurred too late to be considered during the times the Hebrew Bible describes" I'm sorry if that was unclear. --Jayron32 14:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, but the classical concept of "Sheol" is contained in the parts of the Bible which date from too early for meaningful Greek influence, while during the Hellenistic period many (not all) Jews moved towards an apocalyptic resurrection and heaven-vs.-hell view of the afterlife (which is generally ascribed mainly to Persian influence, if any outside influences were involved), so I'm not sure when significant Greek influence on Jewish views of the afterlife could have occurred... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Which is not to say that the Persian and Greek and later Hebrew concepts didn't come up in the same cultural millieu. These cultures had constant continuous contact over many centuries, and it would be surprising if they all didn't have profound impact all on each other. The Achaemenid Empire dates from the founding of Zoroastrianism, which happened at the same time as the Babylonian captivity period when much of the Hebrew Bible was penned (though it describes earlier periods, it was written down at this time) and this is also the time Classical Greece reached its Zenith and when much of Greek Mythology was committed to its classic form. So, you have a case where three major religious traditions are being composed during the same (roughly) overlapping 200 year period, among cultures which are in constant contact and yet it is supposed to be surprising that there are parallels between Greek Hades and some concepts of Sheol, as well as the "Heaven-and-Hell" aspects of Zoroastrianism? I'd say I would be shocked if such connections weren't made, given the historical realities. --Jayron32 17:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There were many possible paths of cultural influence; however, it's hard to get around the facts that before 332 BC there was no meaningful direct influence of Greek mythology or literature on Biblical Judaism, while after 332 BC, Jewish views of the afterlife tended to move away from a Hades-like conception... During the era when Greek influence became more historically plausible, Jewish conceptions of the afterlife actually became less Greek-like. AnonMoos (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's quite widely accepted that early Greek religion and mythology were influenced by the Phoenicians, aka Canaanites, who also influenced the early Israelites. They're all nations on or not far from the coast of the eastern Mediterranean, so some degree of cross-pollinisation would be unsurprising. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Never give a sword to a man who cannot dance

One of my friends told me that this was a quote by Confucius, as a number of quote sites online mention. I feel that this is spurious however, and I couldn't find anything in the Analects that says anything to this regard. What's the origin of this quote, or is this just the work of some fortune cookie hack? bibliomaniac15 07:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Never take a quote from a man who cannot provide the source. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked two different translations of the Analects[3][4] and the words "sword" and "dance" do not appear in both of them. For what it's worth this Chinese guy[5] made the exact same observation as you. A8875 (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The digging I did on the interwebs suggests this quote is from a work of James Macpherson, although the sites I found this claim on were too unreliable to the point of even being worth mentioning. Specifically this quote was supposed to originate with Fionn mac Cumhaill as written by Oisín and translated by Macpherson, although it's worth noting that Macpherson made up pretty much everything he "translated". Someguy1221 (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if you can find it recorded much earlier than modern mythologizer Robert Bly's Iron John (book) who says "Michael Meade reminds us of the old Celtic motto: "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance."" meltBanana 13:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

When I saw this topic in the TOC I immediately thought of Scottish sword dances before I even scrolled down to read this. Roger (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

From memory, there's some sort of famous "sword dance" written by Scriabin or Rimsky-Korsakov or Kabalevsky or someone like that.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Cancel that. Was thinking of the "Sabre Dance" from Khachaturian's Gayane.--Shirt58 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought of sword dancing too, but I think the point is, that if you're not coordinated enough to be able to dance properly, then you're likely to be a worse-than-useless with a sword. I'm probably stating the obvious though. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Philosopher Wilson called it an ancient Celtic saying that goes, "never give a sword to a man who can't dance." Rich Goodhart has a CD, "Never Give A Sword To A Man Who Can't Dance." Choreographer Joe Chvala mentions a Celtic motto, "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance," to emphasize the mythically destructive and creative duality of aggression. Similarly, he explains how the berserks worshipped Odin, the Norse god of war and poetic inspiration, "which are two things people don't generally put together, but the dance does." Another reference mentions, old Celtic saying: "Never give a warrior a sword before he learns to dance". Another reference mentions, "There is an old Celtic proverb that says, "Never give a sword to a man who can t dance." In other words, don t entrust weapons to a man who is not also capable of experiencing joy and passion." Another reference, "There is an ancient eastern saying, "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance, or the Celtic saying, You cannot pick up the sword until you have picked up the drum."[6]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Both 'Celtic' and 'Eastern' are extremely general terms. Can you be more specific, and do you have sources? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are we ready to call bullshit on this? If anyone can find a pre-internet reference, I'll eat my lunch. Zoonoses (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't want you to go hungry, Zoonoses. Please start, otherwise it will go cold. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, well - two months later I stumbled across a possible reference in the Essays of Elia (Mrs. Battle's Opinions on Whist): She held not her good sword (her cards) "like a dancer." (The quotes are Lamb's.) This was first published in the early 1820's. Lamb didn't footnote this quotation, but it is almost certainly from Antony and Cleopatra Act 3 Scene 11:

 Antony: Yes, my lord, yes: he at Phillipi kept
 His sword e'en like a dancer while I struck
 The lean and wrinkled Cassius, and 'twas I
 That the mad Brutus ended: he alone
 Dealt on lieutenantry, and no practice had
 In the brave squares of war: yet now, no matter. 

My excellent Royal Shakespeare Company copy of the play glosses the relevant line: sword...dancer in its scabbard, like a dancer's sword worn for ornament. Maybe, maybe.... Zoonoses (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

anti-zionism

If people in Israel are anti-zionist, why don't they leave Israel instead of staying there? as a matter of fact why doesn't Israel kick out the anti-zionists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.44 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what the words you're using mean? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume that last word in their post was meant to repeat "anti-Zionist". StuRat (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence in its original form as of 14:56, 1 October 2012 is incoherent semi-gibberish... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they since corrected the last word from "zionist" to "anti-zionist". StuRat (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, 'Zionism' means a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. The opposite (anti-zionism) would be to oppose the existence of a Jewish nation, which is in essence what Hamas strives for (the annihilation of Israel). It makes sense to me that Israel would not consider that ideology particularly constructive. - Lindert (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what argument the OP is trying to make. Roughly, and very much generalizing, you could divide anti-Zionists in Israel in three categories: 1) Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship, who have roots in the land and who have no intention of leaving. Many of them would prefer a secular state, a state with equality for all citizens. They were there before the State of Israel was conceived, and any expulsion would be fiercely resisted 2) A minority within the Jewish left, who likewise would prefer a secular state. Most of them would be children or grandchildren of migrants to Palestine/Israel. They generally thread a fine line balancing themselves between anti-Zionist and the fact that their own families are residents of Israel through Aliyah (a pillar of Zionist doctrine). 3) some ultra-orthodox Jews (like Neturei Karta), who don't support the notion of a Jewish state. The latter two categories are very small. Any draconian expulsion (as the OP seems to want to imply) would have no benefits and create many, many problems for Israeli policy-makers.

And @Lindert, no anti-Zionism is not about 'annihiliation', it is a critique of a chauvinist doctrine. --Soman (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And what 'chauvinist doctrine' may that be? If someone can support 'the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel' (zionism) and at the same time oppose some 'chauvinist doctrine' (supposedly anti-zionism), does that mean that one can be a zionist and an anti-zionist at the same time? - Lindert (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Soman is saying that Zionism is the chauvinist (bellicose patriotism) doctrine. I don't see any way you can be both Zionist and anti-Zionist at the same time. You're either for an officially Jewish state or you aren't. Opposing some parts of it, but still wanting an officially Jewish state, is just another form of Zionism. It isn't anti-Zionism. Soman is correct in pointing out that there are plenty of anti-Zionist critiques which aren't based on "annihilation of Israel".--Mr.98 (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The annihilation of a Jewish nation could simply mean the annihilation of the state's discrimination against non-Jews. I oppose "the development and protection of a Christian nation in what is now America", but only because I think American policies (including immigration policies) should not discriminate against any religion, not because I want New York to go up in flames. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "annihilation" is obviously one loaded with violent connotations — it means "complete destruction." There are no doubt some groups out there who want Israel and the Jewish people annihilated, but they should be considered the exclusive definition of what anti-Zionism means. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing a negation in the last clause. --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I find elements of the above discussion problematic in their use of the key terms - including the OED definition. Kindly consider:

• The Jewish "people" - a better term than "nation" as the latter is usually associated with geopolitical locales - can be seen as including (a) adherents of the Jewish religion (b) individuals who descend from Jewish forebears and who either (b1) do or (b2) don't identify with this ethnicity apart from religious belief/practice as in (a). Almost all (a) are also (b), whereas many (b1) and even more (b2) are not (a).
• The state of Israel was established to be a homeland for the Jewish people (not "a" Jewish "nation"), and those who qualify per the Israeli Interior Ministry are granted residence and citizenship. This preferential treatment is considered by Zionists a goal worthy of continued support due to antisemitism in other sovereign nation-states. Not incidentally, Israel is the world's only country (and this only since 1948) to institute what I'll call Jewish culture: the Hebrew language, the Jewish calendar of holidays, etc.
• The state of Israel doesn't operate entirely on Jewish religious law, though this is enforced in many areas of life in the domain of the abovementioned Ministry of the Interior.

• "Orthodox" and "ultra-Orthodox" Jews are numerically a minority, though their political parties receive disproportionately high support due to the clout they wield in coalition system of government.
• Minorities do have government-funded support, notably a separate education system for the Arab population (language of instruction: Arabic).

For the purposes of this query, looking only at "anti-Zionists living in Israel": they oppose the privileges granted to Jews and would prefer a "nation[-state] of all its inhabitants/citizens." (A separate case from some believing Jews who maintain that only the Messiah can bring about a Jewish sovereign state on Earth.) Perhaps the manifesto of some anti-Zionist party or similar organization would specify whether Judaic religious practices would be included along with others, i.e. Muslim, Christian, or secular (similar to the U.S.A.'s "separation of Church and State"), or be relegated to minority status (and possibly delegitimized) were the Jewish/Zionist hegemony replaced by either a secular, egalitarian multi-stream, or non-democratic form of government. I can also state that it's possible to support the Zionist call for Israel as a homeland for the world's Jews while demanding - as written in the Basic Law amendments (notably that of Human Dignity and Liberty) to Israel's Declaration of Independence - equal treatment/opportunities/rights/responsibilities for all its inhabitants, perhaps on the model of other multilingual, multiethnic democracies. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny thing how the Arabic word for "Arab nationalism" (قومية) literally means "tribalism" (as expressed and exemplified in such literary masterworks as Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies), while the country of Malaysia has an overtly and explicitly racist governing philosophy backed up by an overtly and explicitly racist constitution, yet for some reason Soman never seems to criticize those nationalisms... AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If this is some kind of personal quarrel you have with Soman, I don't want to get involved. But this discussion is about Jews and Zionism, not Arabs, Malays, or their constitution. Soman also didn't denounce Stalin in this thread, but that doesn't imply anything about his beliefs about Stalin. --140.180.242.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a personal quarrel as such, just that I'm a little tired of the trotting out of pseudo-leftist jargon buzzwords (such as "chauvinist" here) as some kind of apparent substitute for reasoned critical thought when it comes to certain topics (as for Stalin, see the use of buzzword "progressive" at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 5#Israel & American policy...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall having ever spoken in favour the bumiputra doctrine, neither on WP:RDH nor anywhere else. AnonMoos tried the same argument ploy back in 2009, and I responded there Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_August_10#Racism_Israel. --Soman (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)