Talk:Israel

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)

Y 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)

Y 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)