Talk:Israel

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: [1] --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[2], a government-sponsored branding study here[3] or even more impactfully the "Background and Purpose" from a paper at this year's Herzliya Conference here[4].
• The people of Israel see it as a huge issue - see the poll data provided above, or another one here [5].
• 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),[6] 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)

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)

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" [7].

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)