Talk:Israel/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Mandate or colony

An editor just added Israel and Jordan to the Category "Former British colonies" ([1], [2]). Can we all agree that this is a good-faith mistake and that Israel and Jordan were never colonies of the British Crown but rather mandated territories?—Biosketch (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, neither was ever a colony. Not Palestine either. Zero^talk 12:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

+1 No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically no. Although as the League of Nations mandate article notes, they were "generally seen as de facto colonies". The difference is that the colonizers produced certificates that they they were there reluctantly and intended to leave one day. I/P editors are too caught up in legal fictions in my opinion. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Map labels

I just labeled the map so that people can more easily identify A, B and C on the map. I realize people get upset about things like me doing that, so figure I'd explain my reasons. 1) They are territories under more or less Israeli military/administrative control, 2) afaik, the vast majority of countries in the world consider them not legally part of Israel proper, 3) people looking at a map and seeing numbers from 1-6 explained but letters A-C not explained will wonder why A-C is so secret or why people don't want to talk about it. As the rest of the article doesn't much use terms like "Judea" and "Samaria" for the West Bank and Gaza I didn't do that here either. I don't even know if there's an extreme Zionist term for the Golan Heights. An alternative would be to alter the map and exclude the letters A, B and C. I'd argue against that as it's misleading the customer, i.e. the reader, into thinking those parts are not under Israeli control. Feel free to jump all over my case about this, it's the internet after all. Pär Larsson (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that this map is showing administrative districts and not political boundaries and there isn't a 1:1 mapping between them. For instance, the "Judea and Samaria" administrative district does not include areas around Jerusalem that are outside of the 1967 borders which are included in the Jerusalem District. A related earlier discussion of this issue can be found here. GabrielF (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I find the map and the labeling very misleading. 1. Israel renounced all claim to Gaza and no longer controls it so why put it here? 2. The northern district includes the Golan Heights. Feel free not to accept Israel's occupation, but mixing administrative districts with anything else is problematic. 3. A, B and C are terms reserved for types of areas within the occupied territories in the west bank. A is under (nearly) full control of the Palestinians. B is under Palestinian civil control and C is under Israeli civil control. Using them here is very misleading. In fact, I had to check the map to realize you're not talking about this but some other A,B and C. 4. Finally, Gaza, Golan, Judea and Samaria are all biblical terms. The first two are accepted by all AFAIK. Don't have enough info about the last two though. 85.250.132.209 (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Roy

Minor translation point

"Haganah" does not mean "The Defense". It means "Defense".Pdronsard (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's true. What's your comment in relation to?—Biosketch (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably:

The Jewish Legion, a group of battalions composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine. Arab opposition to the plan led to the 1920 Palestine riots and the formation of the Jewish organization known as the Haganah (meaning "The Defense" in Hebrew), from which the Irgun and Lehi paramilitary groups split off.[63]

in the "Zionism and the British Mandate" section. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jojotruth1, 20 July 2011

there some incorrect information, i have the correction experience to correct it thank you

joseph camerieri Support Isreal

Jojotruth1 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your request must be in the form of "please change X to Y". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jojotruth1, 20 July 2011

please change ALL the incorrect dating system to correct historical Gregorian dating system dating letters from "BCE" to "BC" and "CE" to "AD" this will correct the offensive dating system to the correct Gregorian Calender dating to the Jews and Christians. Jojotruth1 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:ERA. In general, we don't change from one system to the other without a good reason.

Wikipedia works by consensus. If you can sway other editors and build a consensus that the eras should be changed, that would be a good reason to change. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note that calender system does not date to the Jews, and has nothing to do with the Jews. It is based upon the believed life of Jesus, a Christian figure. The Hebrew calendar is entirely different. If anything, use of BCE and CE is less offensive. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jojotruth1, 20 July 2011

please change all "BCE" TO BC and "CE" TO AD

Jojotruth1 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the response in the preceding section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jojotruth1, 20 July 2011

adminstrator malik thank you Jojotruth1 (talk)

Jojotruth1 (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Welcome to Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Article page locked

Please perform the following edit -

Existing phrase:

Other minorities are Druze, Circassians and Samaritans.

should be:

Other minorities are Druze, Circassians, Samaritans and a large community of immigrants from the former Soviet Union gaining Israeli citizenship following the Law of Return.

Thank you. א/O 31.210.176.210 (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would they be listed as "other minorities" rather than a portion of the "5,818,200 are Jewish" group? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that we've got someone on one side or the other of the issue of friction between former Soviet Jews and the existing Israeli population. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Drumking, 28 July 2011

In the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Conflicts_and_peace_treaties, the link to the "Sabra and shatila camp massacre" is broken, most likely the name is obsolete.

The link should be to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

Drumking (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for noting the error. GabrielF (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem annexed

explain this: how could Israel declare it the capital without it being part of Israel? That doesn't make sense. Of course it's annexed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Israel can declare whatever i:t wants. It doesn't mean that they have necessarily, as a matter of undisputed fact, formally annexed East Jerusalem or the Golan. See this article for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Annexation doesn't have t be recognized, and no-one ever says it was recognized. Nonetheless, when a government declares a certain territory part of its territory, that's annexation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in what wiki editors think. People have to cite reliable sources for the things they say in articles, it's policy. That's it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should take this debate to Annexation where an entire section is devoted to "what wiki editors think"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The content of this article should be discussed at this talk page, not at some other site. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Although the presence of a giant green wall of text and bright orange Hindi script on a talk page are normally enough to catch my eye, I'll pass this time. That article does need attention but Frederico is right. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to change the infobox so that capital is shown as "Jerusalem (disputed)^[a]"? This would more clearly direct the reader to the note about UN resolution 478 etc. - Pointillist (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to "(not recognized internationally)", the form of words already used in the article. - Pointillist (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask, if Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel, what is? Than, how can a country have no capital? And how can Jerusalem not be Israel's capital if it has the Knesset and all the political things there? What, can we just move them? 109.65.213.130 (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.213.130 (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

France has no capital. You can read about the term capital and the diversity in it's meaning in the Capital city article. As for Jerusalem, I'm always surprised at how often statements made on this talk page simply ignore the fact that the word "Jerusalem" describes a spatial object, a city, that includes things that are not recognised by anyone except Israel as being in Israel. It's as if Western Sahara really is the "Southern Provinces" of Morocco because Morocco says so or Taiwan really is part of the People's Republic of China because the One-China policy says "Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China" etc. It's an odd way of looking at things. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Misleading bit about Jerusalem in the lede

"Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories.[a]". This is misleading, it makes it sound like all of Jerusalem is considered occupied rather than just East Jerusalem. The area referred to as West Jerusalem is in areas recognised as belonging to the State of Israel by most of the world. It should say "partially located in occupied territories." Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact no country except Israel considers West Jerusalem to be part of Israel. East Jerusalem is under belligerent occupation, West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation. That leaves both halves under occupation. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Who has claims in West Jerusalem except for Israel, and where can I read more about these claims? I'm just trying to understand the source of the claim that "West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation." Thanks in advance. Dorian in the skies (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You can have a look at the articles Positions on Jerusalem, Corpus Separatum and sources therein. --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the two sources you cite mention that "West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation." On the contrary (and just for example), the first source says that a "broader agreement exists regarding the Israeli presence in West Jerusalem." I'll have to ask again: What is the source of the claim that "West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation?" Thanks in advance. Dorian in the skies (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The case for Palestine: an international law perspective by John B. Quigley discusses this issue. See page 225 for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. To summarize, if I understand Quigley correctly, the claim "West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation" follows from the fact that the partition plan "called for an internationalized Jerusalem."

• If this is a valid implication, then at the very least Quigley should be added as a reference to the article in order to support the claim that "Jerusalem is ... located in occupied territories," a claim which with regards to West Jerusalem is currently not supported in the article. Also, in case Quigley is added as a reference to the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, it should be noted in the article that it is the opinion of one scholar and does not represent an official position (in particular, it's not hard to imagine that one can find other scholars that argue the opposite); of course, if there is an official statement that supports the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, it should be given as a reference instead of Quigley.
• If the article is to use Quigley's argument to support the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, then since the partition plan designated Jaffa, Beer Sheba and other places in Israel to be Palestinian cities, the article should mention that these cities are located in occupied territories as well. In other words, if the article uses Quigley's argument to support the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied but does not use it to claim that Jaffa, for example, is occupied (surely an important issue with regards to Israel if true, if only for the reason that it hosts at least one foreign embassy), then it is being inconsistent.

Best regards. Dorian in the skies (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The article Dailycare cited Positions on Jerusalem includes some books that discuss the various opinions in some depth e.g. Whither Jerusalem?: proposals and positions concerning the future of Jerusalem Sean.hoyland - talk 09:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said above ("On the contrary..."), the article Positions on Jerusalem does not support the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, it does the opposite. The source you provided in your first response do support the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, in the sense that it gives the reasoning of one scholar for this claim. My two bullets, however, remain unanswered. Best regards. Dorian in the skies (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. I'm not arguing a point. I simply meant that if you are looking for a variety of views you will find them in the book I cited, Whither Jerusalem?, that is used as a source in the Positions on Jerusalem article. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My point was to make it clear that the two bullets I made in the comment you replied to remained unanswered. As you said below with regards to the issue at hand, "[t]here are a number of different views on this issue and they are discussed at length by academic sources. We should stick to those." Consequently, I would expect the article to reflect those different views, and not present just one of them, without even giving a reference to a scholarly work arguing in favor of that one particular view. That expectation of mine is basically the source of the above two bullets. Now, if someone else can address them, I would be grateful. Best regards. Dorian in the skies (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact no country except Israel considers West Jerusalem to be part of Israel. East Jerusalem is under belligerent occupation, West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation. That leaves both halves under occupation.

• This is a gross distortion of history. Israel already controlled a part of Jerusalem prior to the Six Day War. Israel acquired the other end of Jerusalem (an end not formally defined btw) from Jordan, not the Palestinians - who were Jordanian citizens during this period. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and a sovereign state can declare any city as a capital. Israel controls all of Jerusalem - socially, militarily, financially, and politically. "Palestine" made no claims to any part Jerusalem until well after it was conquered. Whether or not the internationally community recognizes it is totally irrelevant. Republic of China is only recognized by less than 20 sovereign states and its status as a sovereign country is not simply disputed but ignored - officially. This includes any territorial claims, such as capitals. And yet, ROC has no "not recognized by the "international community" in their info box. Nations who specifically deny Israel's claim to Jerusalem should be mentioned in Jerusalem but "international community" is rather ambiguous and somewhat of a weasily buzzword. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. Soapboxing is not an ideal way to start post-topic ban. There are a number of different views on this issue and they are discussed at length by academic sources. We should stick to those. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not soap-boxing. See Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan and Six Day War. Daily is making edits under a false premise that is not supported by reliable sources. There is no such thing as "Western Jerusalem" and East Jerusalem was simply a result of Jordan's invasion in 1948. Israel conquered Jerusalem in a war with Jordan, not Palestinians. Palestinians made no claims to Jerusalem or the West Bank 4 years prior to the 67 war. Article 24. Resolution 242 makes no mention of "belligerent occupation" of Palestinian land. No binding law has declared an inch of Jerusalem as a part of an historic or past Palestine. Jordan didn't even recognize Palestinian claims until the mid-80s. Everything is up for a negotiated settlement. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure you are. "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" = soapboxing, there is no such thing as "Western Jerusalem" is the product of green-line-blind One-ChinaJerusalem socialization. I could go on but my point is that it's better to base discussion on what sources actually say and cite those sources in the discussion or else this page will rapidly turn into the normal steaming pile of forum-ish poop so popular in this topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily's claims are simply not supported by the facts and history. What claims do you specifically challenge? That Israel didn't conquer Jerusalem from Jordan? That the Palestinians made no claims to Jerusalem until after the 67 war - and the UN never considered the land to be "Palestinian" in UN242? Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This isn't my opinion, it is reality. How can you see that as soap-boxing? No international body has disputed Israel's capital, a lack of recognition is not the same thing as a binding charge. Now, one could argue what constitutes a "capital" and if "international" recognition is necessary to legitimize it. Positions on Jerusalem is where all support/opposition should go. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made IIRC only one claim in this thread, namely that West Jerusalem is occupied territory. See e.g. the UK position on Jerusalem for an example of a country that doesn't recognize Israel's sovereignty in that territory. It makes absolutely no difference who Israel captured the area from in 1948. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: what if we change the wording from "in the occupied territories" to "(...) since Israeli sovereignty isn't recognized there"? A downside in this suggestion would be that it's more complex than the current wording. --Dailycare (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether the wording is complex or not is not the most important issue. What's more important is that the wording is accurate and that it is backed up by the references given. Right now this isn't the case with regards to West Jerusalem. As my discussion with Sean.holyland suggests (and in particular by the book Whither Jerusalem? that was suggested by Sean.holyland), one can find scholarly work that suggests that West Jerusalem is occupied, and one can find such work that suggests that West Jerusalem is not occupied. The wording in the article should reflect these works, which in turn should be given as reference. Maybe the sentence in question should be rewritten as something like this: "Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, East Jerusalem is located in Palestinian Occupied Territory [reference UN definition of Palestinian Occupied Territory], and West Jerusalem is a disputed territory [reference scholarly work that argue in both directions]." (Note: the wording can be simplified, but as I noted above, that's not the main issue. Also, there may by official legal positions with regards to West Jerusalem being occupied or not, it's just that I didn't find any.) Best regards. Dorian in the skies (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that suggestion. --Dailycare (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro statement on status of Jerusalem

"Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories". If I'm correct, the definition of "occupied territories" includes only land that was not under Israeli control before 1967. Since West Jerusalem has been controlled by the State of Israel since 1948, is it really "occupied territories" any more than places such as Tel Aviv or Eilat? I'd be bold and add "partially" before "located" in the sentence that I quoted above, but I'm wary of someone becoming angry on such a hot topic. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

See the comment above, timestamped 20:01. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely your "no country" statement is wrong; see this map for an example. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That map doesn't change or reflect official US policy, which doesn't recognize West Jerusalem as part of any sovereignty. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your source? Where is it stated that the US policy doesn't recognize West Jerusalem as part of any sovereignty? The thought that they for some reason lost sovereignty over West Jerusalem sounds silly, for it was theirs in the first place, was never captured, and so on and so forth. Are you certain of your findings?--Zamoonda (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a recent source which says the US doesn't recognize Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem. For another source, see source 33 in Positions on Jerusalem --Dailycare (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Official languages

I've read lots of times that Hebrew and Arabic are the official languages of Israel, and we have that cited to the CIA Factbook. But this Haaretz article says (my emphasis) "based on current mandatory law, Arabic and English are also recognized as official languages". Is it possible to find a more definitive source, like a high court ruling or legal text? Zero^talk 13:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer my own question, this paper, this paper, and one other I found, say that Israel removed English from the Order in Council that established English, Arabic and Hebrew as official languages during the Mandate period. So it seems Haaretz is wrong. Zero^talk 14:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem occupied? Source says nothing.

Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories.[a]

Straight from the intro. The source does not describe Jerusalem as "occupied" but rather Israel proclaimed its capital as Jerusalem, period. So either this is an editor mixing up sources or simply including their own POV without consulting the material they supposedly cite form.

The reality is parts of Jerusalem are considered "occupied" by various bodies of government and non-binding resolutions, but the peace process - and history - has never inferred the whole city Jerusalem as occupied territory. Israel captured parts of Jerusalem from Jordan, not Palestine. And Jerusalem was never sovereign to begin with. So yeah Sean, write this off as Soap Boxing, but all I say here is predicated on facts. Editors must rely on sourced material rather than their own opinions when contributing to an article as sensitive as this. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Roberts, Adam. Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967 The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Jan., 1990)

p. 584: Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.

nableezy - 20:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam does not define "international community." Nor does he refer to the whole city of Jerusalem. No sovereign body has rejected Israel's claim to Jerusalem and no binding laws has described "Western" Jerusalem as occupied - which daily said it was. In fact the various peace accords signed - Oslo, etc - affirm Israel's claims to Jerusalem. At least parts of it. My concern is editors are inserting loaded language without proof. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And as I said, the source used does not say Jerusalem is in occupied territory. So why is it still in the article? It should be removed. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Several states have rejected Israel's claim to sovereignty in western Jerusalem, the UK being one (the UK recognizes de facto control, not sovereignty, see here). I have no problem adding this source to the article to alleviate your concerns. The fact is that Israel's proclamation that Jerusalem "complete and united" is its capital was the cause of the condemnation of the designation. If Israel had not included EJ in that declaration there would like have been no uproar. In fact, prior to the passing of the Jerusalem Law there were several embassies located within western Jerusalem. But the claim that occupied Palestinian territory was part of its capital is what caused the UNSC resolution and the moving of embassies to outside of the city. But I will adjust the text and source in a bit to suit your objections. nableezy - 00:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. The UNSC resolution does not explicitly refer to the entire city of Jerusalem as "occupied" but rather rejects Israel's annexation of it. The opposite of an annexation is not an occupation - that is what is being inferred in the article. And Israel retained a part of Jerusalem prior to the 67 war. The lead suggests the entire city of Jerusalem is "occupied territory" and that simply isn't the case. I think the whole Jerusalem issue is so mixed and controversial that it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. If so, context should be included - like Israel conquered Jerusalem from Jordan, not the Palestinians, and that the land was not considered occupied "Palestinian territory" until years later. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A good source for the entire sentence: Bowen, Stephen, ed. (1997), Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territories, International studies in human rights, vol. 52, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, ISBN 978-90-411-0502-8

In 1980 Israel's parliament declared "Jerusalem, complete and united" to be the "capital of Israel". The U.N. Security Council and U.N. General Assembly each declared this law a nullity on the grounds that an occupying power may not annex occupied territory.

nableezy - 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The source does not explicitly refer to the entire city of Jerusalem as occupied. And neither did the original UNSC resolution. I'm not sure if the interpretation of a scholar takes precedence over actual international law. What was the status of Jerusalem prior to 1967? Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, the source says "Jerusalem" and refers to the Israeli law that says "complete (...) Jerusalem". We shouldn't invent additional hurdles that sources would have to meet in order to count. Having said that, even though WJ is seen as under non-belligerent occupation, it's fair to say that sources often use different language for EJ and WJ, and the suggestion discussed in the thread above would reflect that. It might be modified to say EJ is occupied, and Israeli sovereignty over WJ isn't recognized. An interesting doc that relates to this all is GA resolution 303 from 1949, which affirms the international regime for Jerusalem. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The CIA source doesn't describe any part of Jerusalem as occupied, let alone "East Jerusalem." I'm concerned about the language being used. Israel's presence in Jerusalem is not as concrete as Israel's occupation of the West Bank. I much rather throw away the mention of Jerusalem in the lead. No other sovereign state article includes a mention of their declared capital. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"I much rather throw away the mention of Jerusalem in the lead"...I think that would solve many issues that are best dealt with in the body of the article but I'm not sure about the "No other" article statement e.g. UK says "with its seat of government in the capital city of London". Perhaps I misunderstood you. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a fair comparison because the capital must be mentioned explicitly as the UK is a collection of unique countries. United States, Jordan, Egypt, etc...do not have their capital's mentioned in the lead. The controversy behind the status of Jerusalem, and the fact that the CIA source says jack squat about occupation suggests the edit should be removed and merged to the dozens of articles on Jerusalem. It adds nothing to the article other than promoting a one-sided view point. Wikifan^{Be nice} 09:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the CIA has to do with anything. There is no policy according to which every source has to say something in order for it to be enterable in Wikipedia, which is a good idea since otherwise there would be no content. Per WP:LEAD, significant controversies should be mentioned in the lead and Israel's claims to Jerusalem unfortunately do amount to a significant controversy. However, there seems to be no opposition to the proposal discussed above so that may be a way forward. --Dailycare (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily, I'm going to make this simple. This source does not support " Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since parts of it are located in occupied territories." For something controversial of course you need a source to support it, especially in an article like this. The whole city of Jerusalem has a whole has never been recognized as part of occupied territory although this is a common accusation. And the parts of Jerusalem that later became "Palestinian territory" was a political mutation, Israel conquered Jerusalem from Jordan. So unless the lead is going to be hijacked so the issue of Jerusalem can be described with all the facts, that sentence should go. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, I'm not citing that source. I've cited other sources. --Dailycare (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then if those sources exist they should be in the article. Currently the claim that Jerusalem is an "occupied territory" (the entire city mind you) is not supported by the CIA link. The fact is Jerusalem - the city - is not entirely in "occupied territory" and no binding resolution has declared it so. There are dozens of positions on Jerusalem which are found in other articles. Something this controversial doesn't belong in the lead. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, several sources have been provided here that specify that the reason that Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital is because East Jerusalem is occupied territory and that Israel's effective annexation of that territory violated international law which proscribes the annexation of occupied territory. Your edit is both wrong and dishonest, as you are well aware of these sources. nableezy - 23:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I just went by what the sources said. None of the sources supporting the edit described East Jerusalem has under "military occupation." Yeah, the annexation violates international law - but the status of the whole city of Jerusalem is divided (opinion-wise) and up for negotiations (reality-wise). This is what the sources say. If you guys are bent on including Jerusalem in the lead, then a little peak at Positions on Jerusalem should serve as a guide. What part of my edit do you specifically oppose? It is all directly from the source, including the footnote. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Druze or Arabs in the Golan Heights

I think there is a mistake in the following sentence: "In the Golan Heights, Arabs are entitled to citizenship but most them have rejected it in favor of "loyalty to Syria."[23]"

There are Druze in the Golan Heights rather then Arabs. They are not to be confused. The above sentence is not consistent with the paragraph: "Arabs form by far the country's second-largest ethnic group, which includes Muslims and Christians. Other minorities are Druze, Circassians and Samaritans. At the end of 2005, 93% of the Arab population of East Jerusalem had permanent residency and 5% had Israeli citizenship.[22] In the Golan Heights, Arabs are entitled to citizenship but most them have rejected it in favor of "loyalty to Syria."[23] "

Which separates the Arabs from the Druze. Any thoughts? Guy.other (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Guy.other

Well the source says Arabs. The original edit said I revised:

According to the May 2010 population estimate, including 300,000 "non-citizen" Arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, these minorities number 1,579,700

The source never said anything of "non-citizen" or the citizenship/residency differences for Arabs/Druze living in areas annexed by Israel. So I added this source to support the fact that Arabs/Druze are entitled to citizenship. CSM didn't differentiate between Arabs and Druze, so I went with what the source said. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If the source says "arabs" than the source is wrong. the golan hights are inhabitted by Druze, which refuse to become israeli citizents. the only arab village on the golan is Ghajar and the local population there accepted the israeli citizenships.Mr. Kate (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

How to put this... Druze are Arabs, but they have a different culture from most other Arab groups, and are of a faith called Druze (whereas most other Arabs in the area are Muslim or Christian). It is usually best to call them Druze though so people know what you are talking about (and to avoid offending them). I know for a fact Druze is correct in this case for the inhabitants of the Golan. Is there maybe a more accurate source we can find? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Druze as a group are not arabs, but some of the are. it is confusing, i know. some druze see themselves as arabs, and sometime even as a branch of the islam. most of the druze see themeselves as a diffrent ethnic, religious and political group(for example IDF doesn't recruit israli arabs but does recruit israeli druze). here is a source that "proves" the golan is inhabitted by druze-"http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3365151,00.html".Mr. Kate (talk)

jewish majority, no ITS A JEWISH STATE

there are christian states and muslim states, israel is a jewish state. unless we are going to change all christian countries into a christian majority state, and all muslim countries to muslim majority states ect than i believe this mistake should be fixed. just because the palestinians refuse, in their hatred, to recognize israel as a jewish a jewish state. which means that they dont recognize any Jewish presence in palestine, does not mean that we members of the international world, should give in into such antisemitic rhetoric!--129.98.153.186 (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

i completely agree, israel is a jewish state, in the deceleration of independence we declared the establishment of a "jewish atte in the land of israel" not a jewish majority state. we need to change it immediately.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just after where it says "Jewish-majority state" it says "Jewish and democratic state". Did you both get so overwhelmed with anger you weren't able to make it to the end of the sentence? --FormerIP (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite. 129.98.153.186, it's always good to be very specific about the content you are referring to and make sure you remove any unnecessary rhetoric from your comments (see WP:TALK for guidelines). Is this about the line in the lead section that says "Israel is the world's only Jewish-majority state, and is defined as a Jewish and democratic state in its Basic Laws." That covers both aspects doesn't it, demographics and the defined nature of the state as FormerIP says. Couldn't you just switch them around ? I wouldn't imagine anyone would object but I've been wrong many times before. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

sean.holyland if thats the best you can do you should do it, and i thank you for at least finding a compromise. But if israel will be considered a jewish majority state than all muslim and christian and buddhist states should also be put in as "muslim majority" and christian majority ect.. I wanted it to be written a jewish state since thats what it is, there is a deference between a state of jews and a jewish state. a jewish state has meaning, it is run by the hebrew calender, and it nationally celebrates the jewish holidays and mourns the jewish memorial days. israel is a Jewish state, that is not an opinion it is fact. and no matter what the world discusses or what the world transcribes-israel shall remain a Jewish state.--129.98.153.186 (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Better to get religion and race right out of nationhood. It leads nowhere good, unless you like the way parts of Europe went in the first half of the 20th century. Whoever uppercased the heading: that is "shouting"; please don't do that. Tony (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Capital's cities of Israel by the Bible

• Jerusalem - capital of all jewish people
• Shiloh - it was the temporary Capital of israel befor the first temple was built in Jerusalem.

• Tel Dan - capital of north israel kingdom
• Shechem (Nablus) - capital of north israel kingdom
• Beit El

פארוק (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the modern State of Israel. Perhaps your information is better suited to the Land of Israel article. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Padding.

How about instead of removing sourced material, why not explain the edits in discussion?

These sorts of statements aren't exactly collaborative: "it doesn't belong in the lede, but you're going to pad it anyway? what a maroon.."

I read the sources. My edit comes straight from the source, almost verbatim. The previous edit was not supported by the sources. This is a very sensitive article and as long as editors refuse to explain their edits in talk they shouldn't be reverting other users edits. So Malik, I suggest you self-revert. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually, you know, read my edit before you came here to belly-ache? Now the lede says what it should have said all along: Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such.

And as far as your edit is concerned, you yourself wrote that it didn't belong in the lede. Stick it in the article if you think it belongs there. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

jerusalem is forever and ever the capital of the jewish people. פארוק (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my edit before totally removing it? Here is your edit:

Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, as East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as being Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation.

Now that is more than "Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such." My edit reflected the sources cited, the edit you reverted to is not supported by the reference behind it. So I suggest you self-revert. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of the reliability of your edit, it's just not supposed to be in the lead of the article. The basic information should be given: The capital of Israel is Jerusalem, but it's not recognized as such internationally. Daniel (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidently you still haven't looked at my edit, Wikifan. This is the diff. Please review it and stop belly-aching. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Whoever is doing it, please do not bold or uppercase comments on a talk page. And there seems to be an accusatory tone abroad: criticise the ideas, not the person. Tony (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Image audit

I've boosted the sizes of a few, slightly, and preferred right- over left-side placement, and top-of-section placement: this optimises for all window-widths in terms of the image–text relationship, minimising text sandwiching.

In my view, there are too many images. Those in "Economy" and "Transport" are underwhelming—are there no better ones? I'd sooner remove them. What has "Ramat Gan" got to do with "Economy"? Needs to be removed or at least referred to in the main text or the caption, I'd say.

"Tourism" needs expansion, and I see there's a daughter article ... two sentences are hardly sufficient. Tony (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Press Freedom/Legal

I'm on a voluntary ORR so I didn't revert this edit even though I believe it should be. I'm not so sure on the rationale of the editor and the edit itself is in the wrong section. The section is about Israel's laws, not press freedom. Two entirely different issues tied together arbitrarily. Right? Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This too. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Weird quotation: can someone get the source and fix?

"Zionism, the urge of the Jewish people to return to Palestine, is almost as ancient as the Jewish diaspora itself. Some Talmudic statements ... Almost a millennium later, the poet and philosopher Yehuda Halevi ... In the 19th century ..."

Doesn't make sense to me; just a bunch of fractured phrases and clauses. It's the Rosenweig, top of "Zionism and the British mandate". Thanks.

BTW, the images are very messy, and prone to sandwich text in narrow screens. Also, some seem forced down to 180px, which was the default until 18 months ago. The default is now 220px (49% larger), but the guidelines were loosened last year to allow for detail-rich images to be boosted in size beyond 220. I've made some 240, and also jammed the syntaxes at the top of their section in edit-mode, since this minimises the damage arising from narrow and wide window-widths. Please give feedback here if it's a problem. Tony (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Biodiversity section: it's tiny, and there's a jumble of pics around there. I wonder whether it's possible to conflate it with "Geography", above? In fact, the pics would be better in a single "Geography and climate" section, that is, three small sections conflated into one decent-sized one. Needs consensus to go that far. Comments? Tony (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, gonna conflate these. Tony (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

International Criticism

Under WP:ROC the introduction is missing a key "notable" topic re Israel - the international criticism it has received. Whether or not we agree with the criticism, its existence is widely recognised and it is highly relevant to the country. It is clearly a sensitive topic however - I have put a suggestion below, and would ask if all editors could help me make sure it is balanced before putting it in. Thanks.

Israel has faced ongoing international criticism since its Independence in 1948, including with respect to its refusal to allow post-war Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, its invasion, occupation and annexation of neighbouring territories and the building of settlements therein, and accusations of economic strangulation of occupied territories and human rights abuses of Palestinian Arabs.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you read WP:NPOV? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Malik, the lead is already quite long and aspects of the proposed text (although not exact mathces) are already present in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both. Dailycare, the key aspect of the proposed text is not already in the lead, that is, there is no description of the international criticism which Israel has had to defend itself against. Malik, your comment was flippant given I have said that I am aware this is sensitive - I have tried to remove any POV. Please expand your critique or preferably suggest an appropriate balance - it is clearly a highly notable subject with respect to Israel.Oncenawhile (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is international criticism an important feature relating to Israel as such? WP:NPOV states that those viewpoints that are given space in reliable sources should be given roughly proportionate space in articles. I'm not dead-set against mentioning criticism specifically, but you'd need to show that reliable sources (per WP:RS) give it significant space to warrant including it in the lead. Please also see WP:LEAD --Dailycare (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Run a WP:SET - put the words "international criticism" into google, and count out of the top 100 articles, how many refer to Israel. It is highly disproportionate. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, try putting the terms "israel criticism" (not in quotes) into google news archives. The most striking part is not the huge number of articles, but the fact that they almost exclusively refer to criticism OF Israel rather than BY Israel Oncenawhile (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The content of a lead is determined by WP:LEAD. Arguments for changes to the lead need to be based on WP:LEAD. The lead is dependent on the content in the article so providing reasons for changes to the lead based on ghits and related arguments without referring to content in the article body isn't the right approach. It's the content in the article body and the relative importance of that information that determines whether and how something should be included in the lead. I haven't checked whether something similar to the material you are proposing is already present in the article body but its presence is a prerequisite for inclusion in the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Below is a raft of WP:RS on the proposed topic. Sean, I take your point - i'll clarify and add as appropriate in the body of the article and then come back to the lead.

• The Case For Israel, Alan Dershowitz, 2004, p1 "The Jewish nation of Israel stands accused in the dock of international justice. The charges include being a criminal state, the prime violator of human rights, the mirror image of Nazism, and the most intransigent barrier to peace in the Middle East. Throughout the world, from the chambers of the United Nations to the campuses of universities, Israel is singled out for condemnation, divestment, boycott and demonization."
• The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace, Alan Dershowitz, 2009, p1-2 "For a tiny nation of little more than six and a half million citizens living in an area roughly the size of New Jersey, Israel has proportionally more enemies than any nation on earth. No nation has been threatened more often with divestment, boycotts, and other sanctions. No nation has generated more protests against it on college and university campuses. No nation has been targeted for as much editorial abuse from the worldwide media. No nation has been subjected to more frequent threats of annihilation. No nation has had more genocidal incitements directed against its citizens. It is remarkable indeed that a democratic nation born in response to a decision of the United Nations should still not be accepted by so many countries, groups, and individuals. No other UN member is threated with physical destruction by other member states so openly and with so little rebuke from the General Assembly or the Security Council. Indeed, no nation, regardless of its size or the number of deaths it has caused, has been condemned as often by the UN and its constituent bodies. Simply put, no nation is hated as much as the Jewish nation."
• In Defense of Israel, John Hagee, 2007, p1 "You look toward the United Nations, which Ambassador Dore Gold calls 'the Tower of Babble'. You look at Europe, where the ghost of Hitler is again walking across the stage of history. You open your newspapers and read about American universities, where Israel is being vilified by students taught by professors whose Middle Eastern chairs are sponsored by Saudi Arabia. You look to America's mainline churches and see their initiatives to divest from Israel. You go to the bookstore and see slanderous titles by the former president of the United States - and you feel very much alone"
• Will Israel Survive, Mitchell Bard, 2008, p1 "Israel might be the only country in the world whose right to exist is debated and whose future is questioned. Can you imagine anyone asking whether the United States will survive or whether it should exist? Or anyone saying "no" is asked?"
• Israeli views of International Criticism: According to survey by Tel Aviv University, more than half of Israelis believe "the whole world is against us", and three quarters of Israelis believe "that no matter what Israel does or how far it goes towards resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, the world will continue to criticize Israel".
• UN Criticism: In recent years, the Middle East was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions, 100% of the Human Rights Council resolutions, 100% of the Commission on the Status of Women resolutions, 50% of reports from the World Food Program, 6% of Security Council resolutions and 6 of the 10 Emergency sessions. These decisions, passed with the support of the OIC countries, invariably criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. For further details, see Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations and the List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose to add appropriate text under either 2.4 History / Conflicts and peace treaties or 4.5 Government, politics and legal system / International Criticism. Let me know if any preferences. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Added as promised.Oncenawhile (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove the POV "international criticism" section from the article, it's not to be found in articles about other countries-nor do similar sections.--Gilisa (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Even North Korea doesn't have such a section. Criticism of Israel can, by all means, be worked into the article, but I would suggest that: 10K in one go is far too much; material should not be drawn exclusively from sources representing one POV; given the sanctions, wording should be presented for comment on the talkpage first. --FormerIP (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that other country articles do not have a similar section is not a valid argument. There are no standards. The volume and variety of sources on this topic is indisputable, and are drawn from all sides of the spectrum.Oncenawhile (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that how other wiki pages are written aren't strong arguments for how to write this one, but all the sources mentioned above represent the POV that criticism of Israel is wrong. --Dailycare (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

While it should be mentioned somewhere, i dont think the article on the country itself warrants such a section regardless of comments that other countries dont have it. (for the reasons mentioned below) Maybe a see also link.Lihaas (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please could editors kindly keep comments to WP policies and guidelines relating to the text and sources in the article? Dailycare's comment that four of the quotes in the talk page represent a pro-Israel POV makes no comment on the text and variety of sources in the article. The question of article size requires a considered analysis of the article as a whole, rather than singling out the latest additions.Oncenawhile (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This section should be suspended, until user Oncenawhile can find a consensus for including this section. Firstly, the section is a major and unprecendented edit, which goes against every other country on wikipedia; secondly, Oncenawhile has a strong NPOV agenda, as has been shown by his past record of edits on this page.Avaya1 (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree i have a neutral-point-of-view agenda. But assuming you meant the opposite, I have no idea what you are referring to so please can you expand with specific examples - I am keen to learn and improve. I would be delighted to critique your POV as well if you like. Spurious accusations of POV should not be thrown around so loosely.Oncenawhile (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The last few paragraphs of the proposed section are particularly problematic. I don't like the idea of citing Wikileaks cables without a secondary source explaining them, since they are unfiltered private comments. However, even if quoting this cable were encyclopedic, the commentary on the cable is not ("suprisingly...", "In the WikiLeaks cable Dermer didn't offer evidence...") First, this is POV and original research (Wikipedia is responding to Dermer instead of quoting someone else responding to Dermer), but just as importantly, when we cherrypick one private conversation and then criticize it we risk creating straw men - that is to say we run the risk of choosing one particular form of an idea, say the one that we think is weakest, rather than the most mainstream or well-thought-out version of that idea so that we implicitly make the other side's position look stronger. GabrielF (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

for what it's worth, i agree with the above editors that the criticism section is grossly disproportionate and inconsistent with wp:npov.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, criticism sections in general suck. They are a lazy way of writing an article. Criticism should be dealt with in the context of the specific things being criticized. To pull out one section just to discuss criticism is to invite issues of POV and undue weight. Criticism of Israel's foreign policy, etc. are better dealt with in those sections. The only reason why there should ever be a specific criticism section would be to discuss criticism of Israel as a phenomenon and I don't think that issue is significant enough to merit its own section here. GabrielF (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikibias blog has brought this up: [3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"while Sean.hoyland and Dailycare seem to be enabling his contributions with subtle approval or indifference". Finally, somewhere to go to check what I'm been doing and why. I thought I was busy being indifferent to something else. Silly me. I was thinking of rejoining this discussion but having read that now I'll just let vipāka take its course. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Supreme, thanks for bringing this up - this proves the notability of the topic "Criticism of Israel" perfectly. Despite its broad-sounding name, the wikibias blog is essentially a single-issue pressure group dedicated to challenging any criticism of Israel. Can anyone provide examples of similar websites re criticism of other countries? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

So I gather international criticism of Israel and the attitude of Israelis to it are irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned? Because its "an entirely unprecedented section"?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please could editors kindly keep comments to WP policies and guidelines relating to the text and sources in the article? The main arguments given against the section refer to there being no precedents for it in other country articles. Not only is that argument not valid, ghit analysis and the WP:RS provided show that the topic is highly notable. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The topic is notable, and has several articles dedicated to it. You have yet to explain why it should be included in this article. The fact no other country article has such a section and that this encyclopedia is supposed to be consistent (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes") is indeed a valid argument. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to see we have common ground. To answer your question, we could debate whether the criticism is disproportionate versus other countries - the stats show that in the UN no other country comes close, and although harder to calculate it is clear that in academic writings Israel also stands out from the crowd. Or we could debate about the relative importance in wikipedia country articles of Israel's "music and dance" section, or perhaps the "Humanitarian situation" section in the WP:FA Chad or the "Personality cult" section in North Korea. But the clearest answer to your question is how important supporters of Israel see International Criticism to be:

• The Israeli government think it is critical - see e.g. headline communication from the Ministry of Public Diplomacy here[4], a government-sponsored branding study here[5] or even more impactfully the "Background and Purpose" from a paper at this year's Herzliya Conference here[6].
• The people of Israel see it as a huge issue - see the poll data provided above, or another one here [7].
• Supportive academics think it is fundamentally important to Israel's ongoing existance (see e.g. the quotes provided by Dershowitz, Hagee and Bard).

In other words, Israel, Israelis and their supporters all believe that International Criticism of the country is a critically important topic. And finally, and I admit this is not scientific, but you could ask yourself this open question - do you think criticism of israel is important? Oncenawhile (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That you think "Israelis and their and their supporters" all think it's "critically important" isn't a relevant argument to include material.

That you keep trying to edit war the material back into the article despite the ongoing discussion is something that may get you blocked from editing articles in this topic area.

By the way, do you or have you ever edited en.wiki with another account? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You asked a question and I answered it in good faith. Then you respond with (1) an illogical response to a single sub-point whilst ignoring all the other points; (2) a threat; and (3) an attempt to undermine (the answer is no btw). I suggest you review WP:GAME. Happy new year. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That was not a threat, it was a warning. People get blocked for this sort of behavior. Also, my response was quite logical. What we as editors think is irrelevant. What the sources say is what counts. You have yet to provide a source saying this is as important as you think it is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A number of the sources provided suggest that defending against international criticism is fundamental to the continued existence of Israel - a topic cannot be more important than that, and therefore the text simply must remain in the article. As per below, it's now time to explain any valid facts and arguments behind your side of the discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst numerous facts and arguments supporting the inclusion of the text have been set out in the discussion above, none of the posts against inclusion have been substantiated with valid or adequately explained arguments or facts. This makes it very difficult to move towards real consensus. Perhaps each of the dissenting editors could explain clearly exactly how important and notable a topic would need to be to justify inclusion in this article, in their judgement? My view is clear - it is one of the most notable topics of all in relation to Israel, almost a defining topic, as illustrated by all of the broad facts and WP:RS shown above - and shown best in our world by the sheer number of POV WP editors which exist in relation to this overall topic. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest that this section be added to the Foreign Relations part of the article as a summary paragraph, with the link to the main article to be developed. This is simply because the nature of criticism encompasses so many different aspects, but it is International, and that seems to fit its placement better. Also the size of the article is probably not going to handle more than a summary paragraph which won't do the subject justice it deservesKoakhtzvigad (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that would be underweight, given how fundamental this is to the overall topic of Israel. The foreign relations section is already very long, and to add the International Criticism text as another paragraph within it would imply that the overall criticism faced by the country is only of equivalent importance and notability to e.g. Israel's relationship with Ethiopia... Oncenawhile (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Israel's relationship with Ethiopia pails into insignificance with that of EC, the USA, or China for obvious economic reasons, and this is why the mention of international criticism has to be in that section.

International criticism has been the 'background noise' that provides a benchmark which has existed to some degree since 1948, and on which Israel's foreign policy is evaluated....to avoid criticism as far as possible due to its initial dependence on these relationships.

This externally imposed national avoidance behaviour has also been a dominant factor in the success of Israeli democracy. Much of this democracy is not really democracy, but the attempt by near-socialist sectors of the Israeli population to be seen as 'holier-than-thou', afflicting themselves with every kind of 'humanitarian' stringency most countries never implemented in a sort of state-wide Stockholm syndrome behaviour where in a situation of traumatic entrapment (leading to PTSD),[8] being not fully accepted in the 'West', and facing threat from the 'East', appeasement may seem to be be the only defensive option for some to achieve hoped-for end to abuse.

If it were a reported abuse case, it would perhaps be diagnosed as classic bullying, although even professionals tend to get some things wrong, saying "Attitudes towards violence and aggression are largely shared across the world, with a general consensus that such behaviour is socially destructive." (Dennis Lines, THE BULLIES: UNDERSTANDING BULLIES AND BULLYING, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2008, p.80), and assuming that if it is socially destructive, they won't engage in violence and aggression where as of course this is where the entire issue started in 1920s (in Europe and Israel, at least this century), and has been proven to be a culturally acceptable behaviour in almost every state surrounding Israel from which majority of the criticism comes to the international forum.

And yet, Israel still gets criticism, mostly for ensuring self-security and social stability of an integrated rather than dysfunctional society, and even manages to prosper and contribute significantly to the global good.

However, despite the impact on domestic socio-political behaviour, and mental health of its citizens, the influencing factor for this behaviour is external, and therefore has to go in the foreign relations Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Relative notability of Criticism within the Government, politics and legal system section

Most editors will have seen the following discussion over the past two weeks, which has now closed. Many good points were raised on all sides of the debate. Perhaps we can now try to agree on this page as to whether the relative notability of Criticism of the Israeli Government versus the other topics in the Government, politics and legal system section justifies the inclusion of a summary. I'll start:

• Include - notability and WP:RS confirmed and unchallenged, both in the previous discussion on this page, and in the main article's deletion discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Include - we should reflect the international criticism on israel in this article. at least one half of the aforesaid main article consists of answers, reactions, discussions of this criticism BTW. in the article about the PLO the criticism is camouflaged, for example in the section "wealth". in the PR China article criticism on the state is mentioned inter alia under "Sociopolitical issues and reform","Environment",...it would make sense to summarize the main points of the criticism here - without making this section a coatrack for counteraccusations and delegitimization and defamation of this criticism.--Severino (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include. If there is information relevant to this article in the travesty that is Criticism of the Israeli Government it can be included in the various relevant sections that already exist in this article. The addition of a section dedicated to criticism out of its context remains inappropriate considering that no other country articles appear to have such a section. --FormerIP (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include. No reason why this country's article should be any different than all the rest of Wikipedia's articles. Why Me Why U (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Why Me Why U (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Include - the notability and importance is unquestionable. This is simliar to how nations commonly accused of human rights problems have Human Rights sections while most nations do not have such sections. That Israel is the only nation with a specific criticism page also shows its notability and importance. Passionless -Talk 03:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  WRONG. See Criticism of the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by Why Me Why U (talk • contribs) 03:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Why Me Why U (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

okay....your example of anti-americanism doesn't do anything for you, anyways you never responded to my question, do you have anything to declare? Passionless -Talk 04:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include there's an article dedicated to this, putting a whole section in this article would be UNDUE. Also per FormerIP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. To summarise:

• 3x Include votes based on WP:N
• 2x votes based on the "no-other-country" argument, which has no basis in wikipedia policy
• 1x vote from NMMNG who's argument doesn't make sense - there is a "main article" for every single section in the Israel article

As such, unless any opposing editors can produce policy-based arguments, a section will be added to the article in due course. I'll wait a bit longer though before adding as keen to ensure all opportunities are given for any possible policy-based counter-arguments. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Include - Denying that Israel's policy in the last decades has drawn significant reaction is to say nothing. But this sensitive topic at this moment should strongly comply with the NPOV rules. ChaChing! (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include as separate section - that does not match the style for country pages, including those with their own separate 'Criticism' articles. As one of the "include" comments above suggests, there is a place for mentioning criticism in existing sections, which seems to be house style. The current "politics and legal system" section and the modern "conflict" subsection of history would work. Notsuohs (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Unless I am misreading this post, I think this is actually a vote to include, albeit spread over two sections. On the other hand, it also appears to be another invalid "no-other-country" argument. I don't understand why the latter argument keeps being repeated - it has absolutely no basis in wikipedia policy. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"International Criticism" (whatever that means) is mostly related to Israel's occupation of the west bank which is covered by a large section. Another cause is the large body of Arab states in conflict with Israel and their ability to dominate international bodies, such as the UN human rights committee whose chair was Libya until recently. That would come under foreign policy. I think the non-specific title is POV. If there is something you want to criticize you should say what it is and try to express it in terms which are acceptable to different perspectives. Its not easy. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi TelAviv, the article we are considering having a short summary here for is Criticism of the Israeli government. It covers topics much broader than those you are referring to and is not adequately covered at the moment. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Include - True and properly sourced information should always be made available and different aspects should be expressed. To supress certain information is by default a POV. As for neutrality, suporters of each stance can provide and incorporate material into the section and let the reader decide the value of each for his/her self, as long as they can support the information with reliable sources. Biraqleet (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the clearest and most compelling argument I think - particularly as no editor has claimed the information is not relevant. The main counterargument proposed has been that other country articles do not include this - which has no connection to any of wikipedia's rules. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you open a section on Criticism of America on the USA page and provide further examples of countries being criticized before inserting it in the Israel article, otherwise its hard to see it as anything other then POV soapboxing and/or discriminatory behavior. There is also a Criticism of Judaism article which is not mentioned in the Judaism page. Are you suggesting that should be mentioned in the article? Use of majority voting to impose your will on a minority is not democratic behavior, you need to seek a consensus. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi TelAviv, I fully agree with you re consensus - that is exactly why this discussion is still ongoing. It is clearly a delicate topic, since there may be some editors out there who would rather such information is 'hidden away', irrespective of how relevant and notable it is. There's no rush of course, so hopefully we will continue to get more perspectives from new editors. In the meantime, if the "oppose" side of the debate can come up with a single credible argument other than "other country articles don't have it", that would be great. Not only is the point not relevant (you are welcome to edit the other articles yourself), but don't forget that Israel is by far the most criticised country in the world in the UN - it may not be a perfect measure but it is the only one available. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding new subsection

Since noone has been able to suggest that a subsection on Criticism of the Israeli Government within the politics section of this article would be any less notable than the existing subsections such as the fascinating one on Museums, I will add a new subsection. Grateful for comments from all. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in adding this - just trying to write something which covers all the bases whilst being NPOV from all perspectives and also being short so not to be overweight. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem - Israel capital

did the Christian world really aware of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and it's jewish people ? . Why Jerusalem have not any embassy of any country ? . i want to know please. פארוק (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but aware about en:2011 Israeli housing protests . What zydowie blizni mean chanting "Mubarak, Assad, Bibi Netanyahu" [9].

Hi! why you polskie blizni dont have article about the protests? Isreal half a million strong protest.

this protest is from COMMUNIST STUDENT FROM TEL AVIV !!!! they don't represet the all people of israel. and the RT CHANNEL (RUSSIA TODAY) who was interview STAV SHAFIR are russian anti-semitic communist channel . thank you. פארוק (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

after GHDAFI & MUBARAK you will geo AL KAIDA with BIN LADEN. פארוק (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel by the UN. Apparently the original intent for the city on the exit of the British was to be an Internationally Administered City, and not part of any state. --70.145.76.243 (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The UN authority to designate capitals coming from what, exactly? I'd remind you that while Gaddafi was still alive, the Libya article listed Sirte as one of the capitals because of his declaration, despite world recognition still placing only one capital, in Tripoli. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a country picks it own capital, not a foreign power. Regardless of who recognises Israel's hold on the area, it is both Israel's declared capital and centre of government. The world could (and should really) recognise New York as our capital, but that still wouldn't change the fact that Washington D.C. is the nation's capital. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Tishrei 5772 16:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The UN doesn't have authority to designate capitals, but the UN all the countries of the world are under an obligation to not recognize illegal acts such as Israel's designation of Jerusalem as its capital city. Therefore, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital. Under Israel's own laws however, Jerusalem is the capital. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there consensus for this change in the overview? Arab MKs in the Knesset

I added to the overview, after "Israel is defined as a Jewish and democratic state in its Basic Laws and is the world's only Jewish-majority state" the words "with many Arab mks in its Knesset, elected by the significant, roughly 20 percent Arab minority."

I have many reasons for this change, that i will get into shortly. The most obvious is that the article gives an example of how it is a Jewish state (and is the world's only Jewish majority state) but fails to provide an example of how it is a democratic state -- something that my change fixes.

A user named Malik Shabazz undid my change, because "That isn't one of the most important facts about Israel that the reader needs in the first paragraph."

I then wrote on his talk page reasons why i thought it was important: "I think that it is something very important, as it shows that Israel is a very democratic state, accepting of people of all walks of life and views, even those of the same race who currently fight them, and even in the highest levels of its government. Not only that, but the overview is misleading, as it says that Israel is a "Jewish State" which implies that there are no arabs or people of any other race in its government, other than jewish. My addition would rectify this problem, and would also tell people a lot of important info about Israel today and its demographic make up, besides for saying a lot about its society and government. It clears up many misconceptions that people have about the country. So this is very essential, and crucial info that also fixes a misleading statement."

And here is the reason i originally gave in the 'reason for your edit' section -- "thought that the significant Arab minority should be noted in the overview. Proportionality there are more Arabs in israel then the black and asian minorities in the US combined."

Malik wrote back that I should put this on the Israel talk page to see if the edit has consensus, so here it is. You can weigh in on whether you agree with this edit or not, and your reasons one way or another. Thanks Darkkelf99 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Malik always strives his absolute best to make sure that any article he does a lot of work on is kept on the level, at least from what I have seen. Anyway, I'm biased, but I will say that I do think it would be good to include these facts. I've always said that the stuff MK Zaobi is allowed to freely say is another example of how democratic it is. There's also the matter of rights of Israeli Arabs compared to Arabs in the rest of the Middle East. Of course, it would need to be well-sourced from RSs and put in a way as NPOV as possible. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that "Israel defines itself as Jewish and democratic" (or was it the other way around?) belongs in the lead, as it's clearly one of the major points concerning Israel. I'm not sure whether the Arab MKs are a key point, though, or the Jewish majority. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Karakal battalion image

The above mentioned image was firstly removed by me about a week ago or so. The image was part of about 4-5 images in the military section, all appeared one above the other, intruding into the sections below the military section and creating untidy appearance. Therefore I removed all of the images aside for the upper one (the F-16s image). We can all agree that having more than 2 images at the same side of the section is excessive and better avoid. One of the images was of Karkal battalion, which is one of two unisex battalions in the Israeli army. The caption below the image told that this battalion serves in "full combat" capacity, which is factually wrong. The battalion serves only in the southern front of Israel and wasn't involved in major conflicts that Israel had in her northern borders (unlike battalions which serve in full combat capacity). More important, the battalion is dealing with routine security only. Though reference was added to the caption, it didn't support it. Moreover, as the reference was given in citation template and I was advised by the technical support board that there are already too many of them in this article, significantly effecting the speed in which one can download it or make edits in it, I find it just to remove this image as well. I wrote part of the reasons in the edit summaries. Then I added one image below the one of the F-16s, presenting Israeli paratroopers in training. The Image was removed by Avya1, without any reason given. I was thinking that the image didn't look well to her or that it thought that one image is enough, so I didn't revert her. About day or two after she remove the image she added again the image of Karkal battalion in training, I removed it-this time without writing anything in the edit summary -so she revert my edit and wrote that she revert because I didn't justify my action. So just for the good will and understanding, I sum it all for you and for her. One image is enough for the military section, the image of Karakal is relatively new here and replaced other image that was in this section before. So to avoid edit wars I suggest only one image in this section, the present one. Also, there is no place to add image in the left side of the section because it's too long and it wouldn't look good-and there is no reason to cut the section short for having another image.--Gilisa (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Information

Although the Arab armies attacked formally only in May, 1948, the local Arabs (known today as the Phalestines) began the war at 29 November 1947, the day the UN declared the Israely country, and started the Indipendence War. Please update the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.121.108 (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Falestinian? i know there is no P in Arabic (I think) and I'm not sure if that is the correct phrasing. What are you suggesting exactly? Article simply summarizes the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, lifting content and sources from that same article. What's the issue? Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the spelling doesn't really matter since it's a forgein word (however there is no F in Arab as well). What I said is that the war began at 29 November- with 6 Jews killed at the first day of the battle. Parts of the country (especially near Jerusalem) were conquered by the Arabs even before May 1948! I suggest to write that the war began in November, not May. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.121.108 (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Number One: in english فلسطيني is palestinian. Number two there is a phoentical equivalent to the F in the arabic language. Number 3: Its not the palestinians that started the war (they are the ones who got colonized as shown by the large increase in jewish population at the time),there has been low intensity violence in palestine way before 1948. And so the "proper war" started when the arabs invaded, i am interested in your statement though, so if you could provide a source, i would appreciat it. Philoleb (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed un-sourced material

I removed "Over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from Israel during the conflict," as it isn't sourced and isn't true. --72.47.85.22 (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We can source that, that's not a problem. I was left wondering, however, if these people should be referred to as "Palestinians", since they're actually Arab Israelis. I think many sources use the term "Palestinian refugee", however. --Dailycare (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Arab Israel refers to an Arab with Israeli citizenship. There's a reason the sources probably wouldn't call them Arab Israelis. A source does need to be provided for this sort of claim, especially one with high numbers. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The word to use is Palestinian, as in Palestinian refugee, and the sources for this are easily found in 1948 Palestinian exodus. Honestly, this does not even need a source, nobody with even a passing interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would question that line. But I have added a source nonetheless. The official estimate from the UNRWA was 726,000. The Israelis put the number at around 500,000+, though Israeli officials have admitted (at least privately) that the UNRWA estimate is more accurate and that the real number is closer to 800,000. The reasons for their placing their estimate so low can be found in the citation I just added. The British Foreign Office estimated between 600,000 and 760,000. I have made the text attribute the number as given to the UN. If we need to get into the various estimates we can do that, but I think that what is currently in the article will suffice for this article. nableezy - 20:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia needs a source. By pushing for something to not have a source, you are pushing for lack of factualism/verifiability and the rot of Wikipedia as a useful resource. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My problem is the leading with the word "expelled" rather than 'fled" since while there were, indeed, people who were scared out of Israel by certain groups, their number was so small in comparison with those who simply "got out of the way" at the behest of the Arab Higher Committee that the word order is misleading. (The other problem comes when you note that, until the 60's, the word "Palestinian" always meant "Jews who lived in the Mandate of Palestine". I would suggest "Arab refugees" instead) FlaviaR (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple noes. The word "Palestinian" did not ever only mean Jews who lived in the Mandate of Palestine, and the claim that most of the refugges fled due to orders from Arab leaders (the AHC or other groups) has been largely debunked since the opening of the archives. nableezy - 20:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the expelled vs. fled wording, the Arabs who "fled" on their own initiative in anticipation of being "expelled" at bayonet-point became "expelled" when their return was prevented. --Dailycare (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should open a dictionary and see what "expel" means. You're using it incorrectly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

With the disclaimer that I haven't looked into this terribly deeply, perhaps "fled or were expelled" would be a good compromise. I'm sure there were a mixture of folks who were forced out at bayonet point, and some who chose to leave in anticipation..... NickCT (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 November 2011

Searching for the word "Swine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine redirects the page to Israel. This appears to be vandalism, please revert the redirect to point towards "Pig".

BringFire (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for bringing the vandalism to our attention. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Legality

Should there be a section about the legality of Israel?Philoleb (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh? The legality of Israel? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the legality of Israel or at least the didsplacement of thousands of Palestinians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philoleb (talk • contribs) 06:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying israel is illegal but significant amount of parties/groups says so, arab news chanels refer to israel as occupied to territoriesPhiloleb (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You noticed, of course, that the article already says 950,000 (broken by time frame, 200,000 and 750,000, a couple of sentences apart) fled or were expelled from the area in 1947–48? Fat&Happy (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL :) No i clearly did not notice. But the point is still there. maybe a section about objection to legality/legitimity would be appropriate, because it exists, as shown by how arab news outlets refer to Israel.Philoleb (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from A.P.Lovely1, 16 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

I have found some information relating to the previously discussed topic of Israel and Jerusalem.

Whilst certain Israeli's are adamant that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, many large world organisations like the BBC and VISA card company reject Jerusalem as the capital, and regard it as Tel Aviv, as shown here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122764. Also, the Friends of Al Aqsa (http://www.foa.org.uk/), International Institute of Islamic Thought (http://www.iiit.org/), Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (http://www.mpacuk.org/)and the Arab Media Watch (http://arabmediawatch.blogspot.com/) have all disputed the mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Furthermore, the embassies of El Salvador and Costa Rica have been moved to Tel Aviv, and this is a significant point, as embassies are traditionally held in the capital city. Therefore, I request that the capital city of Israel be changed from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv.

Under what standing do NGOs (like the Institute of Islamic Thought) or businesses (like VISA) have, legally, for deciding or declaring the status or location of capitals under international law? The embassies issue has been discussed elsewhere. Where a country chooses to locate their embassy has no legal standing as to the domestic affairs of that country. If the United Kingdom moved their embassy from Washington D.C. to Philadelphia, the action would have no legal standing on the domestic law of the location of the US capital; the United Kingdom is not the US Congress anymore than El Salvador is the Israeli Knesset. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a known issue with this article. Israel insists Jerusalem is its capital to the extent of sometimes appearing unintentionally funny, however the international community doesn't consider Jerusalem to be Israel's capital, or even to be in Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OuroborosCobra's comment doesn't make sense. If the UK decided to move its capital from London to Warsaw then people wouldn't accept it and Wikipedia wouldn't mention that Warsaw was the capital in its wikipedia article. Israel claiming Jerusalem as its capital is just the same. It's not in Israel and the point is that most governments around the world, most multinational companies and most NGOs agree. Tel Aviv is the capital.--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 01:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem was made capital and seat of government by the only state that includes it. That is not a subjective matter, but a cold, hard fact. People don't need to accept it any more than they need to accept the Earth orbiting the sun. Ya'ir Hunter (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kilmax (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The start of the section under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_the_British_mandate seems to be a bit odd. I don't think it's vandalism, but the link there was supposed to be there isn't.

Also, why can't I edit it directly? I thought that, as a registered user, I was allowed to edit the article responsibly. Having to start a topic in Discussion just to correct these minor errors is a bit of a pain. Kilmax (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a stray part of an alt-tag for one of the images on the page. I've removed it.

You can't edit this particular article because of WP:ACFU‎. --FormerIP (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

POV (and factually inaccurate)

The intro claims that "Israel is....a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage" This is clearly not accurate. They do not let the Palestinians vote, yet do not recognize them as independent. If calling them an apartheid state would be POV, then surely calling them a democracy is as well. Claiming they have universal sufferage is really going way too far considering the lack of voting rights for so many of the people living under the jurisdiction of Israel. This need to be at least changed to "Israel claims itself to be...."; if not taken out entirely. 97.91.179.137 (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Arab Israelis do vote. Palestine is not recognized as part of Israel by the international community (which speaks specifically to the topic of jurisdiction), nor does the international community consider them to be Israeli citizens. Non-citizens generally do not get the power to vote. For example, I cannot vote in Canadian elections. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

-Israel does not recognize Palestine as independent. The claim of universal sufferage needs to change. You can't vote in Canada but are not subject to their law either. Palestinians can't vote but are subject to Israeli law. Your anology is not a good one. One of two things needs to happen for Israel to have universal sufferage. 1. They let everybody, including the Palestinians vote. Or 2. They recognize Palestine as independent from Israel. 97.91.179.137 (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your statement of Israeli recognition is flawed and incomplete. Israel does not recognize the Palestinian territories as part of Israel. They have not annexed them as they did the Golan Heights, for example. Therefore, Israeli "recognition" of citizenship for the Palestinians is the same as that of the international community, i.e. they are not citizens of Israel. Like it or not, it isn't an "either/or" situation in the way you want it to be. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tell that to Israel. Because they seem to believe quite strongly that all of Jerusalem is part of Israel. The article needs to be changed.97.91.179.137 (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest it is changed to "Israel, as defined by the green line, is....a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage". That would be true. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's true within the annexed areas of Jerusalem as well. Palestinians/Arabs/all residents can apply for and are granted citizenship, and as citizens they can vote. I doubt any country in the world is held to a standard of universal suffrage only being true when extended to non-citizens. If, for example, I went to Canada and demanded to vote while not applying for citizenship we would not change the Canada article to say they did not have universal suffrage. If the Palestinians in Jerusalem were categorically refused citizenship, you would have a case, but that is not wht is going on in the city. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not quite as simple as that as cases like Mubarak Awad show, but I think that's beside the point. I think the important point relevant to issue that was raised by the IP is be careful about how the term "Israel" is used in statements. For example, areas that are often referred to as having been annexed by Israel aren't relevant to a sentence in Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice which takes the form "Israel is X" where X=a representative democracy or whatever. That's a statement about Israel and only Israel. From the perspective of Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice Israel doesn't include anything outside of the green line i.e. Wikipedia can't use the term "Israel" to refer to Israel(as defined by the green line)+East Jerusalem+Golan Heights. So, to say things like "Israel is X" as a unattributed statement of fact using Wikipedia's voice we always need to be careful to either a) be vague and not define what "Israel" means in the sentence or b) ensure that places that can't be referred to as being in Israel using Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice aren't carelessly treated as if they are a part of Israel in statements that talk about attributes of Israel. Given the mandatory nature of the NPOV policy, I'm stating the obvious. But it's surprising how often places across the green line are referred to as being part of Israel using Wikipedia's voice. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If only things within the green line can be referred to as Israel within Wikipedia's voice, then Israel has universal suffrage, full stop. I don't think that's in question. The IP is claiming that Palestinians do not have the right to vote within areas that Israel considers to be Israel, but are outside of what the international community considers to be Israel, namely Jerusalem. If Wikipedia's voice does not allow these areas to be considered part of Israel, then the question of the citizenship and voting rights of those within becomes a moot one for Wikipedia in terms of the question of universal suffrage. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The obvious change is "Israel claims to be..." The article needs to be changed 97.91.179.137 (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not a refutation of any arguments presented. We're aware of your position already. Do you have evidence of a policy of categorical denial of citizenship, and the right to vote coming with it, within the territory considered part of Israel by either the international community or those additional areas annexed by Israel? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Sean, the Awad article states that he was offered Israeli citizenship, and personally chose to refuse it. I realize that there are other important parts to his story but, in terms of the question of universal suffrage, that is the part that matters. He was offered the chance to become a citizen and thus have the right to vote, and he declined. The events that occurred after that may be of note from the perspective of other rights, but suffrage is not one of them. At the time of his expulsion from Israel he was a US citizen and not seeking to become an Israeli citizen. He was not at any time denied citizenship or a right to vote based on being Palestinian; in fact he was not denied the right at all. He chose not to accept that right when offered it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"If only things within the green line can be referred to as Israel within Wikipedia's voice, then Israel has universal suffrage, full stop."...exactly my point. This we agree on. Israel, as defined by the green line, has universal suffrage. The oPt, which includes East Jerusalem, is not part of Israel as defined by the green line and the oPt has nothing to do with statements about whether or not Israel, the subject of this article, has universal suffrage etc. Things are simple when we constrain statements about Israel to being statements only about Israel as defined by the green line, they get complicated and people complain when we ignore the green line. Awad was and is a Palestinian. He was denied the right to citizenship in a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. That is what he was denied. But, as I said, that is beside the point. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Things are not really complicated when we remember universal suffrage applies to citizens, so it doesn't really matter how you define Israel in this context. All adult Israeli citizens are allowed to vote = Israel has universal suffrage. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that works too. And just to be clear, per my 'a) be vague and not define what "Israel" means in the sentence' above, Israel has universal suffrage is perfectly fine by me. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm being more than generous in my recomendation. I could have easily demanded that it be changed to "Israel claimes to be....but...." Like I said if they recognized Palestine then your argument about them not being citizens would make more sense. But they dont recognize that country as an independent being. Shown most promanently in Jerusalem were Israel has officially declared annexation but it is also true with regard to Gaza and te West Bank as well. Bottom line is that Israels status as a democracy is at best controversal. And the wiki article needes to say that. Just flatly declaring them a democracy is incorrect. The article needs to be changed 97.91.179.137 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You said that already. If you don't have anything new to add, it's time to move on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'll keep showing up and demand changes to the article whether you feel its appropriate or not, thanks though. Especially since my argument remains unchallenged. Your side tried to claim that Palestinians don't live under the jurisdiction of Israel. This was proven wrong with the mention of East Jerusalem. The article needs to be changed97.91.179.137 (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But you need to be specific about how the article should be changed, preferably citing reliable sources to support your suggestions. Areas occupied by Israel aren't in Israel. The "annexations" aren't recognized apart from by Israel and may not even be annexations. Israeli citizens can vote in Israeli elections. Either way, a statement like "Israel is....a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage" isn't wrong is it ? It's not the whole story but it's not wrong. Nothing will happen unless you are specific and cite sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I was already specific about how it should change. The claim about universal sufferage should be taken out completely. And the sentance declaring them to be a democracy needs to be changed to include the words, "Israel claims to be..." 97.91.179.137 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself, and you cannot "demand" changes here. The situation has been explained to you more than once. A country where all its citizens who reside on its territory have the right to vote and non-citizens within its borders do not, that's universal suffrage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition, contrary to your claims, your arguments have been challenged. While you claim East Jerusalem as a prime example, it was specifically refuted as an example. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

Кажеться Вы забыли указать самую грозную часть населения Израиля - четыре тысячи черкесов.Абрек-Аскер — Preceding unsigned comment added by Абрек-Аскер (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

errors section Conflicts and Peace Treaties

Pmurnion (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC) The article section 'Conflicts and Peace Treaties' is quite misleading. Specifically the Intifada is casually mentioned in part of a paragraph which begins with a justification of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The Intifada was clearly critically different from all earlier conflicts involving Israel. It was the first in which Israel was not 'defending' itself from a state attacker. The Intifada brought international focus on the status of the occupation as opposed to the territorial security of Israel. That was an enormous change which is true irrespective of ones opinions on the rights or wrongs of the intifada or the Israeli occupation. The failure to reflect this in the article is a fatal flaw. This flaw should always have been obvious, but now, in the aftermath of the second Iraq war and (current events in) Afghanistan, it should be clear that conflicts that involve non-states are often much more important in the modern world than inter-state conflicts. Failure to deal with this renders the article misleading and is also a general problem for wikipedia aricles on the middle east and conflict in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmurnion (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Font Issue

Could the Hebrew language font issue please be corrected. {{Hebrew|... should be changed to {{lang|he|... to get rid of an unreadable and overlarge font. I would do it myself, but of course I am not allowed to edit this page! Thank you. (Nathanielba (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

Why? The font used by the Hebrew template is better as it shows nikud properly and without having to strain your eyes. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox edit request

Should these parameters be filled: GDP_PPP_rank, GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank, GDP_nominal_rank and GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank? If so, these are the values: 50th, 28th, 41st, 27th. --92.37.196.167 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Please feel free to register an account. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add suffixes to numbers: 50th, 28th, 41st, 27th. --92.37.204.129 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, fill these parameters:

|Gini_rank = 69th (source)

|date_format = dd/mm/yyyy (AD) (according to Date format by country)

--92.37.197.189 (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 December 2011

"Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinian Arabs" change to "Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day to annihilate the newly formed Jewish state". If "support of the Palestinian Arabs" is added, it should be prior to it an statement on the fact that Palestinian Arabs rejected the UN decision of two countries while the Jewish population accepted it. Then, it will be understood to which support we are referring.

98.246.34.216 (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: the wording is not from a neutral point of view. — Bility (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Israeli Druze

"In the Golan Heights, Druze are entitled to citizenship but most have rejected it in favor of "loyalty to Syria."[22] -- if you go to the Wikipedia page on Israeli Druze, you find that 93% of young Druze in Israel consider themselves Israelis. If so, this would not seem to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.216.152 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No inconsitency. the Golan Heights are in Syria.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Did you, at some point while researching this topic, happen to notice the separate section of the Israeli Druze article specifically devoted to Druze of the Golan Heights or the Washington Post article cited therein which says "Unlike most of the Druze in Israel, those here identify themselves as Arabs and do not serve in the Israeli military. The vast majority consider themselves citizens of Syria, although a small percentage support Israel's presence here."? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

the druze in israel have an israeli citizenship. most of then are serving the israeli army and see themselves as israelis. the druze in the golan hights dont see themselves as israelis because of the relation to syria and a fair that one day israel withdrawal fron the golan, and they will be accused in loyality to israel. Nirvadel (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Israel is NOT a democracy

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

---

Israel is not a "parlamentary democracy", Iran neither. It's a "etnocracy" or a "jewcracy", not a democracy. Israel is not a Republic (State of all its citizens), but is a Jewish State (State of the Jews that live in Israel or out of it). Anti-zionists cannnot run in the elections according the Basic Law of the Knesset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.46.102 (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Was there something you specifically wanted changed in the article ? If so, please point out the exact sentences/statements and provide reliable sources to support the proposed changes as is required by the WP:V policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Administrative Divisions

There is inconsistency here regarding the population of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The number given for Judea and Samaria is for Jewish settlers and not Palestinians while the number given for the Gaza Strip is for Palestinians (since Jewish settlers were pulled out). This inconsistency makes it look like the Gaza Strip has a larger population than Judea and Samaria, which is not the case. Death by fugue (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggest alteration to Map and Table featured in this section which identify the Administrative Divisions/Districts of the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria, and Gaza using the letters A, B and C, respectively. This may give rise to confusion due to the fact that the formal Administrative Divisions of the West Bank are known as Areas A, B and C. Imahd (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Geography and Climate

Yes, Hello!

There is no climate chart for Israel (as for eg. Malta).

Don't make me watch Israeli weather reports for a year!

Shalom.

Gottservant (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The following sentence is missing the word "days": The area of Beersheba and the Northern Negev has a semi-arid climate with hot summers, and cool winter but with fewer rainy "days" than the Mediterranean climate. Imahd (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the comma after "summers" (above) may be superfluous. Imahd (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggest: The area of Beersheba and the Northern Negev has a semi-arid climate with hot summers and cool winters but with fewer rainy days than the average Mediterranean climate. Imahd (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Issue of Israel being a client state or satellite state - the issue was pressured to be brought up on Talk:East Germany

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The user AndyTheGrump on the Talk:East Germany discussion page has claimed that I am being unfair by only addressing the issue of satellite state status of East Germany while not bringing up a statement I made in which I claimed that I believe that the circumstances involving Israel-United States relations warrant Israel to be considered a client state of the United States. I am not making a judgement about Israel's culture or society beyond analyzing the relations between Israel and the United States. I know that there will be MANY patriotic Israelis here who may take serious offense to this, I did not want to raise the issue as I predicted such a response, but to respond to AndyTheGrump's demand for fairness, I have no choice but to address it. I know more about East Germany than I do about Israel - I may be wrong - but here are some scholarly reliable sources: [10], [11], [12], [13]. But please, I remind you that I have been pressured to do this out of a demand by the user AndyTheGrump for fairness - I am fully aware that there is little chance that most users who will contribute to this discussion will agree - out of patriotic opposition to claims suggesting that Israel's independence is less than it is officially stated - so please DON'T GET MAD AT ME - IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP OR HAVEN'T READ THE BEGINNING OF THIS LONG EXPLANATION OF WHY I AM DOING THIS DISCUSSION, READ IT AGAIN (I say it in bold because it is necessary for everyone to understand and to not overreact to this).--R-41 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC) To clarify (If I understand R-41's position correctly) he/she is arguing that: (a) The phrase 'satellite state' is an unambiguous academic 'technical term'. (b) That this technical term was applicable to the DDR, and in consequence, should be added to the article infobox as a statement of fact. (c). That this 'technical term' is also applicable to the State of Israel. From this, it would only seem logical that R-41 should be making the same request here as in the DDR article. After all, if the term 'satellite state' is clearly defined and neutral academic phraseology, it would seem remiss of our article not to say so. If. Note that R-41 has singularly failed to produce a definition of this 'technical term' that actually defines it as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Sigh, Andy - on Talk:East Germany we have UN document sources using the term satellite state. Don't try to mask what you said Andy, you told me that it would be "dishonest" for me to not address the issue here - that I did, this is a direct quote of exactly what you said: "My opinions on that question are irrelevant - though I'm sure we can agree over what the USSR's opinion would have been. (Just out of curiosity, when are you going to start a RfC on Talk:Israel regarding inserting the term 'satellite state' into the infobox? After all, if it is one, as you assert, and the phrase is an unambiguous academic 'technical term', it will be entirely dishonest of you not to correct this glaring omission. Wikipedia shouldn't let 'patriotism' get in the way of 'facts', surely?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)" - direct quote of AndyTheGrump's request--R-41 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC) R-41, the arguments for or against an addition to East Germany shouldn't be contingent to changes being made here and arguments you make shouldn't be contingent on an article you are not involved in editing. That said, the situations between Israel and East Germany are quite different. East Germany was not just purchasing Soviet military hardware. They had a large Soviet military force on their soil and their foreign (and often domestic) policies were dictated from Moscow. East Germany had little breathing room on the subject. Israel often can and does differ or choose its own path when it comes to foreign and domestic policy, sometimes in directions the US does not agree with. Israel is not home to a massive American troop deployment in the way East Germany was to the Soviets, or West Germany was and South Korea is today to American troops. While Israel does today purchase a lot of American military hardware, prior to the latter 1960s, they purchased from the French. That last point is a bit of a weak argument, but the main definition you seem to really have here for Israel being a client state is that they buy or are supplied American stuff. They certainly don't meet the criteria for a satellite state to anywhere near the level of East Germany or of, say, Cuba under Batista. Actually, I just took a look at the discussions going on at the East Germany talk page and frankly, I find your mischaracterization of AndyTheGrump and that entire conversation about satellite states and Israel to border on insulting. AndyTheGrump hasn't claimed you are being unfair or insisted on anything. Throughout that discussion, you have been baiting people into calling you unfair or biased for not bringing it up here, something that most everyone else ignored again and again as irrelevant until AndyTheGrump essentially called your bluff. This discussion needs to be kept about East Germany and on that talk page. Settle it there, including coming up with technical definitions for client and satellite state as you have been repeatedly asked by AndyTheGrump to provide before coming here and trying to pick another fight. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Without reliable sources that say Israel is a satellite or client state there is nothing to talk about. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Of course AndyTheGrump has accused be of being unfair - that's why he demanded that out of a commitment to honesty, I was obligated to address the issue here, if I didn't he said that I would be being "dishonest" - read the quote from him below if you do not believe me. Ask multiple users who have been in discussions with Andy on the East Germany article yourself, he has a quick temper - heck even an administator told me that AndyTheGroup has a tendency to have a quick temper and to aggravate other users. Anyway, AndyTheGrump is completely misrepresenting what he requested at Talk:East Germany, remember I am responding to his request for fairness. This is a direct quote of what AndyTheGrump implying that I have the obligation of honesty to address the issue of Israel as a satellite state or client state at Talk:Israel: "My opinions on that question are irrelevant - though I'm sure we can agree over what the USSR's opinion would have been. (Just out of curiosity, when are you going to start a RfC on Talk:Israel regarding inserting the term 'satellite state' into the infobox? After all, if it is one, as you assert, and the phrase is an unambiguous academic 'technical term', it will be entirely dishonest of you not to correct this glaring omission. Wikipedia shouldn't let 'patriotism' get in the way of 'facts', surely?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)" - This is a direct quote of AndyTheGrump's request to me.--R-41 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I warned Andy that it would start a hellstorm here and that I didn't want to get involved in a big dispute between patriotic Israelis who would reject this - but he insisted as you can see above - it would be "dishonest" according to him if I didn't. So that is why this issue has been addressed.--R-41 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC) is that your modus operandi? someone accuses you of being dishonest and you follow their commands? Maybe you shouldn't... So since you yourself aren't even willing to argue for the client-state-theory, can this thread be closed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC) So, R-41, you have made clear on several occasions on Talk:East Germany that you consider Israel to be a 'satellite state' of the US. You have also stated that 'satellite state' is a defined scholarly term. How exactly is asking whether you are going to apply your own logic to Israel (after repeatedly asserting that it is a satellite state) a 'misrepresentation' of anything? Anyway, back on topic. You have asserted (both here and on Talk:East Germany), that Israel is a 'satellite state' of the US. Are you going to provide sources for that, or not? The only sources you have cited so far seem to use the term 'client state' (not that we have a definition for that either). Can I ask that you either (a) withdraw the claim here, or (b) provide sources for (i) the statement that Israel is a satellite state, and (ii) a definition of what 'satellite state' means, to justify adding the term to the infobox. If you can't (or won't) do this, I think it is reasonable to assume that your attempts to bring Israel into the East Germany discussion was nothing more than empty rhetoric. As for 'hellstorms' and 'patriotic Israeli's', I've seen no evidence of either, and I think the implication that 'patriotism' would be the sole reason for disputing your characterisation is dubious, if not downright objectionable. I'd object to putting such a characterisation in the infobox for this article, and whatever else I am, I am not an 'Israeli patriot'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Andy, you misrepresented me because the way you worded your response - you made it seem like I was gun-ho on addressing the issue here, which I was not because I knew it would be EXTREMELY controversial to Israelis. The hellstorm may only have been averted thusfar because I clearly stated in the intro of this section of my reluctance to bring up the topic. As for the user above Andy, I obliged Andy's request because he was correct that it would be "dishonest" of me not to address the issue here, if I addressed the issue at East Germany. I could present scholarly sources that deem Israel as a satellite state - there are a number - I might be wrong, there are sources that reject the claim. Andy pressed me with an obligation to address this here because it would be "dishonest" not to do so if I was willing to at East Germany - and you are technically right Andy - but just wait a week on this and we could have Palestinian users or Arab users on this page agreeing and then Israeli users disagreeing - then it would be a hellstorm. It is a viable topic to discuss, I've thrown in my two cents - I provided several sources in favour of the term - it is up to others whether it should continue - because I don't want to be lambasted as an "anti-Semite" or a "neo-Nazi" for having been pressured to bring this up. But I would have been called a "hypocrite" at the Talk:East Germany article by Andy if I didn't address this real - but very controversial debate on Israel's relations with the United States.--R-41 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Worst. Discussion. Ever. Take this WP:DRAMA elsewhere. Poliocretes (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

law of return

in the section on language, it states that non-Jewish Russian immigrants are not accepted as Jews by the Orthodox rabbinate, but the Law of Return does accept them. This sentence is misleading. The Law of Return is in fact agnostic of religious or halachic considerations, and functions on the principles of the Nuremberg race laws. The text should be changed so as not to imply discrimination where none exists. 95.86.77.244 (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC) bennyp

I don't think the section implied a legal discrimination and was clear that the Law of Return recognized these people as Jews, but I have removed the part about the Law of Return regardless. The question of acceptance by the Orthodox of Russian Jews has nothing to do with the topic of language. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Water technology

I would like to insert a short paragraph in Science and technology about Israel's notable water technology industry. AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This template is for requesting specific changes to the article--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you need to make a concrete and specific suggestion of what you want to add to the article, including reliable sources to back it up and preferably the exact language of your suggested addition. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

BE

I don't think British English makes much sense for this. The British left decades ago and Israel is a close US ally. Opinions? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinions? Here's one. This topic is contentious enough already, and this has got to be the most ridiculous thing to start another argument over. Still, whatever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

all links here with vandalism. פארוק (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to expand that to a meaningful English sentence? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

my english is not so good. but i see that now it is fixed. פארוק (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph 2

The article's second paragraph reads like so, in reference to the Israeli War of Independence: "Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinian Arabs. Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states"; sentence one holds an incredibly biased view of Arab motives, which at the time and ever since have always been publicly declared to be "the elimination of the Zionist entity," and not "support for Palestinian Arabs." Proof of this lies partially in the many recorded & written sources declaring such motives, and also partially in the fact that the War ended with Jordan annexing the West Bank instead of establishing there a Palestinian state, which could easily have been done by allowing the thousands of Palestinian refugees who'd left instead of staying to return to the West Bank and set up a state.

Secondly, Israel has a history of being invaded by its neighboring Arab states, in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. Only in 1982 did Israel engage in an offensive action, and although it went horribly wrong due to the actions of Christian Phalangist massacres of Palestinians, which Israel was not wise enough to guard against but by its own admission takes as its own indirect fault, the action was a necessary attempt to eliminate the violence caused by PLO terrorists that had been attacking civilian targets throughout Northern Israel from bases in Lebanon. All this needs to be pointed out; defensive wars are quite different from wars of aggression, and the expression of anti-Semitism formerly directed at Jews by European Christians in the form of violence must not be allowed to define Israel now that there are few Jews left in post-WW2 Europe, as it continues in the European press's attempts to label any and all Israeli defensive maneuvers as war crimes, but to cheerfully legitimize Palestinian murders of Israeli citizens. Palestinians have had numerous chances to seriously negotiate with Israel and establish a state for themselves, but have constantly refused to do so, believing the ENTIRETY of the Palestinian mandate to be Arab lands, a "waqf" given to them to rule "until Judgment Day." This appears in Palestinian charters, but always is ignored by the European powers who would be just as happy with no Israel.

Please, let's eliminate this biased reading. Remember, the Arab states who surround her (with the exception of Jordan and pre-Arab Spring Egypt) have still refused vehemently to recognized her very right to exist, frequently call for her destruction, and still say "the Jews are our dogs" when speaking in Arabic to their peoples. This although Israel has been there for over 60 years. (I say "pre-Arab Spring Egypt" because the Muslim Brotherhood in that country holds a majority in its parliament, and has sworn to annihilate Israel despite the Sadat/Begin peace treaty. Were the military of Egypt to submit to civilian control, its parliament would obviously, according to a majority of its members, therefore void said peace treaty, and leave Jordan as the sole Arab state recognizing her right to exist. BarakZ (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is not the appropriate forum to promulgate your particular point of view and expound upon historical events. Please specify the text that you object to and what you would rather it was replaced with, and supply a reliable source to support this viewpoint.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)