Talk:Israel/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

No Mention of Deir Yassin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

Perhaps this massacre should be mentioned in the history section, as it is 1) a particularly dramatic episode in Israeli history, and 2) the event that triggered Menachem Begin's frightening quote "As at Deir Yassin, so everywhere". It would also help lend credibility to this article, which, as another user pointed out, is basically a pro-Israeli sales-pitch that glazes over descriptions of injustices in favour of terminology that distances itself from real events. Not that the Palestinians haven't committed their fair share of atrocities, either, but healthy representations of both groups' histories would be nice.

Not to bate charges of anti-semitism (or make conjectural accusations), but there is a problem with pages like this on Wikipedia, too (including the "United States" page), as the Jewish population is inevitably better-represented than groups that don't per capita possess so many of the characteristic prescribed by Wikipedia as being typical of its user base, including higher income levels, literacy, access to technology, etc. These conditions, unfortunately, are condusive to incidents of systemic bias - how many Palestinians are frequent Wikipedians? Moreover, many Jews are highly politicized (though diversely), and very culturally involved, which suggests it's possible that systemically biased political and cultural views could be adversely effecting Wikipedia's objectivity.

Over and out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.139.44 (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a mention of Sabbra and Chatila and a ironical contrast with the Israelis calling Ahmejinidad 'sick' for saying he was glad the butcher of Sabbra and Chatila was on his last legs.86.133.101.176 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Geneva conventions?

why is it that there is not a single word uttered about israel's breaking of the geneva conventions? personnally i find this article sounds like a sales pitch for israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.66.62 (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m also curious of why there’s no mention. Ignoring the fact by not adding it in does sound like a sales pitch. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Israels per captia gdp

I think that someone who has the power (I don't) to edit this article should check on the per captia gpp as of 2006-2007, since the highest number on the internet (31,00) was put on. I have found most sources to have numbers below $20,000, but some above. The most reliable and verified number should be posted, but I doubt it is $31,000. BBC put the GNI per capita at US $18,620 (World Bank, 2006) , and I've seen most numbers before 2007 at either 26,800, 17,000 or 18,000. Please research. -sorry that i don't have sources or exact numbers, but i can't edit anyway- —Preceding unsigned comment added by PankertyperSTR (talk • contribs) 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The large difference stems mostly from the two different ways of measuring - simple dollar amount, or corrected for PPP (Purchase Power Parity). There is a source for the current number, a reliable source actually ([1]). The 31,000 number is high, but was published by the IMF. Note that the OECD figure is lower, at $27,688. I don't know if there's a decision which figure (IMF or OECD) to use in those info boxes in general, but there should be. okedem (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done some research and the most trusted and unbiased source is from the CIA World Factbook, which states the GDP PPP for 2006 was $26,000 (39th place since it uncludes all countries in the world, unlike the other rankings which exclude many Middle Eastern and Asian countries). The source is : https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html. I hope someone changes the stat to the above, since I notice that people keep on raising the GDP with unreliable sources that are obviously very pro-Israel. I am Israeli and I can tell you Israel does not need anyone to make it seem any richer than it is. Pro-israel Americans and Europeans (primarily zionists) always try to make Israel seem richer and more perfect, it is a nice country but you don't need to lie to make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.200.145 (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't know what makes you think the CIA World Factbook is such an accurate source. It's not academic, and the CIA isn't by any change an economic establishment. The Factbook is, at times, useful for some purposes, but can't be depended upon for specific figures, and this has been shown in many previous cases.
2. The currently cited figure is by the International Monetary Fund ([2]), certainly not a "pro-Israel" source. Also, I ask you to refrain from using claims of "lying", "pro-Israel", or "Pro-israel Americans and Europeans (primarily zionists) always try to make Israel seem richer and more perfect". I've explained that the different figures stem from different method for calculating the purchasing power in a country, and aren't easy to calculate, and leave room for decisions (unlike nominal GDP, which is a mostly objective figure). This file - [3] explains a bit about the different methodologies. They have nothing to do with "lying". okedem (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue I have with the previously quoted IMF figures is that they were projections. Projections, especially in economics, are often significantly off the mark. Quanticle (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Really, don't count on the CIA factbook. I found some really obvious mistakes there.

I don't think the issue of projections/estimates is that bad. Given the large variance of PPP calculation methods, and the constantly changing (mostly dropping) value of the dollar (as commented on below), no one number is going to be exact. So I don't think there's much of an issue using estimates, when they are made after most of the year, and when we know nothing really changed in Israel from that time (October) to the end of the year, so the projections can't be too far off. If you like, we could add the 2006 numbers (add, not replace, since the trend is also of interest), using a good source (IMF/OECD/Bank of Israel). okedem (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

due to the declining vlaue of the dollar (and the continuing rise of the Shekel) Israeli GDP has risen quite a bit this year.

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please add in Israels Per Capita GDP since most countries list that as well as the PPP? On the wikipedia page: List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita : Israel is listed in 31st place with a GDP Per Capita of 22,073 USD in 2005. I would appreciate it if someone could please add it to the Israel page.

misuse/incorrect date stamp

I wonder why this BCE/CE format has to reinvent the wheel when referring to dates or years. It's superfluous, BC/AD work just fine. It just happens to be a fact that the western timescale is fixed to the birth of Jesus (or an approximation at least). Let's not invent new, unnecessary timeformats just to please secularized people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.94.111.231 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are differing opinions about the date format to be used throughout Wikipedia. It is nothing specific to this article, so this is not the place for a discussion about it. Personally - I think the BCE/CE format is just silly (seeing as we're still counting from the supposed birth of Jesus, so why not just write BC/AD?), but this is not the place. okedem (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BC/Ac doesn't work fine for Israel it is based on when jesus was born and Israel IS a Jewish country where the Hebrew calendar had been used well before the Christian era, and where its calendar is used contemporaneously with the solar calendar. The solar calendar is used for convenience due to its wide-spread use elsewhere. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus was Jewish, so there is no problem there. But we should be using the new conformed to international format of BCE/CE CE means common era. Igor Berger (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a fact, and it's sourced, but it's not neutral

Two little things stick out in the introduction, both of which deal with Israel standing leaps and bounds upon the (so it implies) savage and barbaric nations surrounding it in the Middle East. Comparing it to the rest of the countries in the Middle East is silly, and it's not neutral, and not required; the way it's worded makes Israel sound stuck up and elitist. Two images come to mind: a little kid poking his tongue out at the children around him, "I'm a liberal democracy, I'm a developed country -- and you're not!!"; or a stuck up girl acting all snooty around her escorts, "I'm progressive, I'm free -- and, like, you're so totally not!" They don't need to be in there. What if every country was compared to its de-facto adversaries to tout its alleged superiority? -- which is all these lines do. Michael ^talk 09:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons are very common in the leads of country article, and this one is no different. If you wish to suggest an alternative formulation, go ahead. Do you want us to ignore the extreme difference between Israel and its neighbors? It's the cause for a lot of the conflict between them. okedem (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The comparisons aren't required, aren't helpful, and don't really add anything to the article except, perhaps, a bit of Israel pride. I'll see if there's any more responses, and the remove the comparisons if others don't mind. Michael ^talk 10:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Others do mind, and this formulation wasn't mine, but the result of long discussions between several editors, on this talk page.

The comparisons are important, and add a lot to the reader's understanding. They are commonplace in country articles, and I see no reason for this article to be different. okedem (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We have had these conversations multiple times but no one can explain why Israel should be singled out as the only country unworthy of comparisons to its region. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, Israel IS being singled out, but in a positive way through this comparison, therefore putting the other countries in a distinctly negative light. Michael ^talk 21:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, we are putting all of the countries in the world in "a distinctly negative light" when we say: "Iceland is the most developed country in the world", "Norway was ranked highest of all countries in human development from 2001 to 2006. It also rated the most peaceful country in the world in a 2007 survey by Global Peace Index", "Finland is the freest nation in the world in terms of civil liberties, freedom of the press, low corruption levels and political rights.", "South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries", Panama: "In Central America, it is the second most industrialized country", etc, etc, etc. okedem (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Michael. The formulation isn't encyclopedic. Maikel (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the archives, several (perhaps dozens of) editors that have come across this page have complained about this "cheap shot" already, and those that actively edit this article refuse to get rid of it. The reason it hasn't been removed isn't because a consensus was reached, it is because it has been debated ad nauseam and people just give up. Unlike Norway, Sweden, South Korea, or Panama, Israel happens to be in a direct conflict with the majority of the states within its region. The comparison touches on a political conflict; it is not benign, nor is it intended to be. It would be more like saying "Unlike Russia/China, the United States is a liberal democracy." Although verifiable, such a comparison touches on political matters that are not only irrelevant, but also unhelpful. Okedem has already insisted that there was political motivation behind the inclusion of this clause "..It's the cause for a lot of the conflict between them." It's unfortunate that some people still don't see the issue with this construction. A more benign way to write this, for example, would be "Israel is a liberal democracy and the most developed nation in the Middle East." Equally factual, without the Parthian shot. -Rosywounds (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Israel happens to be in a direct conflict with the majority of the states within its region" - That's just not true. Israel is in conflict with Syria and Lebanon (Yemen is also defined as an enemy state, after it declared war on Israel in 1948, but that has little impact on anything). It doesn't have any conflict with the other ME countries.

"Okedem has already insisted that there was political motivation..." - You misunderstand, or misrepresent, my claim. Including this comparison is not motivated by any political considerations on my part. I just think it adds to the reader's understanding of the reality of the region, and that includes the political reality. okedem (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)~

• You strangely forgot Iran, and the vast majority of the population in pretty much every Middle Eastern country resents Israel. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not forget Iran. Israel is not in conflict with Iran (why should it be? they have no conflicting interests, and were allies till 1979). Iran is only scapegoating Israel to present a good reason for its nuclear program, and military development (i.e - ballistic missiles). What most of the population in the countries thinks is irrelevant. A whole lot of people in the world hate the US, but they're not in conflict with it. okedem (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• What is your definition of conflict? Israel is officially at war with Syria and Lebanon over disputed territory, but that does not keep it from being in conflict, a much vaguer term, with other countries. Funkynusayri (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Who else do you think it's in conflict with? What sort of conflict are you referring to? Economic conflict? A conflict of opinions? okedem (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is in a political conflict with many neighbouring countries for a number of reasons. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatically, Israel has almost no trade relations with any of the countries in the entire Middle East. Israel doesn't necessarily have to be at war in order to be in a conflicting position. Similarly, China isn't at war with the United States; my original comparison was how this is analogous to a comparison to China in the USA article's lead. Egypt is technically an ally, but the Egyptian public has and continues to resent the Egyptian government's position on the issue. Iran is an interesting exception, where the government opposes Israel, although the population cares very little for the Israelis or the Palestinians. -Rosywounds (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I see what you meant by "conflict". Note - Egypt is not an ally, it just has a peace treaty. If someone attacks Israel, Egypt won't come to it's rescue (and vice versa), so no alliance here. okedem (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To get back on track here, I agree with Michael, Makeil, Funkynusarim and Rosywounds that the formulation is unencyclopedic. Rousywounds suggestion of : "Israel is a liberal democracy and the most developed nation in the Middle East," would not be my first choice, (I've argued previously that many view it to be an ethnic democracy or ethnocracy) but its much more NPOV and accurate than what is currently there. Tiamut^talk 01:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, then. I'd be willing to agree to the suggestion, given that this will be the end of the argument about comparisons (and the other comparisons stay). okedem (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the edit to what I had suggested above. I did not change any of the other comparisons (none of the other comparisons sound malicious anyway). -Rosywounds (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything wrong with the old version, but this one is smoother. Hopefully this version puts the debate to rest...though I doubt it. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter if it's in conflict or not? It wouldn't be neutral if because of a conflict, we wouldn't mention these comparisons. It is normal for a country to be compared to other countries in the region and just because Israel is at conflict with other its neighbors doesn't mean we should play it "nice to them" and remove it. Northern (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"many view it to be an ethnic democracy or ethnocracy" - talk about weasel words (look it up)! Who are these 'many'? The hordes of bog-ignorant antisemitic idiots around the world? Most countries are nation-states, hence centered around one ethnicity. Israel just happens to be the nation-state of the Jewish ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.51.19 (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this discussion. It will never be resolved. And the protagonists will never agree. The Israel-Arab issue is so deep and emotional that anything that is written here will always trigger massive discussion for and against (GDP, capital of Israel, freedom and democracy, historical facts, -- you name it). The editors will just have to go with the best they have, and in my humble opinion, they are doing fine. 217.132.149.112 (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Casual Reader, Feb 26, 2008.

I disagree Casual Reader. I think that if this page was allowed to be edited by people wihout bias that there would at least be equal outrage on both the pro Israeli and pro Rest of the World side. Beamathan (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Which TV standards ...

... are being used? Particularly, PAL or NTSC? Thanks. Maikel (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PAL, but most people here have a multisystem television/video setups. For any other questions, see the wikipedia reference desk. Rami R 16:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Languages

I added Russian translation / transliteration. Was it any harm to anyone adding 3rd or 4th most spoken language? Why was it removed. Note that removing wasn't cleanly done - there are some orphaned brackets or commas.

The usage if Russian is quite big in Israel and - 750,000 to a million speakers is a lot! I didn't add anything about the status. Although immigrants from Russia or ex-USSR make efforts to learn Hebrew quickly, Russian has a place in Israel. --Atitarev (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the large size of the Russian speaking community is a notable and relevant piece of information to this article. See this article for example.Shouldn't the information deleted be restored and expanded? Tiamut 04:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the large Russian-speaking community is important, but the name of Israel in Russian, a language that isn't an official language in Israel, is not. -- tariqabjotu 05:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically - what Tariq said. The large Russian speaking minority has had a major impact on Israeli life, but that has nothing to do with writing the name in Russian. Russian has no official status in Israel, no road-signs in Russian, no Russian-speaking school system, nothing. It's very different from Arabic. Writing the name in Russian is akin to writing in United States: "The United States of America (Spanish: Estados Unidos de América) is a...". okedem (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I also believe there is no need for Russian in the lead, but it's not true that Russian is not visible in Israel. Many stores have Russian signs, many food companies use Russian on their labels, and there are indeed Russian schools (afternoon schools). When you call large companies on the phone, you often get a Russian message, or have the option of pressing some number for a Russian speaker. Russian is featured on ATMs. So no, Russian is not an official language, but I wouldn't dismiss it so easily. --Gilabrand (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't visible. I'm just saying it has no official existence in Israel, unlike Arabic. Afternoon schools don't count. Anyone can open up whatever they want, in whatever language they want. From the State's point of view, only Hebrew and Arabic count, with English as the international language. okedem (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, in Israeli schools you do not lear Russian or have the option to do so. You learn Hebrew, Arabic, and English. You can also learn French, but it is only optional. Sorry, but no Russian. I must say, though, that there are many Russians in Israel {My mom herself is from USSR). --Nadir D Steinmetz 21:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Postage stamps and postal history of Israel

For the Israel stamp collectors and lovers, there is no article yet for Postage stamps and postal history of Israel (part of Category:Postal history by country) that would have so many Jewish themes. Feel free to go ahead and start it. (See the other country's in Category:Postage stamps by country that have theirs.) Nothing for Israel on Category:Postage stamps by country neither on List of country articles containing postal sections nor on List of philatelic bureaus. (but just a teeny note on Israel at Compendium of postage stamp issuers (Io - Iz).) This is truly a great shame and pity because Israel, and before that when it was the British Mandate produced and continues to issue the most beautiful and extensive stamps by any country. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem is NOT Israel's capital

please correct the article as Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as Israel's capital. Even the Israeli government states its capital to be TEL AVIV. 122.105.139.197 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Even the Israeli government states its capital to be TEL AVIV. That is not true. -- tariqabjotu 01:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

anther thing to correct is that the Egyptian and Syrian armies were not dfeated by Israel in the 6th of October 1973 war and that in this war israel was defeated and was losing its army in Sinai, and the evidences on what I am saying are: 1- Resignition of prime minister Golda Maeir, after asking the Americans to save Israel. 2- The Egyptian army was able to restore almost 26 Km from Sinai before the arrival of the American reinforcements to save Israel. 3- The American army sent to save israeli army on the borders of Egypt. 4- The total destruction of the Israeli defences and specially the Barlief defencive line built by Israelies on the eastern bank of the Egyptian Suez canal. 5- Finally the Israeli and the Americans were begging the Egyptians to accept the first fire hold on the 26th of October .

I'm sorry, you don't seem to know anything about the war.

1. Golda did not resign until long after the war (after she was re-elected).
2. The Egyptian army managed to catch Israel by surprise, so they did take some of the the Sinai. They were, however, later pushed back, and Israeli war free to march on the Cairo, if it wished to do so.
3. The American Army never came to Israel. The US sent military supplies. Even before Israel got the supplies, the Arab armies called on the Soviets for an "aerial train" or supplies. This war mere days after the war they had been planning for years, and they still didn't bother to amass enough supplies for more than a couple of days of fighting. They did get a huge amount of supplies from the Soviets.
4. Again, Israel's defences along the canal were indeed destroyed, but this was only the first phase of the war. You don't judge the outcome of a war by what happened in the first few days. In the end, Egypt and Syria were in far worse shape after the war, and suffered a lot more casualties than Israel did (15,000 dead, versus 2,700 dead in Israel. 8,700 Arabs captured, vs. 300 Irsaelis).
5. By October 24th (this is the first and only Seize fire), Israel's army had crossed the canal into Egypt, and was only 100 km from Cairo, with no Egyptian forces between it and the city. The Egyptian 3rd Army was under siege in the Sinai, refusing to surrender, but out of supplies. They eventually got supplies after Soviet intervention. On the northern front, the IDF was 35 km from Damascus. The Arab defenses were basically non-existant at this time. Not Israel or the US wanted a seize fire at this time, but the Arabs, and the Soviet. To prevent a complete Egyptian defeat (as I said, their army was gone), the Soviets were preparing to attack Israel themselves; this helped them force a seize fire on Israel (and Egypt and Syria) by a UN Security Council resolution.

So... Check your facts. okedem (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what it has to do with the subject? Northern (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

a) it has nothing to do with wether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and b) It doesn't matter what the international community thinks the capital is (note how the international community is so regularly ignored) it only matters what the nation says its capital is and since most of Israel's government is in Jerusalem how much do you want to bet they think their capital is Jerusalem.--UESPArules (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

-- It is wrong to say that Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital, as the Knesset (parlament's seat) is there. Tel Aviv is just more populated and more towards the state's center of population. I guess you said that from the point of view of a palestinian, so please do not post opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.148.47 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Even the USA does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Why are there no embassies in Jerusalem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbeyK (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about what a capital city is. As this is an English Wikipedia, both the Webster and Oxford dictionaries define "capital" as the seat of government (and not where foreign embassies are located, or what other countries recognize). Israel's Knesset (parliament) and government reside in Jerusalem, so that should end this discussion. 217.132.149.112 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Casual Reader, Feb 26, 2008.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Jerusalem ... is the capital of Israel." Doright (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Atonomous Oblast?

The opening paragraph recognises Israel as the world's only Jewish state. This term 'Jewish state' is a bit of a weird one as most Israelis I've spoken to say that anyone can become an Israeli citizen and enjoy equal rights in the state. How is it then a 'Jewish' state? Also, what about the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, which was instituted in the USSR and as far as I know still exists? Doesn't this constitute a Jewish state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.171.182 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't know who you talked to, but that's far from accurate. Jews can gain citizenship on that basis alone. Non-Jews can become citizens basically only be marrying an Israeli citizen (Jewish or Arab, it doesn't matter); there are other ways, but those are special cases, and are rare. Once you do become a citizen, you do have equal rights (specific cases of discrimination notwithstanding).
2. How is it a Jewish state? Firstly, what I said above. Moreover - the majority of the populace is Jewish; the official (alongside Arabic) and most common language is Hebrew, the language of the Jewish people for millennia; the Jewish holidays are official holidays for the state, etc.
3. The Oblast - first, it's not a state, in the common meaning of independent sovereign entity. And even more importantly - Jews there are a very small minority... okedem (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In reality Israel is more the "State of the Jews" then it is "a Jewish State". Britain or Germany are not described as Christian states (or Egypt as a Moslem state) despite having firm christian allegiances (the Queen is head of the anglican church, the british flag has 4 crosses on it, public holidays are christian etc.). Israels unique point is that the majority of its citizens are Jewish and since it is the only such country it gets referred to as the "Jewish state". I think it might be appropriate to change the wording to say Israel is the only state with a Jewish majority. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The "Jewishness" here is not the religion, but the ethnicity - just like France is the home of the French, Israel is the home of the Jews. It way beyond religion, like language, customs, and the Law of Return. Besides, Israel has clearly defined itself as "A Jewish state", in the rational for its very being. okedem (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is written like an advertisement about a new product

I really wonder who write this "the Egyptian and Syrian armies launched a surprise attack against Israel. The war ended on October 26 with Israel successfully repelling Egyptian and Syrian forces but suffering great losses" , may be he is right about Syria but he is completely ignorant about what happened in the war with Egypt , if we assume that israel repel Egyptian so why they leave Sinai for Egyptian "please don't say that they like the peace more than war". There is also several parts of the article miss neutrality like the origin of israel , The writer write from only jews point of view and ignore everything else so he praise israel and didn't mention about israel racism against Palestinian and Arab-48 , he also ignore the mysterious of the Holocaust action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3d vector (talk • contribs) 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Egypt lost in 1973. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with what happened 6 years later! Go read some real history books, instead of propaganda, to know the facts.

And there's enough criticism. Read the whole article. okedem (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a new law in Human world "You lost so you take your whole land" , Egypt lost in 73 so they take the whole land and also celebrating with they lost in the war , israel judge they leaders and in the other side Egypt honor they leader "which of us need to read the real history now!!" (3d vector (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)).

• You don't seem to understand the actual history, or the meaning of losing or winning a war. In 1973, after Egypt's initial advancement (a short distance from the canal into the Sinai), they were pushed back, and at the end of the war the Israeli army was on the Egyptian side of the canal, with no defences between it and Cairo. Look above (2 sections above this one) for some more details.
• Israel held on the Sinai until 1982, when it completed its withdrawal per the 1979 peace treaty. This was per UN resolutions, which laid the basis for the "Land for Peace" concept, saying that Israel will return the territories captured in 1967 to the Arab countries, and that will be the end of the conflict between them (the conflict was initially over the very existence of Israel, which the Arab countries refused to accept). If you think a diplomatic outcome 6 to 9 years after a war is a victory...
• Why did Israel investigate the results? Because they weren't good - Israel came close to losing, after being caught unprepared. Israel wanted to learn from its mistakes, and investigated the events. Why is the day celebrated in Egypt? For one, in the beginning it was a very good military move by Egypt, capitalizing on Israel's weaknesses, and for the first time managing to wrangle some tactical victories (after the swift Israeli victory of 1967). But more than that, a dictatorship doesn't tend to investigate its mistakes, for to do so would mean admitting failure, and what dictator wants to do that? So they call a defeat a victory, and by many years of lies and propaganda, manage to convince the public that they're right. However, an objective look at the facts (final status of forces at the end of the war, territories gained/lost, casualties, equipment destroyed, etc), will quickly lead to the conclusion of an Israeli victory, though a difficult one. okedem (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

First , please don't take from israeli point of view so you can reach the fact quickly

• It's true that Egyptian were pushed back and Israeli army was on the Egyptian side "if you r studying Military you will understand that that behavior from israel was only to save the face of the government -propaganda- for israeli consuming" , i think you also miss the point of Egyptian blockade of Israel army and the universal movement to help israeli army get out from this crisis "sourced in Kamal El Shazle book about the war and several other resources"
• Do you think if israel was the strongest would it accept the peace treaty and withdraw from the occupied territories "please don't say that israel respect UN resolutions or even take care about it"
• What about the universal reports about the war "superpower reports" ,Is Egyptian decide with themselves who won and who defeat so they celebrate in that day (3d vector (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)).

• I'm sorry, but your text is not very legible to me, so I can't be sure I understand what you are saying.
• In the war itself, Israel won. By any reasonable measure, it did. Later on, Israel decided it is advantageous to return the Sinai for a peace treaty. Remember that the Sinai was anyway captured by Israel in 1967, and wasn't part of its original territory, so in total - Israel lost nothing from its 1967 status, and gained peace with a strong country, the first peace treaty with any Arab country.
• Are you claiming that Israel pushing the Egyptians back to their side, and conquering both banks of the canal is "propaganda"? It did, so what do you want? This is what happens in wars, countries capture and lose territory...
• There was no Egyptian blockade of the IDF, you either misread, or read lies. In fact, it's the other way around - the Egyptian 3rd army was surrounded in the Sinai, with dwindling supplies. They refused to surrender, but were unable to fight their way out. Eventually the USSR intervened to provide them with supplies, and the blockade was broken.
• "Universal movement"? No, just the US sending Israel war supplies. Just like the USSR sent a whole lot of supplies to Syria and Egypt. Actually, the Soviet airlift to Syria and Egypt began BEFORE the Americans started sending equipment to Israel. At the end of the war, the USSR was mobilizing forces to threaten Israel, should fighting erupt again, as it wished to protect its ally, Egypt, from collapse.
• The Egyptians can choose for themselves what they want to think about the war. But objectively, they didn't win.
• Look, I don't know how much you read about the war, or where you read it. I don't know if you misunderstood, or read deceitful sources, but the end result is the same - you have very little actual knowledge of the war. I highly recommend you search for some good sources, and a good place to start is the wiki article about the war, Yom Kippur War.
• I ask you not to continue the discussion, since I feel it's not of any use. I've given detailed responses to your main claims, and there's no point in further argument. Have a good day. okedem (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

* Thanks for your time , i will let the discussion to readers to figure out who is the right , sorry for my poor english (3d vector (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)).

How come there is no mention of Israel disregarding the cease fire and continuing to encircle the Egyptian troops at the canal? I just watched a history channel special about it (lol) that's why I ask.Beamathan (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Most Developed Country in the Middle East?

I say that Israel and the United Arab Emirates are in tough competition for that title? anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.9.36 (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Israel's Human Development Index is higher. -- tariqabjotu 03:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't just state the opinion that YOU think Israel and UAE are in tough competition and then ask others if they agree with YOUR opinion. You need to back this with fact and one of the most internationally accepted indicators of development is the HDI (as Tariqabjotu correctly cited). Israel is more developed then UAE and the most developed country in the Middle East. --Rabrams20 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not refuting the fact that Israel has a very low Global Peace Index, but I do feel that the GPI should be briefly described to explain the reason for Israel's low rating. Goalie1998 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The GPI is completely irrelevant in the determination of development as it does not take into account factors like GDP, GDP per capita, deaths per 1000 births, and various other indicators commonly used to measure national development. But in discussion of the GPI alone, no explanation is really necessary as it is simply a statistic, much like the HDI ranking and its regional economic ranking (no need to explain why it is ranked #3 behind Oman and UAE or why it is ranked the way it is on the HDI).Rabrams20 (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

if you people are just going to complain about every single thing you read, why do you come to this website for information? instead of wasting your time complaining why not do something productive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.117.35 (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your input in the matter is the only unproductive thing here...Rabrams20 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is until your comment! ;) But in regards to the phrase "Most Developed Country in the Middle East" it's kind of vaugue. But then again, Israel is probably the most economically, and militarily developed country in the middle east anyway, but a further designation in that phrase couldn't hurt. Beamathan (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Third paragraph

The third paragraph of the introduction includes too many ratings and goes into too much detail about them. We can't reduce the country to rankings, so let's not attempt to. Instead, why don't we just summarize the ideas within them. For example:

Israel is considered a liberal democracy and the most developed country in the region; the country ranks high among Middle Eastern countries on the bases of human development, freedom of the press, and economy. However, Israel's status as a liberal democracy has also been contested and a distinction is usually made between Israel within the Green Line and the occupied territories, with citizens of the former receiving more freedoms than those of the latter.

Some notable points:

• I removed the Global Peace Index; the entire second paragraph already covers Israel's conflict-ridden past.
• I removed the names of the indices from inline (Human Development Index, Reporters Without Borders, and Freedom House); they can be put in the citations.
• I kept the fact that indices distinguish between Israel within the Green Line (avoiding the contentious word "official") and the occupied territories, but did not believe that fact needed two sentences devoted to it and term "Israel (extra-territorial)" spelled out.
• For the most part, I removed the exact ranking for Israel; people can look at the sources. Additionally, the absence of exact places means that we (a) don't have to mention the sources inline and (b) don't have to (hopefully) deal with people saying another survey says X.

-- tariqabjotu 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. The exact ranking is also subject to changes, and really isn't important. okedem (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of was thinking the same thing about an abundance of ratings. However, previous revisions of this paragraph have tended towards superlative praise of Israel in a very POV manner. For example only economic competition was even mentioned, and a more significant economic freedom rating wasn't— I want to assume good faith, but past experience with this issue on this article makes that difficult, and I suspect the only reason it was left out is because the results of the rating weren't as favorable to Israel.
But I like the version that you are proposing, the only thing I would contest is, as the Global Peace Index shows, Israel doesn't just have an as you put it "conflict-ridden past" but also a present that involves conflict. I hardly see what is wrong with mention of that. ʄ!•¿talk? 18:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A single look at the GPI table will reveal just how ridicules it is. The formula they use may have a lot of justified parameters, but the results are painfully unrealistic - they actually claim Israel is "less peaceful" (whatever that means) than Angola, Lebanon (the country where militias and Syria rule, and political candidates are constantly assassinated), Myanamar (controlled by a military junta), and so on. The second paragraph says: "Since then, Israel has been in conflict with many of the neighboring Arab countries, resulting in several major wars and decades of violence." - meaning, the conflict continues. I think this is clear enough.

About economic (whatever) - there are plenty of ratings around, and I see no reason to assume someone did any cherry-picking between them, when we can just as easily assume the editor didn't know about the other rating. okedem (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, the GPI could just be added as a citation in the second paragraph like "...decades of violence lasting until this day." ʄ!•¿talk? 22:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to use GPI at all. We have better sources for these facts, and certainly don't need a peculiar rating to back up such a rudimentary claim. okedem (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Other countries have had similar topics raised in there wikis, therefore i feel that this index is very relevant, considering the current situation of that country. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE all have high development index's (all above 0.80 , if im correct), not alot of that is said but-Human rights is talked about ALOT, why isnt it here?, (the same organisations that condemn Israel for different offences). The Pakistan wiki page talk about the postives and the negatives of that country, which even states that it has been considered very politically instable throughout its 60 years of independence. No one is stopping you from talking about the postives of a country (in some cases your), do that by all means, who wouldnt? But dont try to censor the negatives. One last thing, why isnt there talk about the record number of UN condemnations and vetos in favour of Israel. That would be, not only revelant, but very informative86.150.57.246 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Has this topic really changed, to whether the index if good or bad! Well, to be frank that could be said about every index that has been created. Just because Israel is not high on that list, people feel that, that specific index is not credible to include, what non-sense. Deal with the facts, and the fact is that Israel does not score highly in that index, as it does for the others. That is the only reason why some people want to get rid of it. 86.150.57.246 (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Many editors, myself included, think the index is arbitrary and unhelpful in providing accurate context. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

i also like User:Tariqabjotus suggestion for new third paragraph for reasons already stated by others. however, i think the last subsentence about the distinction made between israel proper and israel-occupied territories should be removed. that the conditions in israel proper and occupied territories are different should be self-evident for any reader with the slightest understanding of the nature of occupation, making the subsentence superfluous.Frederico1234 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

one-sided article

From reading this article, I feel compelled to say that this article is bias. This wiki is making a mockery of the term Encyclopaedia. Israel is first in that, best in that, brilliant in that, are violating peacock rules. Information is being censored, to allow for more good issues to be discussed rather than issues of more importance (IE International discontent towards Israel, for there actions). Therefore I believe with much conviction, that this article does not deserve its Featured Status'.86.150.57.246 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't titled "What other countries think about Israel", but rather "Israel" - we're talking about the country itself, not other people's opinions of it.

Everything in this article is sourced, and the wording has been carefully formulated.

If you wish, cite specific examples of phrasing you don't find objective. Also, please detail what information you believe is being "censored". okedem (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Okedem, Thanks for your reply. First off, the sarcasm, not really constructive, in fact very ignorant. If you actually read my comment before responding, it would have been a lot more helpful. I did not say the article was not sourced properly, and I don’t know what made you get that impression. The human rights abuses discussed on the Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Pakistan, India etc Wiki are not ‘’opinions’’, but facts that are shared amongst the ‘’International community’’, which is what I meant to say. If they can be discussed in detail on these respectful Wikis, why cant it also be discussed on this Wiki. This article is carefully formulated, as you put it, but for one purpose only, promoting Israel. And last time I checked this was an ‘’Encyclopaedia’’, not a travel agent.

The article is not in sync with all the current affairs, (mostly the issues that show Israel in a ‘’Bad light’’).

And if you go look at the definition of ‘’censorship’’ in your Oxford English dictionary, ‘’omitting’’ information also counts as censorship. There is no mention of the widespread condemnation Israel receives on a daily basis, the strong allegations of war crimes, and the outcry/protests of people across the world against Israel's ‘’aggressive regime’’, as a lot of political pundits put it. Readers of this Wiki are misled to believe Israel is all rosy, which it is certainly not. These issues must be mentioned, not necessarily in depth. Its like going on to the KSA Wiki, and not finding the issue of Human rights, or like going to the Serbia Wiki and not finding the issue of Kosova discussed etc.86.150.57.246 (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can't cite specific instances of non-objective formulations, don't bring up that claim. You know what, if you immediately want to assume that we're all just here to promote Israel, go ahead. Nothing I say, nothing in the article, can change your mind. You want to believe we're all just "for" Israel, so that's what you'll see. Despite that claim, this article was written an reviewed by many, many, editors, of various nationalities, and opinions of Israel.

What people in the world claim has nothing to do with the actual country. If there's any relevant information about the country itself that you think is worth adding, please detail it. okedem (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that certain parts of the article(mainly the third paragraph of the intro, see above) were self-aggrandizing and insensitive in a way that showed alot of immaturity on that parts of certain editors, I feel the current revision is much more balanced. You have some relevant points but you might want to both be more specific and also register as a user if you really want to get anywhere with this. ʄ!•¿talk? 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the world's opinion, and that of Israel's neighbors, should be a little more prevalent in the article. But after reading this talk page I highly doubt that would happen. I figured I'd voice my opinion anyway. Beamathan (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel's status as a liberal democracy

The contention that Israel's status as a democracy is "contested" is inherently flawed and absurd. The belief that Israel's treatment of Palestinians living in the occupied territories is immoral is certainly valid, but this opinion has no bearing on the category of governance that the State of Israel should fall into. Israel is a democracy because it's leaders and state are popularly elected by it's citizenry, and each Israeli citizen has one vote, no matter if he is Jewish, Druze or Muslim. It is a liberal democracy because, far and away, Israel rates the highest on freedom of speech, freedom of press and rule of law in the region. Inhabitants of the West Bank and Gazans are almost universally state-less, having been refused citizenship by every single Arab nation. Therefore, Israel's relation to them and actions towards them can only be classified as foreign policy, not a suppression of minority citizens. Similar to how you would not contest the United States democratic nature because of the political or economic situation of the Iraqis (and Iraq is decidedly under firmer American hegenomy than the occupied territories are under Israeli), you would not contest Israel's because of the situation, however dire, of a foreign population completely (Gaza) or mostly (West Bank) divorced from the domestic workings of the State of Israel.

--WanderSage (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi WanderSage. Thank you for discussing. Note that new comments should be placed at the bottom of the talk page.

The information in the intro is reliably sourced and attributed and is offered to provide balance. The view that Israel is a liberal democracy is indeed contested, as the sources note. At Wikipedia, we try to represent all significant point of view, per WP:NPOV. In general, our personal opinions about those points of view are not relevant to the article. If you have sources that you would like to see included in the article that express the point of view that you do above, please bring them forward. We can then decide how to include them in the article. Generally, it's a bad idea to introduce or remove information from the WP:LEAD, which is intended to be a summary of the major points in the article. Thanks for your comments and for listening. Tiamut^talk 13:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, this invective is far from "reliably sourced and attributed." It misrepresents the content of the cited materials, and gives disproportionate and unbalanced weight to what is a rather novel point of view. The Freedom House reference says absolutely nothing about the "Green Line" and says nothing about "citizens" in "Occupied Territories" or Palestinian Authority-Administered Territories. Yet it does score the Israeli OT and the PAAT approximately equal. Furthermore, it does not assert that the OT or the PAAT are part of Israel. It merely says they are "Disputed Territories." Likewise, I would like the editor that produced this contribution to the article to post the quote from the Smooha reference, in context, where it says the State of Israel is not a liberal democracy. Finally, even if Smooha says that Israel was the most ill-liberal totalitarian state on the planet, the novel view of a single person does not rise to the level of weight suggested by the phrase, "Israel's status as a liberal democracy has also been contested." For ease of reference, the article currently says:

However, Israel's status as a liberal democracy has also been contested and a distinction is usually made between Israel within the Green Line and the occupied territories, with citizens of the former receiving more freedoms than those of the latter.

Regards, Doright (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding to the concern about the passage supported with the reference to the Smooha article: posting substantial amounts of copyrighted material to this (or any) talk page would be a violation of copyright law (and thus of Wikipedia policy). The entire article explores the proposition in question; posting a single "quotation" might not help you very much. If you want to read it, perhaps ask for interlibrary loan at your local public library. Alternatively, it might be possible to read it by paying a fee to the journal consortium "Project Muse". Note that the passage does not say "It is untrue that Israel is a liberal democracy"; it merely says that this notion is contested (by an Israeli sociologist at the Univ of Haifa, in an article published in Israel Studies, edited by Ilan Troen (you might google him to learn a bit about him)). BTW, I am not the editor who contributed the passage in question; I don't know who did. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my comments relate to the passage supported with footnote 18. I would not revert (again) an edit to the passage supported with footnote 19. In my view, the fact that the source in footnote 19 is only a set of charts and tables makes it difficult to interpret, and I would suggest that a better source would desirable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, User:Tiamut, the justification for including this text cannot be made by an appeal to the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia Policy on Fair use , especially the section on acceptable uses of text. Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. You may find the [Wikipedia FAQ/copyright, "What is fair use?"] helpful.

Additionally, you may not be aware that the disputed text is in violation of several WP policies and guidelines. Specifically, you may benefit from a review of WP:OR and WP:RS, which, as has already been demonstrated.

Furthermore, the disputed text violates WP:Weight. It states: Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

Finally, please review WP:3RR, as you may again find yourself blocked from editing. Regards Doright (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just throwing around policies doesn't win an argument. If you want to see some of the text, look under #Use of sources (my comment 01:49 (UTC)). The text is not in violation of Wikipedia policies; you certainly haven't demonstrated how OR and RS are being violated. The view that Israel is a liberal democracy is not held by a tiny minority. I don't know why you're bringing up 3RR; no one is close to violating it. -- tariqabjotu 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did demonstrate the violation of policy right [here]. And, reference to the relevant policies is how editors resolve disputes at Wikipedia. Again, for example, where does the source mention the green line or citizens? So, as you say, "just throwing around" straw-men "doesn't win an argument," nor does your failure to address the specific evidence that I have provided. Please do not continue with this approach. My argument stands and awaits your cogent reply. However, you now compound the problem in attempting to justify the disputed text by making another WP:OR assertion. That is, you claim that the view is not held by a tiny minority. However, you have provided no citation that makes a claim with respect to the size of this minority. You merely cite a highly technical and esoteric taxonomic analysis by a single scholar. Finally, I brought up 3RR because the editor's tenure is only 1 month, has been blocked in the past, and may not have been aware of the policy. It was a collegial tip. Doright (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I found another paper by Smooha dated 2001 and available for download as a PDF at this site. As for a specific quote, here's an example:

Israel is a diminished ethnic democracy and not a liberal democracy because the state recognizes ethnic groups, and not just individuals. It is neither a liberal nor a multicultural democracy because it makes the Jews a core ethnic nation and the Arabs non-core outsiders. It imposes separation between Arabs and Jews through the law of religious marriages, making intermarriages infrequent and illegitimate (but recognizable by law). Israel lacks a national identity of its own that is shared by all of its citizens, and instead of treating all citizens equally, it privileges the Jews. The state is explicitly partial, serving as the homeland of all Jews in the world, not impartially catering to all its citizens regardless of ethnic origin. Israel is an ethnic democracy and not a consociational democracy because the state is neither binational nor neutral in the dispute between minority and majority but is rather identified with the Jewish majority that employs it as a vehicle to further its particular interests. The Arab minority is not considered as an equal partner in the

society and the state.

Hope that meets your concerns Doright. By the way, characterizing the viewpoints of those you disagree with as "invective" is generally uphelpful to promoting a healthy collaborative, editing environment. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 11:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, User:Tiamut you have not addressed the WP:OR and WP:RS concern regarding the fact that 'The Freedom House reference says absolutely nothing about the "Green Line" and says nothing about "citizens" in "Occupied Territories." Thank you for finding a quotation in another source that at least purports to address the text's claim that Israel's status as a liberal democracy has been contested. However, as mentioned previously, the disputed text is in violation of WP:Weight. Your citation does nothing to remedy this violation of Wikipedia policy. Additionally, one has to wonder about editorial WP:POV when the quotation, "Israel is a diminished ethnic democracy and not a liberal democracy because the state recognizes ethnic groups, and not just individuals," is used to justify the inclusion of the disputed text since the same claim can be leveled against every liberal democracy on the planet. For example, the United States also "recognizes ethnic groups, and not just individuals" and gives special benefits privileges to one group over another, for example, "affirmative action." Therefore unless you apply the same editorial criteria to all articles in the Category Liberal Democracies, one begins to suspect the efficacy of such editing. Editing of this sort is generally unhelpful to promoting a healthy collaborative, editing environment and is detrimental to the Wikipedia project. Doright (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, Doright, but as I haven't performed 3 reverts in less than 24 hours I'm not overly concerned about that one. I'm also happy to consider comments in relation to various wikipedia policies, but I've been here long enough to know that ostensible violations of policy are a matter of opinion, especially in articles on contentious topics. As always, I'm happy to continue in the search for consensus. Cheers! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The dissent against Israel being a liberal democracy have been more numerous than those applied to, say, the United States. We're supposed to reflect what sources say, not judge them on their fairness to other countries. Further, scare "quotes" around arbitrary "words" doesn't "make" something more "suspect". Citizens is a word and Green Line and occupied territories are geographic terms; they have meaning that does not need to be cited. The statement that the rankings distinguish between Israel within the Green Line and the occupied territories is something so blatantly obvious, it's hardly necessitates a source (or, as some are saying, even a mention). And yet, you are arguing over it because the source doesn't use specific words in the sentence. We have someone else arguing that it shouldn't be in there because Smooha's article, which is not even being used to cite that part of the sentence, is not talking about it. There are other, valid points our time should be given to. So, if you will not support anything that gives the slightest impression that Israel is not perfect, just say that so I can stop wasting my time on trying to explain the current situation to you. -- tariqabjotu 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

tariqabjotu, your claim that "The dissent against Israel being a liberal democracy have been more numerous than those applied to, say, the United States," is yet another case of WP:OR. When did you complete your survey? We're supposed to reflect what sources say, not what you think you know. Indeed, citizens and Green Line are words. They are words that your edit misapplies, for example, the Golan Heights is not contained within the Green Line, and, residents are not the same as citizens. This is "something so blatantly obvious, it's hardly necessitates" further belaboring. So, if you will not support following WP Polices, "just say that so I can stop wasting my time on trying to explain the current situation to you." Regards, Doright (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1. "The contention that Israel's status as a democracy is "contested" is inherently flawed and absurd." - If this is sourced and a common critique of Israel, then it must be given due weight, even if one feels it is invalid.

2. "Israel is a democracy because it's leaders and state are popularly elected by it's citizenry, and each Israeli citizen has one vote, no matter if he is Jewish, Druze or Muslim." - This does not necessarily make a state a liberal democracy. Turkey also has universal suffrage, but it is not always classified as a liberal democracy, primarily because of its refusal to acknowledge its 25% Kurdish minority as non-Turk. You are correct that Israel is often times considered a liberal democracy, but this title does not come without controversy.

3. "It is a liberal democracy because, far and away, Israel rates the highest on freedom of speech, freedom of press and rule of law in the region." - Relative treatment is not of very much importance in classifying a country's government. Relative to Sweden, Israel is not very democratic at all (not that it matters, but I am simply pointing out that relativity is a fallacious way to classify countries).

4. "Inhabitants of the West Bank and Gazans are almost universally state-less, having been refused citizenship by every single Arab nation. Therefore, Israel's relation to them and actions towards them can only be classified as foreign policy, not a suppression of minority citizens."- This is like having your cake and eating it too. Israel's official position is that they have annexed these territories in the 1967 war; if that is the case, then the people living those areas are, theoretically, as good as citizens, rather than "foreign policy" objects. True, the international community does not acknowledge the annexation, but since the regions are only slightly autonomous, there is no reason for us to not blame or praise Israel for the treatment of the individuals in those regions.

5. "Similar to how you would not contest the United States democratic nature because of the political or economic situation of the Iraqis (and Iraq is decidedly under firmer American hegenomy than the occupied territories are under Israeli)" -This is simply false. Moreover, the United States does not consider Iraq to be annexed and has committed to an eventual pullout, whereas Israel does consider the 1967 territories to be rightfully theirs and they (along with the Palestinians) have made very few legitimate efforts towards peace; a prospective Palestinian state that will last is still not even foreseeable.

6. "...you would not contest Israel's because of the situation, however dire, of a foreign population completely (Gaza) or mostly (West Bank) divorced from the domestic workings of the State of Israel."- The fact that Israel has claimed to have annexed these territories, yet still treats their populaces as foreign (or even illegitimate) is precisely the problem at hand. The fact that Israelis continue to create exclusively Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, while continuing to disenfranchise the non-Jewish population in those very same regions is a very undemocratic system that blatantly endorses segregation. Israel's current democratically elected president is in favor of increased segregation, and, of course, democratically electing Ariel Sharon speaks for itself. This is not to single out Israel; Saudi Arabia's article has information on blatant human rights violations by the Saudi regime, for example. Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Rosywounds (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Before writing such scrolls, check your facts. The territories are not annexed! They only areas Israel annexed are East Jerusalem, and the Golan. Israel makes no legal claim to Gaza or the West Bank, and they are legally under military occupation, and have been since the day they were captured (1967). Israel's official position has always been that these areas are not part of Israel, and may be returned to the Arab states, or peoples. So most of your claims there rest on a non-existent base.

Israel has made considerable steps towards peace, from the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, to giving them significant areas to control autonomously, to arming them with tens of thousands of guns, to offering them almost all of the territories.

Israel's most recent step for peace was leaving the Gaza Strip completely, dismantling all settlements and army installations there, and giving the Palestinians complete control of it (4 settlements in West Bank were also dismantled concurrently). This was proof of Israel intentions to leave the territories, and showed Israel was willing to dismantle settlements, at great internal cost (political and economical). Unfortunately, the Palestinian answer to this step was not to try to build their economy there, and live peacefully alongside Israel. It was to continue their terrorism with full force. okedem (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Southwest Asia"

Technically Israel is in the region known as "Southwest Asia." But common folks since when has Middle East become a bad word? For the sake of accuracy and also to avoid any confusion on the part of article readers we should change Southwest Asia to the middle east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthemMan (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with middle east being a "bad word". Asia is a continent. Middle east isn't. When you locate a country, you typically state what continent it is in first. Malamockq (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Southwest Asia is not a continent; Southwest Asia is merely a region.In fact Southwest Asia is actually just another term for the Middle East, the two regions not only overlap but also mean the same thing. Therefore I think that for the sake of clearing up confusion Southwest Asia should be changed to a less obscure term i.e. the Middle East.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthemMan (talk • contribs) 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Southwest Asia is less obscure; Middle East has multiple definitions. In fact, the United States, the EU, the UK, and the UN all have different definitions for the "Middle East." Southwest Asia is a geographical term that is unambiguous and clear. Middle East is a political term; although it is colloquially used more often, it is about as well defined as referring to China and India as "Far East" countries. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree that it should be Middle East, Southwest Asia seems confusing when *weasel word approaching* most everyone calls it the Middle East. Beamathan (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of sources

I have reverted an edit by Schrodingers Mongoose, who removed material added by another editor on the grounds that a login/account is required in order to get access to the source provided to document the edit. I do not believe that WP:RS requires that sources be available for free on-line, but only that they be reliable. In this particular case, I know the article in question and in my view the use of it for the edit in question is entirely appropriate. If another editor wants to disagree with that latter point, then I believe it would be necessary to read the article - even if getting access to it is not convenient. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one can read the source, we can't verify what it says. The source as it stands seems to be a violation of WP:Verifiability which states "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Readers cannot find the text supporting the content in question at the link provided, so I am reverting your good faith change. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look at it some more, I think the bigger problem here is that the source linked to a page that didn't support the quote. The source in and of itself isn't necessarily wrong, but before this section is re-inserted I think we need to figure out if the statement falls under WP:Undue. There are virtually no reliable sources that challenge Israel's status as a liberal democracy (the occupied territories, of course, are another matter). Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The source was cited clearly and precisely, and there are no obstacles emerging in the citation itself that would prevent a reader from finding the text to make their own judgment. Again, RS and V do not require that a source be available on-line. I seriously doubt that Wikipedia editors are going to want to discredit or prohibit use of a vast range of academic sources, just because access is more difficult for some readers. If you want it, you can get it - ask for interlibrary loan at your local library, they'll be happy to help.

As for the source itself, and whether there are reliable sources that challenge Israel's status as a liberal democracy, you can hardly make the statement that there are "virtually none" if you don't read the one that has been offered. It might help you to know that Israel Studies is a part of Project Muse and is edited by Ilan Troen - just about the last person anyone would identify as a critic of Israel. As with all articles in reputable academic journals, it was vetted by other scholars and approved by the editor (in this case, despite the fact that he disagrees with its core argument). You might disagree with what it says (if you read it), but you cannot say it is unreliable.

For the moment, I will not revert your reversion again. But I strongly urge you to reconsider your approach here, and of course I invite comment from other editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually going to revert myself for now and see if the material I posted below generates an interesting solution or compromise. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

To facilitate a discussion, I've copied over Larry Diamond's 11-point outline of what constitutes a liberal democracy. I think it's clear Israel meets the first 8 criteria. 9 and 10 will generate debate, and 11 is interesting because Israel has no formal constitution, but adheres to a basic set of laws that have the same effect as a written constitution. It's also important to remember a country need not meet all 11 criteria to be considered a liberal democracy; for example Canada's constitution is not supreme and can be overruled by parliament, but Canada is clearly a liberal democracy. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. Electoral outcomes are uncertain, opposition vote is significant and no group that adheres to constitutional principles is denied the right 
     to form a party and contest elections.
  2. The military and other democratically unaccountable actors should be subordinate to the authority of elected civilian officials.
  3. Citizens have multiple channels for expression and representation such as diverse independent associations and movements which they have 
     the freedom to form and join.
  4. Individuals have substantial freedom of belief, opinion, discussion, speech, publication, assembly, demonstration and petition.
  5. There are alternative sources of information (including independent media to which citizens have politically unfettered access).
  6. Executive power is constrained by the autonomy of the government institutions such as an independent judiciary , parliament and  
     other mechanisms of horizontal accountability.
  7. Civil liberties are effectively protected by an independent non-discriminatory judiciary whose decisions are respected and enforced 
     by other centres of power.
  8. Citizens are politically equal under the law.
  9. Minority groups are not oppressed.
 10. The rule of law protects citizens from human right abuses.
 11. The constitution is supreme.

All of this is decidedly irrelevant. It might help you figure out your opinion of whether Israel is a liberal democracy - but what we need is a balanced article that uses reliable sources in a way that results in NPOV. FWIW, I have my own doubts about the Smooha article; I am not rattling on about this because I want to sell the idea that Israel is not a liberal democracy. But my own opinion in this respect is irrelevant. The material in question was sourced properly and there is no reason that I see for it to be removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but I don't think it's irrelevant if Smooha's views fall under WP:Undue. I can find sources that claim any country isn't a real democracy. That doesn't make those views mainstream or worthy of being mentioned. If Israel is in fact a liberal democracy, we should not include a note that an individual or group denies that fact. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your first three sentences directly above pose a reasonable question. (The final sentence inevitably invokes responses expressing the personal opinions of editors and would lead us astray, imo.) I think it will nonetheless be very difficult to get consensus on this issue; it would require knowing quite a lot about the published scholarship. For those interested in exploring it, you might consult both the Smooha article and one by Ilan Peleg, "Israel's Constitutional Order and the Kulturkampf : The Role of Ben-Gurion", Israel Studies 3:1, Spring 1998, pp. 230-250. More generally, the Israeli "New Historians" are useful here (Baruch Kimmerling, Zeev Sternhell, etc.). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Schrodingers Mongoose, I have come across you multiple times throughout my time working at this article, so I think I'm at the point where I don't need to mince words you. So, here: I firmly believe that your biggest qualm is not with the source presented, but with the statement that source supports. Just to clear the air about what the source says, I'll quote a key paragraph from the article:

But these classifications do not take seriously the character of Israel as a Jewish state, its commitment to Diaspora Jewry, and the deep division between the Arab minority (close to 850,000 persons, 16 percent of the population within the Green Line, excluding East Jerusalem) and the Jewish majority. Israel cannot be classified as an open, liberal democracy, because that would only hold true were the Jewish state to be transformed into an Israeli state—a state in which ethnicity is privatized, Arabs and Jews are free to assimilate with one another, and a new, all-Israeli identity, nationalism, and nation were to emerge. But in fact, there is no separation in Israel between religion and nationality, religion and ethnicity (that is, a person belonging to the Jewish people or born a Jew cannot simultaneously be a member of any religion other than Judaism), and religion and state—facts that prevent Israel from being a liberal democracy. Nor is Israel a consociational democracy, because, to be so, it would need to become a binational state, in which the status of Arabs and Jews is equal and resources are distributed proportionally.

Unfortunately, some of the world's best academic and scholarly sources are not available to everyone easily or freely. However, you might be able to find a copy of the article somewhere else; a full citation, with the title, work, volume, author, year, and (now) the pages, is included in the citation. You have no reason to claim that readers cannot find the source based on the information given in the source. And, as I demonstrated above, you have no reason to claim that the source does not support the statement that "Israel's status as a liberal democracy has also been contested".

As for your question regarding whether debate over the liberal democracy bit is receiving undue weight... I think you answered your own question. Those who decline to call Israel a liberal democracy are arguing that the ninth and tenth points of the 11-point system (which, let me make clear, is by no means authoritative) are not present in Israel. You even seemed to agree that those two points were up for debate. So what's the problem? We're not looking for a laundry list of human rights abuses in Israel or the occupied territories. Instead, we're looking for a simple aside stating that the belief that Israel is a liberal democracy is not universally held.

I'm quite confident one could find several other historians who agree with Smoocha's assessments, although he might have been the pioneer of the term "ethnic democracy". However, I do not believe we should dwell on the liberal democracy question anymore than we have, especially in the introduction. The rest of the article should ideally (and, for the most part, does) talk about Israeli politics and a bit of the human rights situation in the country and the occupied territories. That's enough; the reader can come to his or her own conclusions, and we should not poison the well up front by implying that there's all-around agreement on Israel. -- tariqabjotu 01:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose what makes me skeptical of the statement is that you can find people who will claim that any country is not a liberal democracy, and we do know that Israel is often singled out for criticism that other countries do not receive. However, if there is consensus on this I will register my discomfort with the statement and let it go. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that Israel is often singled out for criticism that other countries do not receive, and I'll refrain from saying whether I believe this is the case here, but the sentence is saying that the status as a liberal democracy has been contested. Whether that contention is accurate or in proportion to the amount of criticism certain other countries have received or should receive is irrelevant; the amount of criticism Israel receives is quite notable, and previously understated, in the introduction. -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done. It took more than a year to get that kind of minimal balance included in the introduction (See here for example as to when the question was first raised and for more sources on the "ethnic democracy" appellation). But if the edit can stick, it will be a vast improvement over what was an extremely on-sided presentation of the views on Israel "democratic" status. I still can't believe this article made FA status with that, and other similar POV problems (by omission), throughout the article. Tiamut^talk 04:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Larry Diamond is one of the foremost international experts on what is a liberal democracy. Those who try to cast aspersions on Israel, including Smoocha are -almost without exception -opponents of Liberalism per se (i.e followers of Marxism) and they make no effort to use the term Ethnic Democracy in any other context. It seems to me that if the term is not a universally applied term, but merely a tool for undermining Israel then it is not sufficiently important to be placed in the introduction. Is Britain an ethnic democracy - dominated by the English? and what about Denmark, Holland, Italy, Spain or Hindu dominated India? In addition the term Ethnic Democracy does not exclude Liberal Democracy. That is to say ther e is no reason why one should not be both. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First, your above comment suggests that you misunderstand the points made by Smoocha and others of the ethnic democracy ideology; they are not simply saying that Israel is an ethnic democracy just because most of its citizens are Jewish. More importantly, however, is what I said in my comment at 02:47, 24 Feb (UTC). The validity of the "ethnic democracy" arguments is hardly relevant; the significance comes in the fact that Israel's status as a liberal democracy has been contested -- either directly or indirectly -- on multiple occasions. -- tariqabjotu 14:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should inject the politics into the intro like this, being "singled out for criticism" is due for inclution in the article body, not the intro. point of view disclaimers are not following WP:NPOV even if terms like "has also been contested" are added. For example, many people feel that Lebanon is under (at least) two separate regimes... are we going to insert a disclaimer to the intro of the Lebanon article noting that, Lebanon's autonomy "has also been contested" since many believe that Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are actually controlling the country? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As another point, many countries have committed civil rights violations against large groups of their residents. yet usually, such instances do not become part of the intro to the country's entry at Wikipedia. this is true even for outright dictatorships where it is openly known that there are human rights abuses. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The following countries' entries do not refer to the level of democracy in their political systems in the articles' leads at all, not even briefly: Iran, Syria, China. there may be other examples. those are the first few which I checked. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, those country articles do not refer to the level of democracy in their political systems. The problem here, however, is that, so far, no one is suggesting that the entire third paragraph should be removed, but rather that the part about contention over the liberal democracy bit should be removed. In that case, the level of democracy in Israel would still be mentioned. Regardless, if you feel something is missing from the intros of those three articles, perhaps you should head over to those articles and fix them. -- tariqabjotu 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't just present the good without the bad. If we're going to mention Israel's political uniqueness in the region in the intro, which seems like an acceptable thing to do, we should also clarify the difference between Israel within the Green Line and the occupied territories and the dissent over the liberal democracy bit. Both pieces of information are widely-held, even if (particularly in the case of the "liberal democracy" piece), they are not held by the majority of reliable sources. Putting a single sentence about that alongside the list of Israel's -- for lack of a better term here -- achievements seems to be the least we can do. -- tariqabjotu 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, not every "good" mention of facts must come with a disclaimer. For example Albanian Muhammad Ali, is noted as the "founder of modern Egypt" without any mention of the ways in which he got the process started. Another example is Al-Azhar University which is noted as "one of the oldest operating universities in the world." without a disclaimers on the value and purpose of it's studies. Israel's political system is unique in the ME regardless of the territorial conflict with the Arabs and it's easy to note that both the West Bank and Gaza have their own Palestinian legislative councils and governments to whom Palestinians vote (and Israeli-Jews don't) so the disclaimer only fits an in-article discussion about the Israeli political system rather than an introduction mention that is undue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not saying that Israel's political situation is "unique" among Middle Eastern countries -- the source we have (and probably others similar) would not be able to discount that idea. Instead, we are being more specific (which I think is a good thing) saying Israel is a liberal democracy and ranking high in several areas. However, the liberal democracy statement is, as the article says, directly contested; there are a reasonable number sources that say it's not one. Further, the high rankings about Israel are in reference to the country within the Green Line, not the occupied territories. The first point is worth noting because we have an innegligible number of reliable sources contradicting the majority(?) opinion that Israel is a liberal democracy. The second point is worth noting because it is entirely feasible for readers to believe we're lumping the occupied territories with the rest of Israel (since we seem unsure whether to treat the territories as within the scope of the article), when that's not the intention when discussing those rankings.

Your examples, therefore, are not similar. If we had a good number of reliable sources that said Albanian Muhammad Ali is not the founder of modern Egypt, the we'd have to mention that alongside that statement. How he founded the country is just further information. If we had a good number of reliable sources that said Al-Azhar University is not one of the oldest operating universities in the world, then you'd need to mention that alongside that statement. The value and purpose of the university's studies is, again, just further information. If that's the case on one of those articles, or if there are deficiencies on one of the millions of other articles on Wikipedia, you are free to change them. There are bad articles and good articles, and then there are featured articles. This is a featured article, and so it should be held to the highest standards, not based on how other (especially non-featured) articles are written. -- tariqabjotu 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is whether or not 'Occupied territories' are included in the 'good data', then we can maybe add a footnote, rather than an 'in article' disclaimer, that they are not. There's no encyclopedic 'neutrality need' to include blatant "disclaimers" like this one into the lead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'll make a bold move and make an attempt at the footnote suggestion of mine. Here is my edit, let me know your thoughts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it doesn't work to describe an edit as "bold" when one knows, from the discussion here, that it will be opposed by other editors. You haven't only moved the occupied territories caveat to a footnote - you have deleted the sentence on the "contested" claim (and the reference to Smooha). I don't want to have even a hint of an edit war here, so I won't (for the moment) revert it myself - instead I request that you revert at least that aspect of your edit yourself, and then carry on with the effort to convince other editors here. thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on why "one knows, from the discussion here, that it will be opposed by other editors." the removed material:

However, Israel's status as a liberal democracy has also been contested and a distinction is usually made between Israel within the Green Line and the occupied territories, with citizens of the former receiving more freedoms than those of the latter.

Has no place in the intro, but there is certainly room to include this in 'Government and politics' related sections/articles. I assure you that I don't want to have even a hint of an edit war here either, but to disregard the problem and revert seems to hold back the progress of the raised concerns. I'd appreciate your explanation on why this input is of utmost value in the introduction before I revert what I figured to be a fairly reasonable edit. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled your puzzlement: there is plenty of support above for the version as it stood prior to your edit and it should have been obvious that deleting that passage would be opposed. If you want to move it (I consider simply deleting it unacceptable), why not propose something here first. Now, if it is to be moved, then the intro should read something like: "Israel is a liberal democracy (but see below) and the most developed country..." BTW, I am not saying I support such a change - I am simply trying to help you formulate a proposal that might have some chance of acceptance from other editors.

As for process, the "problem" and the need for "progress", perceptions in this regard are hardly shared widely here. For a contentious page like this, caution and patience are the only way forward. Please revert at least that portion of the edit for now, make a concrete proposal, and try to achieve consensus for a change. I know it is frustrating for being slow, but I think it is the only way to keep the peace here. thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The disadvantage to putting information in a footnote rather than in the text itself is that fewer people take the time to read the footnote, especially because they're generally believed to be merely sources. I'm quite sure you were aware of this disadvantage. I personally believe the mention of the disagreement with the liberal democracy statement and the clarification about the freedoms of Israel within the Green Line and important enough to be included in the text, instead of hidden within the footnote. This is especially true for the liberal democracy dissent because we are putting forth a statement ("Israel is a liberal democracy") that others sources say is false. Outright deleting the reference to that dissent is, thus, particularly disliked.

In the case of the metrics, we're not saying something in the third paragraph that other sources say is false; our sentence about the difference between the statuses of Israel proper and the occupied territories is intended to merely be a clarification. So, it's not absolutely necessary that be mentioned in-line, although I still believe it should. -- tariqabjotu 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Nomoskedasticity,
Please answer the raised question instead of demanding a revert and suggesting a pre-existing consensus; I don't quite see that this issue has already been decided in the past.
Nomoskedasticity and Tariqabjotu,
(To remind) I'd appreciate your explanation on why this input is of utmost value that you believe it should be included in-line on the intro to Israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu has answered your second point (which might also be your first request as well). (You might not be convinced, but I'm not sure why it seems to you that you haven't had a response.)

As for the rest, I think process is probably more important than content in the long run. I've had a close look at WP:Consensus, and the flow chart there leads me to the following conclusion about how things are supposed to work. One starts with "previous consensus"; an editor wants (and makes) a change; if others are in agreement, great - new consensus. If others are not in agreement, then a different editor may revert. The editor wanting the change (or anyone else) might then take it to the talk page, to try to achieve consensus on a change.

It is a difficult process; it makes change difficult and slow especially when issues are contentious. One starts with an existing version (hammered out previously) and then works for change. Frustrating, perhaps, but I'm not sure it is possible to read WP:Consensus in a subtantially different way.

I don't agree with the change (removal of a properly sourced claim), and I will now revert it as per WP:Consensus. And of course I will continue to participate on the talk page about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Err... I have already answered this question. We don't relegate criticism to footnotes because we all know most readers won't see it. WP:UNDUE does indeed compel us to not overstate minority viewpoints, but it also compels us not to understate them. You can't outright say "Israel is a liberal democracy" when there are reliable sources that disagree. The formulation you reverted mentioned those disagreeing sources in a manner that adequately suggested that the viewpoint was the minority but also made sure that we didn't imply that something was undeniably true when that's not the case. So, we have three viable options here: (1) remove the mention of Israel as a liberal democracy and discuss everything about Israel's democratic nature later (an option which, to be honest, I don't think anyone likes), (2) mention the minority viewpoint alongside the curt statement that "Israel is a liberal democracy", or (3) reword "Israel is a liberal democracy" so that that clause does not sound so absolutely true.

But, enough of that. The more important question is why you believe the counterpoints are so trivial that they only deserve mention in footnotes or, in the case of the liberal democracy contention, not at all. -- tariqabjotu 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Tariqabjotu's question:

1. There is a reason that Wikipedia habitually uses "occupied territories" rather than "disputed territories". For that same reason, the international separation between 'Territories' and 'Israel', we should not add a "POV leaning disclaimer" solely based on the (wiki un-acceptable) attachment of these territories into Israel's territory, as an in-line part of the intro.
2. Also, this disclaimer has hard to overlook (notable) arguments against it (Palestinian Authority rights to Arabs that Israelis are denied) and to go in that direction would lend a hand to abuse of WP:TOPIC on the intro.
3. I'm not even aware that this issue is such a large notable section of the article '?' that the inclusion of the criticism follows WP:LEAD guidelines.

To make a statement and clarify,

I don't think we should inject the politics (connection between Israel and the Territories) into the intro like this, being "singled out for criticism" is due for inclusion in the article body, not the intro. wikipedia readers that desire to read criticism to Israel's (not Occupied territories) liberal democracy status can read about it in the article body on a section called (suggestion) "political status of the occupied territory", and learn that these 'Occupied territories' are not internationally recognized as part of Israel and are subject to the Palestinian Authority legislative council rights and obligations instead.

To (clarify and) repeat the question,

We are leading into an article discussing "within the Green Line Israel", and not the "not Israel occupied territories". What makes the contested and politically charged (and wiki un-acceptable) perspective and argument so valuable to the article's intro that readers "must" pay notice to it the moment Israel's gov. system is put to mention?

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Tariqabjotu, I wasn't aware that there was a criticism intention behind the disclaimer. I understood from your earlier explanation that it was a neutral attempt to explain that the 'liberal democracy' perspective is not 100% accepted as fact because of the non conclusive separation between the territories and Israel. I can't accept that intentional criticism is not undue for an introductory mention of economy and gov. system. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested compromise: "Israel's system of government is a liberal democracy..." Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s. is the ref movement for legibility contested or is it reasonable to repeat this edit while we continue discussion on the 'democracy' issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref movement for legibility is not contested by me. As for the "democracy" issue: I don't see how adding the words "system of government" addresses the concern relating to deletion of the point supported by the Smooha reference. A statement that says flatly that Israel (or its system of government) is a liberal democracy is incomplete/inaccurate when that statement is disputed in the scholarly literature.

There seems to be an undercurrent of value judgment in this discussion. If there is worry that the caveat is considered criticism, is there not also reason to worry that the statement itself ("is a liberal democracy") is considered praise? It would be useful to step away from both and work towards a proportionate way of characterizing the portrayal of Israel's political system by political scientists & other social scientists. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You've missed my notes that (1) the territories are not considered part of Israel on wikipedia, and (2) Palestinians have their own separate political system.

The entire argument is faulty at it's core since it considers a territory that is not part of Israel to be Israeli. We must remain consistent on wikipedia and not address this issue with a double standard... who is this smooha fellow anyways that he joins both territories under the Israeli system when there's a separate system for Palestinians?

p.s. there's nothing wrong with mentioning a correct fact about the wiki-recognized Israel without injecting the not-Israel territories into the discussion. This is worthy of discussion on an article subsection, not the lead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Smooha's argument doesn't relate to the territories. These are separate issues. It now appears you haven't read the article in question (Smooha), and so you don't even know what it is you are trying to delete. To be clear: the sentence you want deleted makes two distinct points. My comments relate mainly to the first. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't access the Smooha article but the same point remains since this is what the current Israel article argues:

a distinction is usually made between Israel within the Green Line and the occupied territories, with citizens of the former receiving more freedoms than those of the latter.[19]

If the smooha article has something differnt to say, then that is what should be written in, not the artificial claim that residents behind the green line are citizens of Israel, they are not. They are citizens of the Palestinian Authority which gives them all the rights that Israel doesn't.

I'm getting a tad impatient at the current mispresentation that practically accuses Israel of civil rights abuse at a territory that is under the jurisdiction of someone else. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

(undent) The citation to the Smooha article relates not to the passage you have quoted but to what comes before that:

"However, Israel's status as a liberal democracy has also been contested[18]"

Again, Smooha's argument is about Israel inside the Green Line. As suggested above, if you want to read it you might ask for inter-library loan at your local public library. If you do, you will see that it is a perfectly good source for the passage it supports. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict-removing indent) Seriously, Jaakobou, this is turning into a repeat of what happened with Shamir1 back in September and October. Please don't try to divert attention from the real subject, especially if you're going to use falsities. The status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have nothing do with what the article says or should say.

I haven't checked to see if the part you quoted is supported by Smooha and there's no reason for me to because Smooha's article is not being used as a reference for that part of the sentence. Currently, reference 19 goes to a chart that demonstrates, as the sentence says, that a distinction is made between Israel within the Green Line and the occupied territories (with the latter seeing more freedoms than the former). To be honest, we certainly have better sources than the one that currently exists as Reference 19, but the current reference still supports the clause.

There is no "claim" (artificial or not) "that residents behind the Green Line are citizens of Israel". This article refers to "citizens of the former" (i.e. Israel within the Green Line) and "those of the latter" (i.e. the West Bank). And we're not talking about citizens as in nationals, but rather citizens as in the people who live there.

They are citizens of the Palestinian Authority which gives them all the rights that Israel doesn't. Whaa? I don't think there was anything in this sentence that is neither correct nor contradictory with one of your other points. Jaakobou, the people who have edited this article generally know what they're talking about or, at the very least, have access to resources that they are willing to actually access. So, please think twice before you write another sentence, like the one above, that demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about. But I digress... again, this has nothing do with the third paragraph.

"I'm getting a tad impatient at the current mispresentation that practically accuses Israel of civil rights abuse at a territory that is under the jurisdiction of someone else." I refer you again to the previous paragraph. If there's any misrepresentation being done, it's by you. Check your facts.

I'm not going to go over any of your previous comments because they're much of the same. Arguing over the word "criticism"? No, thanks. -- tariqabjotu 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but are you saying that Palestinians don't vote for the Palestinian Authority? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we rephrase the sentence since Smooha's 2001 text discusses the treatment of Arabs inside Israel as discriminatory as the basis for his challenge to its definition as a liberal democracy. See this site, and for the benefit of the discussion here I'l repost a relevant passage:

Israel is a diminished ethnic democracy and not a liberal democracy because the state recognizes ethnic groups, and not just individuals. It is neither a liberal nor a multicultural democracy because it makes the Jews a core ethnic nation and the Arabs non-core outsiders. It imposes separation between Arabs and Jews through the law of religious marriages, making intermarriages infrequent and illegitimate (but recognizable by law). Israel lacks a national identity of its own that is shared by all of its citizens, and instead of treating all citizens equally, it privileges the Jews. The state is explicitly partial, serving as the homeland of all Jews in the world, not impartially catering to all its citizens regardless of ethnic origin. Israel is an ethnic democracy and not a consociational democracy because the state is neither binational nor neutral in the dispute between minority and majority but is rather identified with the Jewish majority that employs it as a vehicle to further its particular interests. The Arab minority is not considered as an equal partner in the society and the state.

Tiamut^talk 11:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The piece you quoted makes it very clear that "However, Israel's status as a liberal democracy has also been contested", the only clause being attributed to Smooha, is correct. How are you suggesting we rephrase the sentence then? -- tariqabjotu 12:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I answered your question twice below.Tiamut^talk 12:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I should probably repeat something I've posted in an earlier section (it might get lost for not being at the bottom): my concerns about recent edits relate to the line "Israel's status as a liberal democracy has also been contested". I would not revert (again) an edit to what follows that passage, and I have my own concerns about the way the following portion is sourced. My reverts were therefore overly broad; I suggest we edit these two passages separately. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed for the first part of the sentence:

However, Israel's status as a liberal democracy has also been contested by those who argue that its very definition as a "Jewish state" means that it cannot treat all its citizens equally. (Using Smooha's 2001 text as a reference per above).

The second part of the sentence, should, IMHO, be dropped for now, until we can agree on how (or if) to discuss Israel's treatment of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Tiamut^talk 12:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're making some progress. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling that's what you were going for. I'm going to say that I'm strongly disagreeing with that formulation. The point of mentioning that Israel's status as a liberal democracy has been contested is to note the first part of the first sentence in the paragraph -- "Israel is a liberal democracy" -- is not considered true by everyone. Therefore, the additional information you added -- namely the reason they disagree -- is superfluous and should only reside, if anywhere, in the body of the article. Given that the "not a liberal democracy" position appears to be the minority position, explaining their position fully there is giving it undue weight.

Further, the second part of the sentence is not talking about Israel's treatment of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories. It's saying that the rankings are only referring to Israel within the Green Line, not the occupied territories. I don't know about the methodology of those rankings, but I have no doubt they take into both Israel's treatment of the population and the Palestinian Authority's treatment of the population; it's not just talking about Israel. -- tariqabjotu 12:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, not mentioning why Israel's status as a liberal democracy is contested, means that the criticism is not represented. It is mere lip service to include the sentence without elaborating on the reason for the critique. This source supports Smooha in establishing that main problem with Israel's status as a liberal democracy to those who contest its status, is its definition as a Jewish state, and how this translates into unequal treatment of its non-Jewish citizens. The wording you have in place currently, implies that those inside Israel enjoy freedom while those who are in the territories do not. That's misleading and doesn't adequately represent the views of those who challenge Israel's liberal democratic status. I agree with Nomoskedasticity and Jaakobou, that the two ideas should be treated separately. So how do you propose that we bridge the gap between your position and ours? Tiamut^talk 12:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I know what Smooha's points are; I have access to the article currently used as the source and it says a similar thing. Heck, I personally added it (see #Third paragraph). The purpose of the first part of the sentence, though, as has been said multiple times, is to qualify a statement ("Israel is a liberal democracy") which is not qualified at the beginning of the third paragraph. You may call it "lip service", but we don't need to elaborate on a minority viewpoint in the introduction; we have an entire article to go into more detail. What you're doing now is proposing that we make the sentence about what the criticism is, or more accurately, what Smooha's criticism is.

The wording you have in place currently, implies that those inside Israel enjoy freedom while those who are in the territories do not. That's misleading and doesn't adequately represent the views of those who challenge Israel's liberal democratic status.

The sentence would be misleading and inaccurate if it actually said that. There are two things -- two ideas independent of each other -- the sentence should say (or at least something should say in a reasonable manner):

• Israel's status as a liberal democracy is not universally held. The dissent here is not so trivial as to not warrant mention, but, at this point, it appears to stand as a minority viewpoint.
• The rankings in the first sentence -- after the semi-colon -- are in reference to Israel within the Green Line, not the occupied territories (which some may consider within the scope of this article, while others may not). This is particularly important because the status of the occupied territories is markedly different from Israel within the Green Line.

It says that, even if some may believe there's a better way of saying that. If you think there's a better way of rephrasing the sentence to convey the above information without giving you the chance to infer something that should not be there, give it a shot (on the talk page, I mean). However, I'm not going to continue arguing with Jaakobou (and now apparently you) over things that the article does not say or that you are falsely claiming I'm saying. I don't disagree that the above are two separate issues and I never said that I did. If there is a "gap between [my] position and [yours]", it's certainly not there. -- tariqabjotu 13:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu,

If I understand Tiamut correctly, it seems that both me and him/her, despite numerous disagreements in the past, read the same problem in the text that you say "the article does not say". Personally, I think that the green line mention is a POV violation and that if we're forced to go in that direction, then we should NPOV it by noting that Palestinian-Arabs, both in the green line and beyond it receive Palestinian Authority rights that Jewish Israelis don't. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Tariq, I have a problem with characterizing the view contesting Israel's status as a liberal democracy as a "minority viewpoint". The Israeli Democracy Institute itself says "Israel is basically a democracy in form more than in substance, and that it has yet to internalize fully the concept of democracy." Further, the view that Israel is a liberal democracy seems to widely held only in the United States, and our article, both on this point and others, seems to be missing a worlwide perspective on the issues. So I don't agree with your proposed reformulation. I don't think we have looked into enough sources to determine whether we can indeed characterize the opposing view as the minority viewpoint. In fact, I might argue that the idea that Israel is a liberal democracy is the one held by a minority. So where to now? Tiamut^talk 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"the view that Israel is a liberal democracy seems to widely held only in the United States" Um... okay. Would a U.S. source that says Israel is not a liberal democracy be more credible than one that says it is?

Anyway, we're going to have a problem looking at the degree to which the liberal democracy, not a liberal democracy opinions are each weighted, when we can't seem to get on the same page. Jaakobou, in his 13:26 comment, is suggesting that you are in agreement with him, when this above post and that one clearly should distinctly different positions. If anyone is going to claim that someone is one his or her "side", make sure that person actually is. -- tariqabjotu 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu,

Tiamut and I usually disagree, but I still believe there is an agreement on the 'issue of Palestinians across the Green Line' which is the point I was raising. Both me and Tiamut suggested that the second half of the paragraph could be removed because it's not really about the smooha text or about Israel as accepted by the mainstream.

p.s. Please read my words without added interpretations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading my words without added interpretations? Oh, c'mon; you are the last person who should be complaining about that. -- tariqabjotu 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjtou, your first question is a red herring and one I frankly don't understand. So I'm not going to bother replying to it.

Your second comment partially address the point I raised, in that you conceded that we currently do not have enough information to know which of the views regarding Israel's status as a liberal democracy is the majority viewpoint. Accordingly, your suggestion for a rewording that characterizes the contestation around Israel's status as a liberal democracy as a minority viewpoint is inapt.

Taking into the account the issues you raised regarding the need to specify that the appellation of liberal democracy applies only to the territories within the green line, I offer the following proposed rewording:

Within the Green Line (i.e. excluding the occupied territories), Israel's system of governance has been described as a liberal democracy. However, even within the Green Line Israel's status as a liberal democracy is contested (by those who argue that its very definition as a "Jewish state" means that it cannot treat all its citizens equally.)

Note that the information in parantheses can be placed included in the text or placed in footnote, in sentence format. I am open to discussing the options. Looking forward to your constructive criticism and comments. Tiamut^talk 15:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, seriously, enough of this. "has been described as"? "even within"?

I agreed to dropping the comparison we had, on the understanding we've reached a consensus, not to argue about it again in a couple of months. If you don't want the qualification ("a distinction is usually made"), that's fine by me; but then we revert to the simple "Israel is a liberal democracy", and end this.

No distinction is actually necessary, as it is the majority viewpoint that the territories aren't part of Israel's sovereign territory, and so there's no expectation for the Palestinians to have Israel citizenship and the rights associated with it. The territories haven't even been annexed by Israel, which doesn't claim them. From this it is obvious that when we speak of Israel's system of government, we are only referring to the legal, recognized Israel, not occupied territories. okedem (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You know Okedem, you might think about stepping back from this article for a while. You seem to have some serious WP:OWN issues here and a misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS, which notes that it can change. Collaborative editing doesn't involve the issuing of threats to more firmly entrench yourself in your position when faced with differing viewpoints asking for a more WP:NPOV representation of the issues at hand. As I said, I'm looking forward to constructive criticism and comments and I'm still waiting to hear some. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I feel the WP:OWN call-out on okedem is unjustified. He/she's expressed his concerns and beliefs in a fairly reasonable manner. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Tiamut, what you're doing is not helpful, and not decent. You're chipping away at the article, trying to change it to suit your liking. You know you can't make large changes, so you make small ones, fight for them, and when a compromise is reached - you wait a bit, and attack again, completely nullifying the whole notion of compromise. This is not the way to work. My position is far from yours, and that's fine. We work, we argue, and we reach some phrasing we can both live with. But just like I didn't go and try to reinsert the comparison, or raise it again on the talk page, I expected you to respect the current wording, and not try to change it again, especially not so soon.

Despite your claims, Israel (sovereign Israel, within the Green Line) is a liberal democracy, affording equal rights to all its citizens, Jewish or not. I know it's a claim you don't like, but, frankly, you can't seem to bring any good points against that. No democracy is perfect, and one can always find criticism, even for the best-governed states. But all in all, Israel's democracy ranks right along the western democracies, even when considering its flaws. okedem (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm still waiting for constructive criticism, rather than bad faith assumptions, personal attacks, or off-topic political polemics. I've provided sources that support the phrasing I introduced, and I've responded to the concerns raised by Tariqabjotu, Nomosdekasticity and Jaakobou. I also haven't touched the article text myself, proposing all changes here on the talk page. Still waiting ... Tiamut^talk 16:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are effectively undermining the whole concept of discussion and compromise. It seems you treat every compromise as the starting point for more concessions by people of a different view. What's the point of discussing something, giving concessions, accepting a wording that is against someone's own view, for the sake of compromise - when a few weeks/months later, you try to nullify the compromise? Why bother? okedem (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On topic, the suggestion is a step forward in recognizing the difference between occupied territories and Israel. However the suggested phrasing feels as if it's still pushing that point... I can't see this suggestion lasting long term. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about:

Within the Green Line, <ref>The area within the Green Line excludes the [[Israeli-occupied territories|territories occupied]] in [[1967]].</ref> Israel's system of governance can be described as a liberal democracy. That description is contested however by those who argue that its definition as a "Jewish state" means that it cannot treat all its citizens equally.

Tiamut^talk 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To the point - Israel is only within the Green Line. That's the widely held view, and there's no point in reiterating it. That's the guiding view of the entire article, and there's no reason to stray from it. Not "can be described", as this wording singles out Israel with respect to other country article. The accurate wording would be - "is". The qualification ("...contested...") is vague, irrelevant, and makes a false dichotomy - Israel's definition as a Jewish State does not preclude equal rights. Just like all nation-states, Israel has a majority of one ethnicity, and that majority's beliefs, customs, language, etc. determine the country's character. That does not mean the minority is automatically discriminated against. okedem (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have come to agree that the specification of "inside the Green Line" is unnecessary, especially in the introduction. (Perhaps the point can be developed in a later section, where there would be more space for elaborating it; I still might take the view that it is unnecessary, but I think there would be more of a chance for creating something everyone can accept.) The passage following ref 18 is also poorly sourced in my view, and I suggest simply deleting it. I continue to see no problem with the passage supported by the Smooha reference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a section on the Occupied Territories that would love to get some attention... okedem (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what it means to take an inch and then ask for a mile (or something similar)? That's exactly what you're doing. We have compromised on this, twice now in fact. Now, instead of even just asking for a little bit more, you are asking for the sentence to be flipped over to your side. You have elaborated on the dissenting position and removed the rankings. Further, your elaboration of Smooha's point is an oversimplification of the author's point; we should let readers take a look at the full source if they want to know more or, if we really need to, elaborate this even further in the Government section.

I still believe the clarification (presuming the rankings stay) should be made, at least in a footnote, especially because that seemed in be accepted under #Third paragraph. However, the dissent over the "liberal democracy" bit should definitely stay in-line (presuming the "...is a liberal democracy" does though); it's significant. -- tariqabjotu 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel the Green Line clarification is necessary, I don't mind it in a footnote. okedem (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming that Tariqbajotu's comment is directed towards me, in which case, I should clarify that the rankings info (provided reliable sources are used - see discussion below) can of course be maintained. In which case, the proposal for the change to the third paragraph in the introduction might read:

Within the Green Line,<ref>The area within the Green Line excludes the [[Israeli-occupied territories|territories occupied]] in [[1967]].</ref> Israel can be described as a liberal democracy[15][16]. Considered to be the most developed country in the region,[17][18] the country ranks high among Middle Eastern countries on the bases of human development,[19] freedom of the press,[20] and economy.[21][22] However, Israel's democratic status is contested by those who argue that its definition as a "Jewish state" means that it cannot treat all its citizens equally.

Constructive criticisms, suggested changes, concerns? Tiamut^talk 06:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut,

Within the Green Line... Israel can be described as... However...

Try to imagine you're writing an article about Switzerland (glance over at its 3rd paragraph).

1. I thought it was common agreement on wikipedia that the "Occupied territories" are not part of Israel. The green line, has no room in the introduction like this. If you feel the Green Line clarification is necessary, I [have previously suggested we place it] in a footnote.
2. Can be... However... WP:UNDUE. Here's my counter WP:TOPIC suggestion; we note that despite the Arab-Israeli conflict Israel has 13 Arab MK's and that Arab-Israelis have a duplicate voting system where they cote for the Palestinian Authority and for Arab parties in Israel.

I thought we were moving forward but apparently, we're moving backwards... let's just clog up the 3rd paragraph with the entire subject of Israel+Palestnian gov. systems... let's do it also on the Palestinian Authority article and also on all the Arab countries' articles. *sigh* Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, don't get discouraged. I'm willing to compromise even further and leave description of the criticism to the body of the article. I'm also willing to re-evaluate the propriety of the language used given the discussion below on expert views on the situation. So, another proposal:

Israel's system of governance within the Green Line,<ref>The area within the Green Line excludes the [[Israeli-occupied territories|territories occupied]] in [[1967]].</ref> is generally described as a liberal democracy, though some scholars argue that it is a "ethnic democracy". Considered to be the most developed country in the region, the country ranks high among Middle Eastern countries on the bases of human development, freedom of the press, and economy.

Any concrete suggestions for what to add, omit, improve, etc.? Tiamut^talk 09:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's my un-discouraged suggestion based on the points insisted upon for inclusion.

Israel's system of governance within the Green Line (See also: Six day war), is generally described as a liberal democracy, though some scholars argue that it is an "ethnic democracy" being that it denies certain rights from it's Arab citizens who vote for both the Palestinian Authority and for Arab parties in Israel. However, Israel employs methods of affirmative action to help promote it's Israeli-Arab communities despite the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict and it's also considered to be the most diverse and liberal country in the region. Israel is also the most developed country in the region and ranks high among other Middle Eastern countries on the bases of human development, freedom of the press, and economy.

Much better don't you think? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Future of the Article

This is a rather broad question, but I think it must be asked: Now that the article is an FA (a feat that, a year ago, would have seemed impossible to achieve) how are we going to proceed with it, and make it better? FA status suggests that this article is: "Well-written", "Comprehensive", "Factually accurate", "Neutral", and "Stable (according to WP:FA?). The discussion on this page may lead one to think that it is none of these (well, maybe stable, but stuck on the wrong version), but we've placed our good faith in the community, and they've told us that this article is pretty damn good (1 in 1170, in fact.) There's nothing telling us that we can't touch this article, or improve in any way we see fit- we're actually encouraged to do so- it's just that we have to be smart in our actions. In this spirit, it'd be really nice to sit down (well, I assume you're sitting down whenever you type, unless you're using a smartphone, as I do sometimes) and decide on a few sections that we all agree need work. Then, we can come to a consensus on how to make it better. If we attack each little thing that annoys us about the article in a haphazard manner, it won't lead to a better article: one cabal will win one minor edit war, and the other will win another, and nothing will ever get done. Identify the broader issues, and resolve them by consensus. In the immortal words of Vanilla Ice "Stop, collaborate, and listen."--~Ça Suffit~ (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should take out the "singled out for criticism" bit out of the intro... I'm not aware that this is done on other country articles. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason it couldn't be done on other articles, if there is a consensus that this would be appropriate. The fact is, the "quality" of democracy in many countries is subject to critique - it isn't true that only Israel is criticized this way. Perhaps read Tomas Hammar on Germany, for example - more than 4 million long-term immigrants (including native-born children) with no citizenship rights. In any event, the "double standard" argument isn't very convincing, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is not singling Israel out for criticism. Unless you're talking about a different sentence, the sentence you're talking about is preceded by:

Israel is a liberal democracy and the most developed country in the region; the country ranks high among Middle Eastern countries on the bases of human development, freedom of the press, and economy.

That doesn't sound like criticism to me. -- tariqabjotu 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your approach, Ringmaster, is that it relies on the fact that the entire article -- or at least whole sections -- being redone. In fact, just about the only thing that has drawn complaints since the FAC is the third paragraph of the intro. That's all we should be focusing on, then. -- tariqabjotu 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding press freedoms in Israel, this source notes that: "On freedom of the press, Israel scored 70 out of 100 - the minimum requirement for the press to be considered free. One of the reasons attributed to the dip in Israel's rating in this area, from 72 points in the mid-1990s, is the attitude of the authorities toward the foreign press since the onset of the intifada. In this respect, Israel is ahead of only Romania, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico and India."

Regarding economic freedom, the full report of the institute which can be accessed by signing up for free at the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) website, ranks Israel as "partly free". Cyprus, the only other country in the Middle East covered in the study, ranks higher as "free".

In terms of "political stability", of the 35 countries listed in the report, Israel ranked last, at 14.5%.

In other words, I think the third paragraph of the introduction should be changed, since it seems a rather one-sided view of the situation. The results are based largely on Freedom House statistics. The IDI is arguably a much more reliable source, specializing as it does on Israel, using a comparative approach. Tiamut^talk 14:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

None of your sources contradict what the article says. The IDI only studies a handful of countries and only one other country -- Cyprus -- can be considered part of the Middle East (and sometimes Cyprus is not considered part of the Middle East). So, their studies do nothing to show that Israel is ranked high among Middle Eastern countries in the prescribed metrics. Political stability is not mentioned in the third paragraph of this article, and the second paragraph even implies that Israel might be considered politically unstable. So, you haven't disproven the third paragraph. -- tariqabjotu 15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, why are you opening this one again? We already had a very long argument about the third paragraph, the result of which was that we dropped the "Unlike most countries in the ME, Israel is a liberal democracy", and the ratings were changed from saying Israel is first, to saying it "ranks high among Middle Eastern countries". Enough of this. I feel like I'm in a war of attrition here.

The ratings are true and accurate, and your criticism of them is mostly irrelevant (political stability? no one talks about that, and why only 35 countries surveyed?).

Please - let the paragraph be. It's not helpful to try to chip at it piece by piece, taking advantage of the other side's willingness to compromise. okedem (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okedem, it's not helpful to speak in terms of "sides" here. Other editors raised the issue again, I found a new source while discussing a related issue above, and I thought I would share the findings here. Is that wrong? Is discussing issues forbidden?

Nevertheless, because I'm involved in discussing another point above, and it seems there is little willingness on the part of gatekeepers of this article to consider other viewpoints on this issue here, nor is there an openness to explore the potentials offered by other more reliable sources, I'll drop it for now. Thanks for your comments. Tiamut^talk 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, it's even less helpful to talk about "gatekeepers of this article". The other editors have showed a remarkable willingness to both compromise, and rationally assess the value of sources. They are not here to make political points. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither am I. You? Tiamut^talk 06:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm here to watch in bemusement as you demonstrate the very behaviors you attribute to those who disagree with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Population of the State of Israel

I note that the given "2007 estimate" for Israel's population is "7,184,000", the source being www1.cbs.gov.il. Current number reads "7,242.4 thousands". Interesting then that the CIA World Factbook (which itself has fairly obvious biases) gives a number of "6,426,679" for "July 2007"; a number including "Israeli settlers" (which should probably be excluded from the population of "the State of Israel" - what this article seems to be about). Has Israel's population really jumped by 800K since "July 2007", or is it more likely that bloated figures help to build support for the Jewish state? December figures from unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/socind/population.htm suggest a figure of "6,927.7" thousands; more than the CIA figure, but 260K under Israel's own numbers. Should we really be taking figures provided by the State of Israel, which appear to be bloated, when those figures form part of the political equation? Likewise, is there a good reason that the Arab-Israeli population should not be explicitly flagged as such in the population numbers (please don't say political correctness)? The CIA WFB puts the "non-Jewish", "(mostly Arab)" population at "23.6%" for 2004 (1.63 million people on the basis of the UN's 2007 numbers) . Again, including Israeli-(Palestinian?)-Arabs in the total numbers, by stealth, is perhaps little more than political pragmatism. And if those Israeli's (who happen to be Arab, and mainly Muslim) were asked if they would like to be part of that State, or a new binational State (with an Arab majority) on the same territory, any ideas which way they might vote? Would they still be Israeli then? Permission to take "The Case for Israel" out of the population numbers? ElPax (talk • contribs) 10:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no, and no. The CIA factbook is a really low-quality source, with many mistakes and inaccuracies.

The numbers provided by Israel are the most accurate, as the state is the only one with such wide access to databases of population. Now, there are, and always will be, discrepancies. Do we count settlers or not, how long do we keep counting Israelis who temporarily live abroad (Israel still counts them for 1 year, I believe that's the common way to do it).

I see no reason to separate Arabs from Jews - they are all citizens with equal rights. If the ethnic divisions interest you so much, there's info in Demography of Israel. If you think including them is "by stealth", I really have nothing more to say to you. okedem (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"No", I don't have your "Permission to take 'The Case for Israel' out of the population numbers?". I wonder if there is any other person in Wikiland who does? Any other person who might not agree with your assertion that Arabs and Jews "are all citizens with equal rights" in Israel (neither is allowed to marry a Palestinian from the oPTs...)? Anyway, I suppose it is WikiP policy to let the reader - rather than yourself - decide, if they "are all citizens with equal rights". Likewise, if the population split is appropriate to the article Demography of Israel, why is it so inappropriate in the Israel article, under the fairly straight-forward heading: "Population"? --ElPax (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How to move ahead

As I have indicated above, I consider my reverts to edits on this page today overly broad; I also agree with some of the concerns raised in relation to the passage sourced with footnote 19. If for no other reason than to mitigate an excessive revert made by myself, I am now deleting that passage. As I read the discussion, this will be acceptable to everyone recently posting here except Tiamut - who might of course then wish to edit or discuss further. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Doright's removal of the first portion of that sentence; in the end, though, it will not be difficult to find additional sources for the point in question, so that it will be clear that this is not a "tiny" minority. The IDI would be a good place to start. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One more comment for the evening. The sources used to support the statement that Israel is a liberal democracy include the Freedom House link. However, that link does not say anything at all about Israel being a liberal democracy; it says that Israel is an electoral democracy. So I am removing that reference - and I mean it in all seriousness, the source doesn't support the claim being made.

And now we have a problem. There is, currently, only one source for the claim that Israel is a liberal democracy. How then do we know that this is not a tiny minority view?

So: are we really going to play a numbers game here? The fact is, anyone who claims that the position described by Smooha is a "tiny minority" view simply doesn't know the scholarly literature. I look forward to a more sensible approach here, but I'm prepared to play the numbers game if that's what others want. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, given the so far high discussion to reversion ratio, you should have just presented your question about the Freedom House source on the talk page. This paragraph has been under discussion numerous times over the past six months and if there's anything that's remained constant, it has been that source. Don't you think we would have noticed what you were talking about by now? Anyway, had you said something on the talk page, I or Okedem or one of the others who had been involved in the discussion might have clued you in to the following statement:

In the survey, all Free countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies.

So, please put the Freedom House source back. If it's a serious problem, you can also refer to the methodology page in the reference. -- tariqabjotu 02:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted your last change, Nomoskedasticity, because it does not appear you're online and, as I demonstrated, the statement is supported by the source.

We don't need to play a numbers game, because in the end no one will win. It is infeasible for us to pore through every source that uses the term "liberal democracy" and refers in some sense to Israel, and then from there judge what's the minority and to what degree. Certainly, though, we can present more than one source, at least to show that both perspectives are not trivial beyond worthy of mention. Beyond that though, we can look at the way the sources present their position. In Smooha's article, I see clear concessions that the pro-liberal democracy position is the dominant position (hence, he is writing the article to, so it seems, correct that falsehood). We see an entire paragraph that suggests that:

Notwithstanding the tendency to emphasize Israel's uniqueness, most students of the subject assume that Israel is a liberal democracy with certain consociational elements and some shortcomings. Horowitz and Lissak, for example, emphasize the consociational ingredients expressed in coalition politics in general, and in the special arrangements with the religious parties in particular. Don-Yehiya also underscores "the politics of accommodation" for settling conflicts of state and religion in Israel. Shapira, by contrast, stresses the weaknesses of Israeli democracy until the changeover of governments in 1977—a dominant party system and an insufficient protection for individual and minority rights. Neuberger follows suit, portraying Israel as a liberal democracy with certain imperfections and deviations. Working within this scholarly tradition, Sheffer argues that democratization and liberalization occurred in Israel as a result of internal forces and were hardly affected by the Israeli-Arab conflict and global democratization. He concludes: "The current trends towards reforms have been propelled by the transition of Israeli society and politics from arrangements that strongly [End Page 201] resembled consensual and consociational democratic models to private liberal democracy." In any event, underlying these differences of opinion is a common assumption that the Israeli system as a whole corresponds to the liberal model.

You see that several works from multiple authors -- "Horowitz and Lissak", "Shapira", "Neuberger", "Sheffer" -- who hold the viewpoint that Israel is a liberal democracy, but with shortcomings, are citied, -- tariqabjotu 03:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - no numbers game. (And yes I was off-line - in the UK, so asleep - otherwise I would have reverted as requested.) I also agree that the dominant position is that Israel is a liberal democracy. What you have done here is precisely the kind of analysis I would hope for: not counting references or people but making judgments on the basis of actually knowing the sources in question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If more references are desired for the position that Israel is a liberal democracy (or perhaps simply for your own interest), you might consult Ruth Gavison's rebuttal to Smooha: "A rejoinder to the 'ethnic democracy' debate", Israel Studies 4:1, 44-72, 1999. Of course, Gavison doesn't make Smooha wrong (just as Smooha doesn't make Sheffer wrong). But I think this does show that Smooha's work isn't considered a fringe position that can safely be ignored; instead it is considered serious, something worthy of engagement (a view also supported by the fact that Troen was willing to publish it in the first place, despite his own strenuous disagreement with it). Doright - nice suggestion (below) - if I have time over the next few days I'm likely to do that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to take that argument over to [here] where it says: "There is general agreement that the states of the European Union, Japan, the United States, Canada, India, South Africa, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand are liberal democracies, with India currently being the largest in the world." Doright (talk) 02:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

comment - current version of the article is still a little blunt, but reasonable enough that I think it can last long term. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC) In retrospect, it's very blunt. I'm not going to continue argument on this version if it stays, but in general, I don't think this disclaimer deserves more than a little astrix ** or index ^[i] and a footnote at the bottom. The rest of the subject can be discussed on the relevant subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

More on liberal democracy

Doright, I worry about an impending edit war here. To try to avoid that, I will not (for the moment) repeat my own edit (following your repeat of yours). However:

You refer in your edit summary to a reliably sourced edit. The previous version was no less reliably sourced.

I've already addressed this point.Doright (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be worried about the article mentioning disputes; you prefer an "undisputed" presentation. Why? The fact is, when it comes to Israel, there are disputes. An article that presents a series of uncontroversial descriptions would miss a great deal of what makes Israel interesting.

No, I'm not the least bit worried about the article mentioning disputes. I've already stated what my concern is and I just don't believe that the particular point you want to make belongs in the intro section of this article when the simple question of Israel's form of government can be described in an entirely uncontroversial manner. Since you seem to be very interested in this subject perhaps you would enjoy creating a WP article devoted to your topic of interest instead of pursuing it in the intro of this article.Doright (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In the end, I simply think an edit such as the one you have made should gain agreement here first. You describe the "debate" as arcane. I think it is, instead, interesting and relevant. We disagree - what then? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we entirely disagree on those point. I agree that it is interesting AND arcane, albeit a POV adopted by a tiny minority of the academic work on the subject of Israel's form of government and not even considered in institutional description (e.g., the reference that you reverted from the US government document says without equivocation that Israel is a "Liberal Democracy." Doright (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, a couple of thoughts on liberal democracy. I have indicated above that in my view a good approach to this topic would try to stay away from value judgments. Some people appear to view it as a good thing that Israel is considered a liberal democracy; contention in regard to that description therefore seems to constitute a threat.

I agree with you that staying away from value judgments is a good thing. I also think that some people appear to want to fight the Arab/Israeli conflict here rather than merely write an excellent article about Israel.Doright (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be far more appropriate if we could back away from this kind of evaluation. The fact is, many people believe liberal democracy ain't so hot. Who? Lots of sociologists; a great many Orthodox and Haredi Jews in Israel. The latter are of course particularly interesting here. Describing Israel as a liberal democracy makes Israel look bad in the eyes of some; noting that that description is disputed might produce the reaction: whew. If you think my interest in noting the dispute is motivated by a desire to make Israel look bad, please consider what I am saying here.

As I said, I think this is an interesting subject and I encourage you to write a WP article about it.Doright (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is, all of this is a threat or an "issue" only if we are failing to keep to NPOV. The claim exists; the dispute of that claim exists. There is nothing wrong with noting both. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are an enormous number of dispute on any number of topic related to politics, government and Israel. There is nothing wrong with addressing every single one of them in great detail. However, when writing the main article about Israel, noting the discussion surrounding the newly invented category of "ethnic democracy" custom created to classify Israel and adopted by such a tiny minority of people does not warrant inclusion in the intro. Even more so when a universally accepted description can be provided that serves the purpose of generally describing Israel’s form of government in the intro.Doright (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel is a parliamentary democracy - Do not Disrupt Wikipedia

Some editors have expressed the concern that words that might remotely convey an honorific connotation about Israel in the introduction be "balanced." For example, the classification of Israel in the [category of Liberal Democracy]. The concern of one editor is made clear: "So, if you will not support anything that gives the slightest impression that Israel is not perfect, just say that so . . . ." This, along with a review of the edit history raises the related question of some of the editors' willingness to support anything that does not portray Israel as they need to see it.

There is no dispute about the classification of Israel's form of government as a parliamentary democracy, which is used by the CIA Factbook. Therefore, there is no need to employ the term "liberal" in the introduction for the sole purpose of being able to claim that someone does not agree. [[4]] . Regards, Doright (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We have 2 sources for liberal and 1 for parliamentary. Personally, I find huge merit in my latest suggestion that adds that despite the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli-Arabs are given affirmative action and they vote for both the Palestinian Authority and for Arab parties in Israel. This is certainly the solution to the point raised in the 'liberal' discussion by fellow editors, and I'd personally be interested in giving them the chance to have their point included so that there will be no claims of censorship. The liberal democracy is contested despite Israel's attempts to fully integrate it's Arab citizens, and both notes could/should very well be mentioned in the intro because it's such a notable part of the 'out-side of Israel' discussions.

Still, not to be overly rigid. I can live with your suggestion if we change the phrasing [5] to 'a liberal parliamentary democracy'... bu really, the Arab dual vote and Arab-Israeli conflict should be mentioned in the intro. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my previous recent suggestion:

Israel's system of governance within the Green Line (See also: Six day war), is generally described as a liberal democracy, though some scholars argue that it is an "ethnic democracy" being that it denies certain rights from it's Arab citizens who vote for both the Palestinian Authority and for Arab parties in Israel. However, Israel employs methods of affirmative action to help promote it's Israeli-Arab communities despite the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict and it's also considered to be the most diverse and liberal country in the region. Israel is also the most developed country in the region and ranks high among other Middle Eastern countries on the bases of human development, freedom of the press, and economy.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I feel the Green line mention in this context (on wiki in a paragraph discussing Israel) is undue... anyways... throwing it out there again. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems like too much information for the introduction. That might be a good starting point for a part of the body, but not for the introduction. I don't think we should be saying much in the intro -- just that Israel stands out among Middle Eastern countries for its system of government, economy, etc. That should easily be able to be said in two or three sentences. However, we can't insert unqualified statements, such as "Israel is a liberal democracy", that have received a decent level of opposition. -- tariqabjotu 02:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Doright, something else that is undisputed is that there are disputes about other facets of Israel's democratic system. Still looking forward to your response to my points above! cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See responses above. Thanks, Doright (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Doright, we are not going to make any sort of progress if you keep on your current approach. We have been talking about this matter for days, and, in some sense, for about half a year. And yet, for some reason, you feel entitled to make entirely undiscussed and unsupported changes to the article and ask everyone else to go the talk page. You do not control this article; participate in the discussion. You are not the Wikipedia policy master; we all know what those policies are or at least where to find them, and your reiteration of them at irrelevant moments only suggests that you have no substance to your points. Quit ascribed ulterior motives to people, particularly myself. If you don't understand why I and others are supporting different aspects of the intro (particularly the part about the liberal democracy statement being contested), you are failing to do the minimal homework that is reading the comments of the past few days. Your statement that "some editors" (suggesting, as you do later on, me) "expressed the concern that words that might remotely convey an honorific connotation about Israel in the introduction be "balanced"" is an oversimplification of my position to the point of being false. You don't say what my argument is; I do. However, frankly, I'm not saying my argument again because there's an indelible record of it above, in previous threads. Your failure to read and/or comprehend what is plainly stated is not my problem and not my concern. -- tariqabjotu 02:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have yet another proposal. The current third paragraph is rather weak in comparison to the other two intro paragraphs. This is certainly due, in part, to the constant controversy over it, which has resulting in a gradual watering down of the content. So, I'm going to propose an entirely different paragraph, one that I hope highlights some of the sections in the body that are currently not represented in the introduction. I would suggest removing the out-of-place "Jerusalem is the nation's capital, seat of government, and largest city" from the first paragraph and making the third paragraph as follows:

Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage. The Prime Minister serves as head of government and the Knesset serves as Israel's legislative body. In terms of gross domestic product, the nation's economy is estimated as being the 44th-largest in the world. Considered among the most suitable countries for business in the Middle East, Israel has attracted a large number of foreign and multi-national corporations. Jerusalem is the country's capital, seat of government, and largest city, but Israel's financial center encompasses Tel Aviv.

If we're really daring, we can also add, after "world's only Jewish state" the phrase "and the only country with Hebrew as an official language". -- tariqabjotu 07:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Without indicating agreement or disagreement with the overall proposed change (for the moment), I'd like to suggest that if we're going to talk about size of the economy, the standard way of doing this would be to use per capita figures. Also better to use data corrected for purchasing power parity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not standard to talk about the size of the economy in per capita figures. The United States has the world's largest economy, not Luxembourg. As for using PPP, I can't really see a preference for one over the other among featured country articles. In Japan, for example, nominal GDP is used while both are used in India. -- tariqabjotu 15:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure what is learned from comparing size of economies without taking population into account. Israel's rank for p/c GPD (PPP) is 25th (UNHDR, 07/08). Now, the fact that is ranks 44th in terms of total size is interesting, impressive given the small population; but the point is, the p/c figures are more helpful in my view because they standardize (control) for population. If other articles are not using PPP, then that is an improvement that I will make (or propose) when I see the opportunity for it. However, for Japan, if you look in the summary box top right, you do see p/c GDP using PPP (as well as nominal). In the same summary box for Israel, only PPP is used. The point is, a higher income isn't worth much if you have to pay the equivalent amount more to buy things; if income in A is twice as high as in B but prices in A are also twice as high, then the effective income in the two is the same.

I won't object to a dispute-free introduction (though I still think this simply side-steps much of what makes Israel interesting), as long as consistency on this issue can be maintained in future editing. The liberal democracy bit can be explored in the later politics section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding GDP/per-capita - these are actually two different topucs, so we need to decide what we're trying to say here.

If we want to talk about the standard of living in Israel, then GDP per capita makes sense, using PPP figures, of course (what matters is how much you can afford the house, car, food, etc. in your own country, not some conversion rates).

However, if we want to talk about the importance of Israel's economy in the global economy (how much it matters in that field - I mean, San Marino has very high per capita GDP, but no one would be affected if it just disappeared one day...) - then we should cite the total GDP figure, and probably in nominal terms, not PPP (though I'm not sure about that). okedem (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I propose we use both, then. I've added a brief parenthesis. The whole paragraph needs some sources, btw. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, I personally prefer your new suggested version over my own as it doesn't introduce disputes and politics into the introduction. So, where to now? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must say that I much prefer this new paragraph. It explains Israel's government without any introducing any of the baggage of the previous version. Only one qualm: "...considered among the most suitable countries for business in the Middle East..." I know it's true, but it needs to be sourced. It reads a little brochure-y on its own. As to the Hebrew thing, I think it's pretty moot: wasn't modern Hebrew basically created/revived almost exclusively for use in Israel anyway? That'd be like saying "Georgia is the only Georgian speaking nation in the world" true, but a little obvious.--~Ça Suffit~ (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work as usual Tariqabjotu. I can support this version. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ringmaster j as far as "...considered among the most suitable countries for business in the Middle East...". I know you could find a citation for it, but it's really not needed in that particular placement. Beamathan (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote readability

I held off on posting about this because it seemed the content was the more central issue here, but can someone tell me why he/she believes the current locations of the references in the third paragraph makes it more readable? It seems quite obvious to me that it's that that's not the case. For one thing, having four references back-to-back, especially twice in such a short amount of space, looks atrocious. Second, it makes it hard for someone to understand what exactly is sourcing what. References 10-13 are all bunched together, but 10 and 11 are only sourcing the liberal democracy piece and 12 and 13 are only sourcing the development piece. Similarly, References 14-17 are bunched together, even though the references support four different statements. So let's put the references back next to the things they're actually citing instead of having a line of them after punctuation marks. I don't know how you all are seeing the current setup as an improvement over the original. -- tariqabjotu 03:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was this changed? Squash Racket (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For "legibility", which, as I'm saying here, I do not see. -- tariqabjotu 07:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's way easier to understand the article if we have a reference for the very statement it supports. These make it so difficult to read that paragraph? I don't think so. Squash Racket (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally felt that These do make it less readable if we add them together a bit. There was no contest on this issue so I went ahead with the edit. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Readability is less important than intelligibility. This section is often disputed, so it is important to know which reference supports which statement. Squash Racket (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable point. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish and Arab immigration

per this diff: [6]

Frederico1234, You are incorrect. Arab immigration was very much significant esp, due to it's nature of amassing itself near Jewish populations.

Source 1: 'The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931'

Source 2: The Arabs in Palestine

Please self-revert. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In any event, in addition to being POV, the edit is lacking references. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

regarding arab immigration during the period 1940s-1914, Charles D. Smith in "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 6:th ed" page 31 says "Arabs undoubtly did migrate to Palestine [...] during this seventy-year period [1940s-1914, my edit] but they probably comprised no more than 8% of the Arab population of Palestine in 1914" regarding arab immigration during the mandate period he writes (page 131): "From the first census in 1922 ro 1940, the Arab population increased from 660,641 to about 1,060,750, a rate of nearly 27%, very little of which was due to illegal immigration. The entrance of Arabs from neighbouring countries was principally seasonal, temporary labor, as opposed to Jewish illegal immigrants who sought to remain permanently. The increase in Arab population was due primarily to a very high birthrate among Arab women, averaging about seven children per mother during the period, and a significant decline in infant mortality." i've read books by other writers which i judged to be authorative (i'm no expert though) and nowhere have i've found support for the claim of arab immigration on comparable scale as the jewish immigration. the evidence presented by Jaakobou does not appear to be authorative. i will not self-revert unless stronger evidence is presented. Frederico1234 (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguments over demographics are on-going, and it will hardly do to claim that your preferred sources are authoritative and those of others are not. If this issue is to be treated in the article, it will likely have to be framed in terms of the persistence of opposing views. But the real issue here in my view (in addition to lack of references) is that your added paragraph claims that Jewish immigration is responsible for the whole conflict, up to the present day. Are you really unable to see that this is as far from NPOV as it is possible to get? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, i'll remove the part "...leading to the conflict not solved to this day". it was just something i added to make the sentence sound better. i never gave it much thought. Frederico1234 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That "compromise" won't do since it's still a POV presentation. As I've previously stated, please self revert or, in fact, remove that addition altogether since it's out of place. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

no i won't. the key here is that nowhere in the section does it say that arabs lived in palestine. yet, in the paragraph below my edit, "arab opposition" are mentioned. where did these arabs come from? from abroad? the previeus version of the section provides no context and leaves the reader clueless. my formulation may not be the best, but this context must be provided to the reader some way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederico1234 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It also doesn't say that Arabs invaded Palestine. What's your point and why don't you understand the point I'm making? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

it would help if you explained exactly what sentence you find offensive and by what reason. thanks. Frederico1234 (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

i'll probably make a second try later this week to present the fact that arabs lived in palestine (this was the essence of my edit). i strongly believe that this need to be mentioned explicitly for reasons already stated. i'm thinking of placing this paragraph at the end of the "early roots" section, instead of the "zionism and the british mandate" section as not to disrupt the reading-flow in the "zionsim..."-section. that would however more or less require a renaming of the "early roots"-section to something like "background" or perhaps "pre-20th century history". i don't know. a renaming of that section is probably needed anyway since the 20th century is currently mentioned in it, severely stretching the definition of "early roots".

any input is appreciated. if anyone thinks this sound like a good idea and want to make a try him/herself then that's great too. Frederico1234 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to note the following passage (in the Zionism/British Mandate section): "The populations of the Ottoman districts in the area at this time were predominantly Muslim Arabs..." There is of course a POV issue here; some people believe that there was no Palestinian identity at the time (hence the formulations "Ottoman districts" and "Muslim Arabs"), while others assert differently. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no POV issue here. I'm using the nomenclature of the source, which as you probably well know is among the most widely cited ones among scholars on the topic. Frankly, if you looked at the source I think you would conclude that your objection is humorous. Doright (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no preference on this issue, so I'm not stating an objection; I use the word "issue" instead of "problem" for a reason. It is an issue precisely because of the disagreement among scholars & activists about whether there was a Palestinian identity at the time. If you are unaware of this disagreement, that does not mean there is no issue. Sure, the source you have chosen uses "Ottoman districts". Other sources use different labels, and plenty of people argue over which labels are more appropriate. Zionists tend to prefer "Ottoman districts". Palestinian nationalists tend to prefer "Palestine". Personally I don't think it's worth the effort to fight over it. But it is untrue to say that there is no POV issue here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, sometimes a cigar is just a a cigar. What I cite is a report on the Ottoman districts, etc. They were established by the Ottoman municipal law of 1877. This is not merely a label. It is exactly what the unit of analysis is: Ottoman Districts, etc. If you can find a source that refers to the Ottoman Districts established by the Ottomans under the Ottoman Municipal Law of 1877 something different than Ottoman Districts, go for it. However, that source will have to be WP:RS. Actually, to call them anything other than Ottoman Districts is pure POV pushing. Seriously, it appears that you are just plain wrong to suggest that there is any disagreement about this. You can not deny that Ottoman Districts are Ottoman Districts. Really, there is no disagreement about this among scholars. In fact, it's absurd. That's why I thought you would find it humorous. Furthermore, the source is probably the most widely cited one on the topic of demography during that period. To suggest it is merely one that I have chosen is insulting and suggests that I may be wasting my time here. I hope that's not the case. Regards, Doright (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are simply demonstrating the limits of your knowledge/reading on this issue. That's okay - none of us can know everything about everything. Anyway, since I have explicitly stated that I don't have a preference about how to refer to the area, I think it's a bit rich to charge me with POV pushing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity,yep, when all else fails, your argument is left standing entirely upon personal attack. I'm the one citing authorities. You on the other hand are the one that is claiming that calling Ottoman Districts "Ottoman Districts" is a POV issue. I said, "Actually, to call them anything other than Ottoman Districts is pure POV pushing" and provided all the evidence needed to support my rebuttal to your claim. You, on the other hand attempt to dismiss my rebuttal, by claiming that I am charging you with POV pushing and then remarkably use this absurdity to slander me. I think I will leave it to the reader to decide what you are "demonstrating" here. For my part, it seems difficult to conclude anything other than I'm wasting my time.Doright (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No personal attack or slander intended, and it's not clear to me how it's possible to find either in what I wrote. Just one more question: if it's not possible to call this area anything other than Ottoman Districts, then what's up with all the references to Palestine in that section? Or is this something that needs to be fixed, in your view? Again, I don't have a preference, myself - both are currently used, which seems fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the notification. it appears to be the text inserted by User:Doright two days ago and (accidentally) deleted by myself. i hadn't noticed it had been reinserted so thanks for pointing that out. i don't see any major bias in that sentence. but the part of jerusalem being predominantly jewish is inaccurate (it had a jewish majority with a large arab minority). i think the sentence is good enough to be used as a starting-point for further improvements. however, there are other problems with the sentence not related to the topic of bias or accuracy. the use of "ottoman districts in the area" is inconsistent with the use of "palestine" elsewere ("land of israel" is also used in the section). i favour the use of "palestine" since its shorter and more well-defined. the placement of the sentence is also less good. it need to be placed before the paragraph above which talks about "arab opposition" in order to provide context. like this:

"The populations of the historical region of Palestine at this time were predominantly Muslim Arabs, while the largest urban area in the region, Jerusalem, had a Jewish majority" (placed between the 2:nd and the 3:rd paragraph). Frederico1234 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the source presents an analysis of the "ottoman districts," etc. Get over it. Also, there appears to be confusion regarding the term "predominately" when it comes to Jews. You agree that there was a jewish majority but object to the word predominate? Predominate means larger in number. In fact, according to the source there were more Jews than Muslims and Christians combined. Maybe that's what we should say instead of "predominantly." What is your reasoning for applying the word predominate to arabs but not to jews? Doright (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

i was under the impression that "predominantly" was stronger than just "larger in numbers" (50%+) and more like "an overwehlming majority", say 70%+. could i be that wrong?

as for the topic of "ottoman districts" vs "palestine", i don't think we need to follow the wording of any particular source. the wording should instead be adopted in such a way as to increase reading apprehension by creating a natural reading flow. i'm not totally against the use of "ottoman districts", but it would IMO require the section to be rewritten. Frederico1234 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be entirely coy, but feel free to make use of a dictionary regarding the meaning of the term predominantly. It seems you may have missed the discussion on the census of ottoman districts. It was a scientific survey of the population of the ottoman districts. That is what it was and that is what they called them. Changing the language of the researchers and the sources is not such a good idea, especially if you do not have a copy of the source in front of you. It's widely available if you want it. I've already provided all the info required for you to get it from your library. I don't monitor this page, so please notify me on my talk page if you decide to change it. Regards,Doright (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

i did look into a dictionary but i didn't find it conclusive. dictionaries just give you a couple of synonyms or translated words and perhaps an example usage; it can't tell you about what the word exactly means in this particular context. the word/opinion of a native english speaker would clarify it (you might be one, but i couldn't tell from your talk page).

about your source: if the nature of your source makes it necessary for us to choose a particular wording ("ottoman districts") then o think the source should be scrapped. it should be easy to find a new source. we currently have three phrases decribing roughly the same thing in this section ("land of israel", "palestine" and "ottoman districts". IMO, that's too much, but if you disagree then i'm willing to step down on that issue. Frederico1234 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I promise you the word is properly used. With respect to the source, no you can't just scrap it. It is among the most widely cited sources among scholars on the subject. Respectfully, you clearly are not very familiar with the scholarly literature on this topic. Otherwise, you would know, that it is not "easy to find a new source." If per chance you do, I will be very grateful if you bring it to my attention. Regards, Doright (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

do you mean "yes" as in "yes, english is my mother tongue"? this discussion may seem absurd, but there's a difference between being simply good at english and being a native speaker.

about the sources: we don't need primary sources (as i presume this source of yours is?). we could cite a secondary source. i have a some books for that purpose. it shouldn't be a big problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederico1234 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a primary source with respect to the demographic information. If you have any other questions about the source, I suggest you get a copy for yourself. Regards,Doright (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the Jews, it was about to be become extinct now in old days of around 60 by the Nazis. But they are going to become extinct with the Palestinians now. When would Israel become Nazis Germany during?--0oors (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As a native speaker I can tell you that predominantly does not mean an overwhelming majority, simply a majority, and in fact I would feel (but not necessarily correctly) that predominantly is in fact used to softly state that there is a majority, depending on the context, predominantly basically means dominantly in the context, and dominantly in the context simply menas holding a majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.176 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't the lead paragraph mention "recently formed" very early on?

After all, it's very unusual for a country to be recently formed!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.16.179 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The country was formed 60 years ago, not yesterday. Plenty of younger or similarly aged countries out there. okedem (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel was formed over 3,000 years ago [[7]]; if you mean the most recent date of independence according to [this], there are I would estimate approximately 100 countries with independence dates after Israel's in 1948. You might also be surprised to find out how many countries were created after each of the World Wars. Doright (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh...wow. 3000 years ago? The modern country of Israel was created 3000 years ago? C'mon. Seriously! I think something along the lines of "Recently formed" would be great for the lead paragraph. Someone should edit it right away, why hasn't anyone thought of it before? Beamathan (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

An on-going process, one might add. See Kosovo. And count on a few dozen more countries being created in the next few decades. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And if these countries get a Wiki about them, we should put "Recently formed" in those lead paragraphs as well. Beamathan (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And what is your criteria for recently formed? 60 years isn't that recent. India, most countries in Africa, East European states, and many others, were formed 60 years ago or less. okedem (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Golan Heights is Internationally Part of Israel, not Syria

The Map of Israel (and of Syria) Do not show that the Golan Heights are part of Israel and show that it is part of Syria, yet this land is according to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and also by many international standards is part of Israel. I think that the map(s) should be fixed.

Source: http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/242%20(1967)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughboy92 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

proposal to change Southwest Asia to Middle East

Israel is a country in Southwest Asia does not make sense! Even if the geographic map designation support this claim, I have trouble seeing Israel in Southwest Asia! Could it be that this designation is archaic and we should adopt a newer version that is supported by international community? I do not hear anyone refering to Israel as being in Southwest Asia in the media. Igor Berger (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion above, we've been over this before. "Middle East" is politically charged, and needlessly vague. For example, my Lonely Planet "Middle East" 2005 guide included Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar and Bahrain, but not Algeria, Tunisia or Libya. My 2007 guide, however, shows none of the aforementioned "Gulf states" but includes those countries in North Africa. No one has a clear definition of the "Middle East", and as mentioned above, not even the UN, the EU, and the US don't even share a definition. While "Southwest Asia" is vague, at least it is geographically specific on a continent level. "Middle East" can refer to both Asia and Africa, even in its most traditional definition (Egypt's in Africa, remember?) Finally, however, can you prove that Israel is not in South West Asia? If we have made some terrible error, and it is actually in Northern Europe, I invite you to change it.--~Ça Suffit~ (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is nice of us to be politically correct! But when I fly from Asia to Israel, I am not flying to Asia, I think. Igor Berger (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Middle East" is Euro-centric, while "Southwest Asia" is more of a global term. Squash Racket (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no political correctness here, on either side, at least none that I can see. Anyway, when I see a reference to the "international community", I expect to find something essentially meaningless. It is common in articles on countries to refer to location in terms of continent. There is no continent called the Middle East. I also see no need to take our cues on nomenclature from journalists. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I will not get lost going to Israel..:) But it sort of reminds me of CIA factbook. Igor Berger (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Middle East may be a problematic term but that's what everyone calls it and Israel is at the heart of it.Telaviv1 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not want controversy, so everything is written from No Point of View! We are protected! Igor Berger (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

i always thought wiki uses the term most people would use, and this is for sure not Southwest Asia. the people on the balcan are also not amused to life on it, but they do--Stone (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

small correction Israel is the world's 21st highest GDP, not the 22nd

Israel is the world's 21st highest GDP, not the 22nd...that would be France...could someone please correct this small error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.132.238 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the source for this? Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

mfa.gov.il Igor Berger (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Made the change and included the reference link. Igor Berger (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this. The source you used is from 1998! In addition, for an international comparison like this, I think we should use international data. The author of that article surely did not do original research on GDP in all countries to determine that ranking himself; I would rather assume that he drew on data from the UN or the IMF. So, better to go to the source data itself here as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, let's just find the right reference. Igor Berger (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It caught me too! where is south west Asia anyway? that's like saying Japan is in north east Asia instead of far east. kind of ambiguous but if you don't want to use the term middle east, somehow clarify where 'south east Asia' is.Micronie (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Middle east is not asia, it may be classified under sub asian territory but even that terminology is awkward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.120 (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Those that take into account the 3-4 billion donated to israel on average per year by the USA?86.133.101.176 (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Is Egypt in the Middle East? or should that be North East Africa? Telaviv1 (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Israel is in East LA?Telaviv1 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought Israel wanted to join the European Union... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I just hope it does not have to move! Igor Berger (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to the IMF website and generated a dollar report showing GDP per capita for 2008 and 2007. It gave Israel as 33rd in 2007 and 34th in 2008. Very dissapppointing! This is a reliable source, however it says the data is from October 2007 so I would imagine that any figures that are from later then 2006 are unlikely to be completely accurate. Calculating GDP is probably not easy and I imagine there is a bit of a delay after the end of the year before accurate figures can be given for that year.

Its 36th if you look here http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=is&v=67

Give me a few minutes and I'll check the World Bank. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The world bank gives Israel as 44th for Total GDP (not per capita) in 2006: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf

The world bank puts Israel at 38th in terms of Gross National Income per head at purchasing power parity. The latest figures are 2006 with a note saying they didn;t have up to date figures for Israel when they compiled the data. See http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf They seem to have included places like the Isle of Mann in the rankings which may explain the lower number.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Does that take into account the 3 to 4 billion on average per year donated by the USA or not?86.133.101.176 (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem is "de facto" capital of Israel

And that should be mentioned in the article and/or in the info box. --Abuk78 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's both de facto and de jure - like most capitals. okedem (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image of old coin needed for the 10 Agorot controversy article

Hello everyone, the article about the 10 Agorot controversy lacks an image of the old Roman coin represented on this contemporary Israeli coin. Images of two such coins are found in this web site. Someone uploaded one of these images to Wikipedia but it was banned by the copyright police. Does anyone know where these two coins are kept and, more importantly, where we can find an image suitable for Wikipedia? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edah HaChareidis and Jewish anti-zionists

Why is it that there is no mention of Edah HaChareidis anywhere in this article. Not all Jews believe that the state of Isreal is ligitimised by the Torah. Likewise, not all of the Jewish community accepted Zionism and many are still adamently opposed. Their belief is that there should be no Jewish state under current conditions. Also, these beliefs predate Zionism. At least, statements should refect this and an internal link given to Jews that oppose the Zionist and the Jewish state. 172.138.43.4 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.138.43.4 (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The link I described as BBC was actually BBS, an honest mistake. I have corrected that in the link and edit summary. The article is a good one that gives voice to some of the most controversial issues of the political involving Israel. A good find.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

BBS News link

From Igorberger's edit at 12:15, April 2 (UTC): "Do we need only links from Israeli sources? BBS external link is it unbaised?"

Um... in order, "yes", "irrelevant". The external links at the bottom are links to Israeli news sources, so people can get an idea of what composes Israeli media. BBS News is not an Israeli news source as far as I know, but even if it were, we should be linking to its home page, not an editorial alleging media bias. A look at the other links in that section of External links clearly demonstrates that the current BBS News link has no place in that section. For that reason, I'm shocked that the link was so mechanically and quickly re-added. -- tariqabjotu 12:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not mechanically re-added it, but wanted to get a consensus of other editors before making the change. I think adding links from other than Israeli sources makes the article more NPOV. Also to have references to criticism and opinions by other authoritative sources, as long as the publications are not POV pushers, would give greater credit to Israel Igor Berger (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you are failing to understand what I'm saying. This is not a matter of "NPOV" or counterbalancing anything with criticism and opinions. The Media section contains links to the home pages for Israeli news sources. The disputed link is not to an Israeli source and it is to an article (an opinionated one at that) instead of a home page. The suggestion that Israeli news sources are pro-Israel is irrelevant; that sub-section is intended to serve as a list of Israeli media and that BBS source obviously does not belong. -- tariqabjotu 14:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the link. Do you think other editors feel the same way? Igor Berger (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I checked through the rest of the links in that particular section and you are right that link does not belong there. So please delete it. But what do you think about addidng a small section of links with opinions and criticism of Israel? Igor Berger (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove the link.

Such a section would be absurd. You can find anything you want on the net with respect to Israel (or any other country - which is why we don't have such sections in other articles). Choosing a few sources of opinions would just reflect our bias, and nothing more. An interested reader can search for such things for himself. okedem (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to a certain respect, but I just feel the article is a bit dry, sort of sterile. I mean, it is encyclopidic, but it does not reflect humanity and the sphere of cercumstances that surround Israel and the area. If you could think of a way to bring a little life to the article to reflect reality, not just a dry book formula of what Israel is, I think that would benifit Israel. I will leave it up to you and other editors to think of something. I mean even South West Asia is per Britanica not where one might think Israel is really is, by following the news and other learning materials. It is in Middle East, not in Japan or Thailand. Although we do find many Israelies in these two places..:) Igor Berger (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's encyclopedic - than we've done our job. Look, there are articles where one can add some more "human" details - but this isn't really one of them. Way too many conflicts, way too much controversy. Better to stick to the hard facts. okedem (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

flag

some ahole made the Israeli flag into a palestinian one ha ha someone find out who did this and punish that bastard and fix it immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star-of-David92 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

The POV tag was added by The Thought-Fox. That tag directs users to the talk page. However, The Thought-Fox has not contributed to the talk page to explain his/her concerns. I have no problem with someone raising an issue in relation to npov, but in the absence of an actual discussion I'm not sure what purpose the tag serves. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no need for POV tag. The article is NPOV. Igor Berger (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Israeli population

According to some sources population is 7.4 million of all people in israel, 5.25 israelis. Also flag of david lacks intelligent explanation! Another interesting topic to add would be israeli christians!