Talk:Israel

Biased Lead

Why does the lead not talk about human rights? Or international law? It takes devotes a whole paragraph, the final one, talking about how wonderful Israel's democracy is? What about its negatives? For example, it mentions that "Neighboring Arab armies invaded Palestine on the next day and fought the Israeli forces. Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (between 1967 and 1982), part of South Lebanon (between 1982 and 2000), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. It annexed portions of these territories, including East Jerusalem, but the border with the West Bank is disputed". This leads the lay reader to believe that Israel, out of desperation from being attacked by the evil Arabs, annexed these territories. Why is international law and the fourth Geneva convention not mentioned?

Furthermore, this completely ignores the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's indigenous population. The vast majority of scholars and academics, including the Wikipedia article on ethnic cleansing itself, recognizes the 1948 Palestinian exodus to be a form of ethnic cleansing, so this is within the bounds of WP:NPOV. It leads the reader to believe that after the Jewish state was declared, Arab states just, at whim, declared war on it. (David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization... declared "the establishment of a Jewish state...Neighboring Arab armies invaded Palestine on the next day) No historical context is given. Is ethnic cleansing, a recognized crime against humanity, not important enough to be included in the lead? Is the plight of the Palestinians at the hands of the state of Israel insignificant relative to how awesome it is that Israel has universal suffrage? JDiala (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there is at least one problem here, namely the border between Israel and the West Bank isn't "disputed" as far as I know. I'll look into this in the coming days provided I have the time. Otherwise, the content of the lead should reflect the contents of the article, and the ethnic cleansing of 1948 isn't a major point in the article so it may not be something that we mention in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. You haven't addressed my point. I suggest you re-read what I said, and if you think that the 1948 exodus isn't a major point in the article, which I find to be utterly loathsome considering it was such a serious historical event, then I think it ought to have a place. It's like having an article on Germany without mentioning the Holocaust as a 'major point'. JDiala (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

While JDiala raises a point that should be included, that is that the State of Israel is located on land the ownership of which is disputed, the tone of his initial post is anything but evenhanded and his comparison (above) of Israel to Germany and the Holocaust is, for obvious reasons, so contemptible that it destroys any credibility JDiala might have had.Gillartsny (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that JDiala brings up this point in an very opinionated fashion. Some see comparing German actions in the Holocaust to Israeli actions concerning the Palestinians as blood libel. However, we do have to consider that the Arab world (and some on the left) view Israel as a pariah state founded by British and American imperialism. Given the importance this point of view has in past and current events, perhaps a short section dealing with the criticism should be considered, as well as the Israeli response. I haven't entirely read the main article, Criticism of the Israeli government, that deals with this. PizzaMeLove (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

JDiala's comparison of the 1948 exodus with the Holocaust is insulting and absurd (both in nature and extent). It calls Holocaust denial or banalization.

A more appropriate comparison for the "Nakba" would be some hypothetical day commemorating the German defeat in World War II, resulting in the expulsion or flight of many Germans from the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. After all, when you attack people and start genocidal wars, you live with the consequences.

To say that Israel is a "pariah" state is false and POV (it's a recognized state by the international community, many important organizations and 85% of all countries in the world). The complex events surrounding the 1948 war are widely explained in the proper articles and the 'history' section of this one (The United Nations estimated that more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled during the conflict from what would become Israel). There's also an entire article to satisfy those who want to use an encyclopedia to vilify the Jewish state. I think it's more than enough. Let's keep the lead clean from propagandists and haters. Thanks.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wlglunight93, slow down there. What I was suggesting was a section that explains some of the current controversy surrounding Israel within the Israel article itself given its notability. I am NOT pushing that Israel is a "pariah" state! Nor do I hold such a position! You'll find that I've mentioned the POV of the Criticism of Israeli government article on its talk page talk:Criticism of the Israeli government. PizzaMeLove (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies to you. I misunderstood what you said. You are not a POV user. It's a great idea to balance the article 'criticism of Israel' by expanding the "response" section. But I don't think such a political controversy (full of arguments and counter-arguments) belongs to an article based on facts like this one (which is about Israel as a country, not Israel as the "evil Zionist entity that takes the blood of Palestinian children to make matzot"). If this were the case, we should add something about criticism in many other articles, including the United States, Europe, China, Venezuela, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Arab and Muslim states, as well as many South American countries that expelled authentic indigenous populations without a previous provocation. It's already explained in the proper section that 700,000 Arabs fled or were expelled during the 1948 war. It's correct that there is a suspicious and disproportionate media's obsession with Israel, despite the fact that all of its neighbors have much less than a clean record when it comes to the treatment of their own people... but this is not the right place to explain it. If someone wants to investigate about accusations against Israel (which are not necessarily true), they have an entire article. This is not the place for that.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been several months since I've participated on this talk. Nevertheless, I've noticed one that none of my arguments have been responded to. Rather, it's essentially just ad hominem, and the absurd fixation on the Holocaust comparison. The substance of my argument has not been addressed. I will make my point once more - there is absolutely no reason the massive expulsion and flight of the indigenous population, during 1948, should not be included in this article. I will also stand by the comparison to the Holocaust; the Nakba is to Israel what the Holocaust is to Germany. The only difference is that Israel denies it, and maintains its hasbara narrative that the Arabs left 'voluntarily'. Wlglunight93 is quite emotional and binary in his reasoning. "Criticism" of Israel isn't acceptable, though criticism of Germany is. "Criticism" of Israel necessarily means that I'm a "POV user" on a mission to demonize the "Jewish state" (though criticism of Germany doesn't mean I'm anti-German). Having a criticism of Israel article does not mean that that is the only article "criticism" is allowed; it is still allowed in the article related to the actual country. Wlglunight93's attitude—the impetuous assumption that I lack good faith—towards this topic, in my view, embodies the Jewish victimhood complex quite well. JDiala (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have brought this up before, the phrase "It annexed portions of these territories, including East Jerusalem, but the border with the West Bank is disputed." is problematic because it implies other borders isn't disputed. It implies East Jerusalem and Golan Heights as being part of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

They are parts of Israel.124.180.140.187 (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied the ... Sinai Peninsula (between 1967 and 1982) ... . Of course, Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula briefly in 1956 as well.     ←   ZScarpia   11:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is the source for a dispute about the West Bank border? The Israeli government itself recognises the Green Line as the border between the Occupied Territories and Israel. The only dispute I am aware of is the status of Jerusalem, but no other country or international organisation in the world recognises East Jerusalem as part of Israel. Clarification please. KingHiggins (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If other countries and "international organizations" want to live in a fantasy world where Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, that's their problem. The reality is that Jerusalem (all of Jerusalem) is the capital of Israel. And there is no such thing as a "State of Palestine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.142.175 (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that statement is that it dismisses a viewpoint held by a lot governments and organizations that can be sourced. We are not permitted to disregard the viewpoints found in reliable sources. This is against WP:NPOV some mention is allowed by WP:WEIGHT. AlbinoFerret 15:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Longest military occupation in modern times"

First session

I suggest adding reference to the "Longest military occupation in modern times", as sourced at Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza, page 96. Any objections? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The status of the territories is disputed, so any reference has to be properly balanced. What do you intent to write ? “WarKosign” 08:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I am fine to add balance if it can be sourced and it is appropriately weighted. Note that those who deny use of the term "occupation" represent a very small proportion of world opinion, close to WP:FRINGE, as the article you linked to explains. Anyway, this article already uses the term occupied, so we have little to debate here.

I simply propose to write that "the occupation by Israel of certain neighbouring territories is the world's longest military occupation in modern times". Oncenawhile (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We could write "According to Lisa Hajjar, as of 2005 ..." since this book proves that this is what she wrote. There are other authors, such as this that disagree with her. There is a whole article dedicated to the status of the disputed territories, so I see no reason to add this specific opinion in the article on Israel. “WarKosign” 12:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I oppose Oncenawhile proposal. Ykantor (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That opinion piece in the Boston Globe isn't the kind of high-quality source we'd like to use here. Here is a better source, which states "This is probably the longest occupation in modern international relations, and it holds a central place in all literature on the law of belligerent occupation since the early 1970s." FWIW, Opposing without reasons has the same effect as not opposing. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a better source: 'But these territories are not "occupied" in the sense meant by the Geneva Convention' There are many sources for both points of view. Do we really need to represent them in the article on Israel ? Alleged occupation should be mentioned, with a link to its dedicated article.

BTW, isn't Tibet (arguably) occupied by china since 1949, by far longer than the disputed territories ? “WarKosign” 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Melanie Philips as a reliable source? We should cancel the whole project if that one gets accepted. Zero^talk 12:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Tibetans are Chinese citizens, so annexation may be a better description. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, Melanie Phillips is definitely not an appropriate WP:RS for this question. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

These four books explain that the only people who argue that "occupied" is not applicable are Israeli government officials and some US government officials, whose original motive was an attempt to reset the starting point for the negotiations at Camp David. [1][2][3][4]. These politicized manipulations have not been accepted by mainstream international scholars, so we should not let them affect our description of the territorial status either. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the predominant view (most scholars, governments, the UN, ICJ, ICRC etc), according to which Israel occupies the territories, shouldn't be presented in the same way as the fringe view that there is no occupation. Especially, the fringe view shouldn't be mentioned on an article about Israel, the country. There are other articles where its inclusion might be considered. --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Oncenawhile and Dailycare that reference to the longest military occupation in modern times should be included in this article. The POV of this article is currently WP:FRINGE and needs to be moved to a NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with the other concerned editors that a reference should be made regarding the longest military occupation in modern times. This article does indeed suffer from WP:FRINGE. There is also the lead with the reference to the israeli political system that is incredibly fringe status and pushing a POV. Mbcap (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks all. I propose to add that "the occupation by Israel of certain neighbouring territories is the world's longest military occupation in modern times". Any remaining concerns from anyone else here? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

At very least, some of this phrase should wikilink to Status of territories captured by Israel where the status of the "occupied" territories is discussed in a neutral manner. “WarKosign” 07:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

- I oppose this phrase which is incorrect. As said, Tibet is occupied from the mid 20th century. the question whether it is annexed does not dependent in the question of occupation. Other examples: Operation Trikora, Papua conflict, Azad Kashmir, Jebel Akhdar War, Vietnam War, Ifni War, Indian annexation of Goa,Sino-Indian War, Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation (??),

-A What is the definition of modern times? is it the 21 century only? from the 1st world war? from Napoleonic wars? Ykantor (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor, your examples are WP:OR, whereas the proposed statement is sourced. Your examples are also wrong, because they are all annexations. You are wrong that the difference is not relevant. For example, see [5]:

"The difference between effective military occupation (or conquest) and annexation involves a profound difference in the rights conferred by each"

Another relevant discussion of occupation vs annexation is here.

Do you have any further objections?

Happy new year. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If Israel had annexed the West Bank, you wouldn't recognize it anyway. You would still call it "occupation" like you do with the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem (which Israel did annexed). Happy new year.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If sources say it's the longest occupation, then saying that is ok and, in fact, mandatory regardless of how logical editors feel that opinion is. In other words, any objections to the suggested text (I certainly have none) should be based on wikipedia policy, not on editors' opinions in the matter. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Focus on the sources. Perhaps use wording such as "has been described as the longest military occupation in modern times" to try to deflect claims of editorial bias one way or the other. Put more than one inline citation and a hefty quotation in each of them. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Most reliable sources regard the territories, including Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, to be occupied Palestinian lands. This fact has been discussed countless times. The territories are not "disputed". Moreover, this occupation is the longest in modern history. I don't see a problem with noting that. This article has a pro-Zionist POV[ex. portrayal of almost every war as "defensive"; no discussion of the nakba], this would help balance it. JDiala (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Oncenawhile.

• Will you please refer to issue A as well? (see above)
• Your assertion, that a territory "occupied" status expires when it is annexed to the occupying power, is a wp:or. Note that if and when you support this assertion, one implication is an expiry of the Golan Heights "occupied" status as well.
• Please read the Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II. Poland annexed territories where a lot of Germans flew or were expelled. According to your view, this annexation act, changed (?) the territories status from "occupied" to "annexed". What an idyllic situation. `Ykantor (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This rather long discussion is not going anywhere, as both sides cling to their own views. As an uninvolved user, can I point out that there is very little to discuss here and that most of the comments violate WP:OR. Whereas I disagree with the claim of "longest occupation" on a personal level, it's a sourced statement. That some users WP:DONTLIKEIT or put forward their own interpretations (in violation of WP:OR) is rather irrelevant. Please keep in mind that at Wikipedia, we will always go for a sourced error rather than an unsourced truth. Wikipedia is about sources (satisfying WP:RS) and that applies to this article as well. So even though I agree with the claim in the title, it's well-sourced and no valid objections (under Wikipedia policies) have been made for several weeks. It follows that the statement should go into the article.Jeppiz (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Jeppiz. Stop the silliness about "what is an occupation?" and "what is the modern era?" We summarize what reliable sources say, giving appropriate weight in accordance with WP:UNDUE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

-@ Malik Shabazz: You are an administrator. It does not suit you to use offending terms like "Stop the silliness".

- In my opinion, this statement is factually wrong. The situation is similar to a "sniper" who is shooting a blank target and later draw the concentric circles to fit the hole in the center. i.e starting the "modern times" to fit the 1967 war and occupation. Some editors agree that it is wrong and some are opposed. But in my opinion we should improve this encyclopedia by a process of verification so that the inserted text is correct. If eventually it is indeed a mistaken text, then we may ask for advice how to avoid insertion of errors into Wikipedia.

- As a compromise, the statement may be modified to " a long occupation" and not "the longest occupation". Ykantor (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, if the sources say "a long occupation", we use that. If the source says "the longest occupation" we use that. And to be blunt, your personal opinion about whether the statement is right or wrong is entirely irrelevant. Once again, Wikipedia is about sources, not truths.Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The following searches are:

• Longest military occupation and israel (google books) - https://www.google.com/search?q=longest+military+occupation+and+israel+&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl
• Longest military occupation and israel (google scholar) - http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=longest+military+occupation+and+israel&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
• Longest military occupation and israel (google news) - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google+scholar&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=Iy2nVIrxHMuxUdX2gYAJ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#tbm=nws&q=longest+military+occupation+and+israel

I think you will find plenty of sources to say this is the longest military occupation in modern times. As one user has recently pointed out, this is an encyclopedia where we use sourced information. Our aim is to collate the information that already exists. If reliable sources say longest military occupation then even if wrong (by some people's views aka fringe views), it must still go in. Wikipedia is not the place for incorporating editors views. Mbcap (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap thank-you for the invitation to this discussion. Within the realisation that WP only needs a basic level of citation perhaps I can start by reinterpreting your worthwhile searches above in the following form:

• "longest military occupation" AND israel gets "About 155 results" in books
• "longest military occupation" AND israel gets "About 40 results" in Scholar
• "longest military occupation" AND israel gets "About 28 results" in News

Potential citations seem to be flowing in abundance and that's before considering phrasing variants. GregKaye 14:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: The very first of the results you found says: "Other occupations, such as the Chinese occupation of Tibet, have been longer and less justified, and Israel ended its occupation in 1995". This is only one source that shows how your method of WP:GOOGLETEST is flawed - you are counting all the works that deal with the subject of the alleged occupation, whether supporting or contradicting it, as evidence of its correctness. 15:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My point precisely. If you or WarKosign want to add it, just go ahead. There seems to be a clear consensus that that is a sourced claim. (I'd say Tibet myself, but as I told Ykantor above, our personal opinions are irrelevant). The one question mark that remains is the definition of "in modern times", what exact timespan is intended?Jeppiz (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jeppiz, I stumbled on this page a few days ago and read the discussion. I did a search and found that it was well sourced. If there is consensus then yes, I think it is sensible to include the statement. However this is not a democracy so we cannot just all decide to do something that is against Wikipedia policy. If you still have contentions regarding the aforementioned statement about the longest military occupation, please feel free to discuss them. Mbcap (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap, I'm not sure I follow. I've never suggested we go against any Wikipedia policy. Quite the opposite, I've suggested we'd report what the sources say rather than interpreting the sources as it suits us. That is the basic policy of WP:OR.Jeppiz (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making it clear. I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to your comment about how there seems to be consensus. I was not saying you were going against policy. Rather I was saying, even if there is consensus but we are going against policy, it does not mean the statement "longest military occupation" should be included. That is why I said feel free to discuss your contentions. The encyclopaedia only gets better if people disagree, it keeps us on our toes to put in information that accurately reflects the sum of human knowledge. Secondly the reason I made the strongly worded comment about editors personal views was because it does not deliver much information, thus making it difficult to discern whether your view is reflected in line with wiki policy or something else entirely. It is unnecessary for editors to express their personal views. If you do so, you should say why your opinion deserves to be considered. This would really help other editors. Nevertheless I will look into the Tibet situation. In the meantime I suggest the original editor Oncenawhile who proposed the addition of the aforementioned statement, to incorporate the statement into the article. Any other additions or clarifications for the statement should always follow WP:UNDUE. Mbcap (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Since it does not seem right to continue this discussion in the help desk, I would like to ask you here, concerning the difference between a fact and an opinion. My English is not that good, but I still can not understand why do you think that " In my opinion, the Chinese occupation of Tibet is the longest military occupation...in this case we're not talking about an obvious factual error, we're talking about different interpretations." The following text is factual in my opinion: Tibet was occupied by a Chinese army and the Chinese authorities are still ruling there, with their military might, although the Tibetian would like to have an independent state.

Where is the opinion / interpretation here? Ykantor (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Tibet has no bearing on the question of whether the statement we're discussing is sourced reliably. My suggestion is to go ahead with the edit, since there don't seem to be any policy-based objections under discussion and this discussion has been open for a while now. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

is an opinion / interpretation rather than a factual sentence.

Jeppiz I had a look into the Tibet situation and found them not to be under military occupation or any sort of occupation for that matter. It is a recognised territory of the PRC and no country disputes this (at least not officially). If others want to dispute similarly please cite sources. One could claim USA is the longest militar occupation or that South Korea is and the list goes on. One could even say that Jews lived in Palestine for thousands of years and that palestinian arabs are the ones who are doing the occupying so really there is no occupation. However it all comes down to sources and due weight. If there are no sources or there is no due weight, then the claim is rejected with haste. Since a majority agree for inclusion of the statement, could we discuss where to put the statement? It is not immediately clear from reading the talk page, where in the article the inclusion of the statement would be deemed most appropriate. Mbcap (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The proper place to add this statement is at Status of territories captured by Israel#Occupied or Israeli-occupied territories#Applicability of the term "occupied" or International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict#Legal issues related to occupation, any of the multiple articles dedicated to discussion of the alleged occupation. This article deals with Israel within its internationally recognized borders which nobody calls occupied territory, so this description simply does not belong here. “WarKosign” 16:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Reading this article carefully, the reference could fit well in three places:

• In the lead: Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states,[19] in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (1956–57, 1967–82), part of South Lebanon (1982–2000), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. It extended its laws to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, but not the West Bank.[20][21][22][23] Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and with Jordan, but efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have so far not resulted in peace.
• Israel#Administrative divisions
• Israel#Israeli-occupied territories

It should also go in the other articles you mention. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Occupied Tibet: The Case in International Law by Eva Herzer. Ykantor (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

...states clearly that Tibet has been annexed by China. Please read the sources I posted above which explain the difference between "military occupation" and "annexation". They are different terms, hence why numerous sources more reputable than me or you have concluded that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is the world's longest ongoing military occupation. The only credible way you can dispute this would be to find an WP:RS which concludes a different situation represents the longest, but when I search "longest military occupation" in google it only comes up with Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I was invited to join the discussion by Mbcap but am still unsure of definitions. My first thought is that I would tend to regard annexations and military occupations (which might be better regarded as militarily supported occupations) as, at the very least, having a great deal of overlap. I did some searches:

• ("west bank" AND "Gaza" and "Palestine") AND "annexation" gets "About 4,870 results" in Scholar
• ("west bank" AND "Gaza" and "Palestine") AND "Military occupation" gets "About 4,810 results"
• "Tibet" AND "annexation" gets "About 5,700 results" in Scholar
• "Tibet" AND "Military occupation" gets "About 1,550 results" in Scholar

Also I think that it is notable that the Wikipedia article on annexation has sections on the "West Bank", "East Jerusalem" and the "Golan Heights". I don't know why Gaza does not have section. In each case of annexation the governing power has a military and other resources used to maintain control and in each case these resources will be tactically dispatched. For instance, in recent times Israel's resources have been poured into building what I have translated into Wikipedia as being "(the) fence, one that caused separation" but this is a relatively new development. For most of the history of the occupation/annexation there has been no physical partition but this is within a political situation that is very well defined as an apartheid. Identity cards are marked with religion and the approach of Israeli security forces with me changed to a remarkably more positive disposition once it was discovered that I had UK nationality. (I'm and Anglo-Euro-Japanese mutt that looks a bit middle eastern). There is disparity there but for most of the history this was without partition. Even when the barrier was being built it was possible to clamber through or around less built sections when travelling with Palestinian friends and, in these cases, I rarely saw a military presence although there was plenty of evidence of destruction which was reportedly by things like the movement of military vehicles. I think that I saw more military presence when with Jewish friends travelling to places like the Dead Sea and Masada when visiting Samaritan villages or passing through checkpoints. Again, inequalities are evident in that the queues for Jews and tourists move much more quickly than the long lines for local Arabs, Armenians etc. However I have no certainty as to how this compares to other annexations. I spent time, with Israeli friends, in Nepal but never made it to Tibet. Speaking to Chinese, Chinese-Tibetan and other tourists I would say that Tibet is certainly under control and I think that China's willingness to use military force when it desires is clear. Also, as long as religious Jews can buy up west bank land and get on with what they want to do, Israel largely leaves the Palestinians to get on with things under their own governance.

I am unsure as to how to define military occupation as distinct from annexation? 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If I understand corectly, the purpose of adding this remark regarding the occupation is to offer some counter balance to the mostly pro-zionist attitude of the article. Wouldnt there be less contraversial changes which could serve this goal? Such as, remarking that the population census excludes non-Jewish population in the occupied and non-annexed areas, as these do not have citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.225.2.2 (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on actual wording

Yes I agree partly with your suggestion WarKosign; "The proper place to add this statement is at Status of territories captured by Israel#Occupied or Israeli-occupied territories#Applicability of the term "occupied" or International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict#Legal issues related to occupation, any of the multiple articles dedicated to discussion of the alleged occupation."

Regarding the alleged occupation which you mention, I would say it is very clear that this is no allegation but rather, it is a statement of fact that Israel has occupied said territories. This is a Fact because it has been asserted as such by so many reliable sources, and not to mention bodies such as the UN, and amnesty internation. The territories are occupied, this is a fact and once in the article it will read as a statement of fact because we have WP:RS compliant sources which stipulate such.

Ykantor, Tibet is not under occupation, never mind a military one. It is part of PRC which no country disputes.

Going back to the issue of where to put the statement, yes I agree Oncenawhile, we should place it in the above mentioned articles but most important of all, it needs to be placed in this page first. My proposed wording for inclusion in the lead is in the second paragraph;

• Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (1956–57, 1967–82), part of South Lebanon (1982–2000), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Israel's continued occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the longest military occupation in modern times. It has extended its laws to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, but not the west Bank. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and with Jordan, but efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have so far not resulted in peace.

As this is the lead and the statement to be included is a statement of fact, no Fringe views should go into this paragraph or anywhere else on this article for that matter. It would be akin to mentioning flat earth societies on the [Earth] page. I welcome any policy based objections otherwise we should move to incorporate this in the main article after someone copy edits it. The word occupation is said twice in the sentence and I could not figure out a way to make it single whilst maintaining its meaning. Any help would be appreciated. Mbcap (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a very obvious fact that Israel captured these territories forcefully (either for very good reasons or not, not going into it now). Military occupation "is effective provisional control of a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign". Due to the history of the disputed territories they did not have an "actual sovereign" when Israel invaded, so by this (and several other) definition what is going on on the territories can't be called a military occupation. In practice there is little difference between whatever it should be called and a real military occupation - people are under military rule against their will, this is not a good thing and that it should come to an end some way of another, but calling it an occupation is simply factually incorrect.“WarKosign” 22:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with Mbcap's proposed drafting. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses WarKosign and Oncenawhile. As I have mentioned before personal opinions are not useful here (especially if they are WP:FRINGE) if not backed up by policy. Everyone here would welcome and appreciate policy based objections. The aforementioned territories are occupied, this is fact. WarKosign this is not a place for fringe theories. Let me clarify what you are saying because reading what you have written forces ones mind to question ones faculties, so it is not an occupation because; the people we occupied never had a head of state before we came to occupy them. Please could I request that no more Fringe theories such as this should be mentioned and the same goes for the other thousand fringe theories explaining why the the UN, numerous governmental bodies and other groups are wrong as they all suffered a collective incompetency that resulted in a semantic misunderstanding. It is laughable and is not worth its weight in photons. I will wait for a further day to allow any other editors to raise policy based objections. Mbcap (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If the sentence: “Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has become the longest military occupation in modern times.” was added to the end of the second paragraph of the introduction, it would help move this towards a NPOV article. Both the Lisa Hajjar book and the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/opinion/the-justice-of-occupation.html?_r=0 )would be good citations. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Calling something WP:FRINGE doesn't make it so. "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view", but there are scholarly opinions that go both ways on this subject. There is a dispute over the status of the territories, one side calls it "occupied" while another calls it "disputed". There are arguments for both sides. Taking a definition favoring one POV and disregarding the other creates a biased an unbalanced article. It is OK to say something like "this and that scholar referred to the situation in the disputed territories as the longest military occupation in the modern history", since it is a verifiable fact that these people said so. It is not ok repeat the scholar's opinion in Wikipedia voice as a fact, since it's not a fact that it's correct to call the situation occupation and that it's longer than anything in the modern times that could be called occupation. “WarKosign” 07:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing Theatre of the Absurd here. A factual error is about to be included in Wikipedia, despite that the mistakes are highlighted. If one reads Operation Trikora, Papua conflict, Azad Kashmir, Jebel Akhdar War, Vietnam War, Ifni War, Indian annexation of Goa,Sino-Indian War, Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation, he realizs that there are older military occupations, with oppressed locals, and no solution yet. E.g. Brad Adams the Asia director at Human Rights Watch has said in 2006: "Although ‘azad’ means ‘free,’ the residents of Azad Kashmir are anything but, The Pakistani authorities govern Azad Kashmir with strict controls on basic freedoms".[18 The Government of Azad Kashmir has very little control over its' territory, with its' politicians mainly spending their time in Islamabad". pity. Ykantor (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not think so WarKosign. I do not appreciate your comment on the edit summary. If you wish to state what you said in your edit summary you should also post it here. My response to the summary would be, explaining that the sun is up at this moment in Amsterdam is not an opinion. In fact, it would be silly of me not to take issue with someone who denies that statement of fact. As other editors have mentioned and also for the reasons I highlighted this statement of fact will be put into the page sometime this evening to allow any remaining authors to provide their insight. Your disputes are groundless and without due weight as elucidated by the total lack of reference to sources in the previous posts for the claims which are being made. Could I ask any future posts with objections to reference policy and also to support their claim with sources. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mbcap: If you mean this edit, I took back a part of my statement (that I do not wish to express an opinion) after I understood that it's silly of me to try to avoid expressing an opinion that I have already expressed, I do not see why it should offend you or anyone else. I reserve the right to call myself stupid at any time.

I agree that your or mine personal opinions are irrelevant. Each of the 3 articles that I linked to above lists its sources for both POVs, including one that the territories should not be called occupied. It is not WP:FRINGE to represent one of the two sides in a conflict whether you agree with it or not, doing anything else is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. As I wrote above, I am fine with including the statement about the longest occupation as long as it's presented as one point of view and not an objective fact, same as the POV that it is not an occupation is not presented as an indisputable fact.“WarKosign” 09:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello WarKosign I apologise as I think I have misunderstood what you were doing. You should also revert your change of the talk page since your post was replied to by the time you changed. This is to maintain context and I am sure I read somewhere that it is a serious thing to alter your talk page post after it has been replied to. It seems 2 editors are insistant on putting both sides where I am able to side only one side when it comes to the question of occupation. Even so, I will assume I am ignorant of the issue and invite those editors to provide references from reliable sources that stipulate it is not an occupation.

I have also requested for an editor to help with this dispute, whom I think has expertise on Israel. I will wait for the other editors to respond. Mbcap (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign, Tibet is not occupied. It is not a valid comparison to Palestinian held territories;

• Palestinian territories - internationallay recognised to be under occupation and also plenty of reliable sources which elaborate on this face therefore they are supported by two bodies of evidence
• Tibet - this is the fringe view which has no international recognition as being under occupation (it does not even have some recognition as no country dispute the PRC's sovereignty of Tibet) To give weight to something which has none would not be sensible. Unlike Palestinian territories it has no body of support from nation states and very negligible mention by sources.

Mbcap (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Tibet is occupied according to this source [Dawa Norbu (6 December 2012). China's Tibet Policy. Routledge. p. 250. ISBN 978-1-136-79793-4.] Ykantor (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gregkaye. Since it has been shown that there is scholarly weight to the Tibetan claim we should move to incorporate it into the lead when mentioning the longest military occupation in modern history. An altered proposed draft for the consideration of editors;

The international community consisting of the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and the international criminal court as well as human rights organisations, consider Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel however disputes the position of the international community. The occupation of the Palestinian territories is also considered to be the longest military occupation in modern times but this is disputed by some scholars who say Tibet's alleged occupation by China (No Nation State disputes China's sovereignty over Tibet), dates further back than the occupation of the Palestinian territories. Mbcap (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm reading this whole discussion, and you actually showed one of the arguments for those who disagree with the longest occupation claim, simply by writing "Palestinian territories". Technically only since Oslo Accords parts of them became Palestinian territories. When they were captured in 1967 they were not considered or called like that, as there was no such sovereignty. Yuvn86 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok so we just reword it from the original source at the start of this discussion as

• The international community consisting of the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and the international criminal court as well as human rights organisations, consider Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel however disputes the position of the international community. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are also considered to be the longest military occupation in modern times but this is disputed by some scholars who say Tibet's alleged occupation by China (No Nation State disputes China's sovereignty over Tibet), dates further back than the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Mbcap (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Gaza is not occupied by Israel. Ykantor (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a statement by Hamas co-founder that Gaza is not occupied. “WarKosign” 12:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, this draft doesn't make sense: it says that the international community considers Israel to be occupying Gaza, but Israel disputes it because China allegedly occupies Tibet for a longer time. Israel doesn't recognize the occupation itself, regardless of its length. “WarKosign” 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Who are the "some scholars" who say Tibet is currently under military occupation? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't, IMO, discuss Tibet here at all, or define what the international community is. Why not just say "is considered to be the longest military occupation in modern times"? This in a minor point in the article, so it shouldn't be presented in detail. The article has a lot of detail already and we don't intend to start describing Israel as an "alleged" country in every instance (several countries don't recognize Israel). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As I see it this is purely and simply an NPOV issue. I've inserted the image here in an attempt to illustrate the point. The different sources that express opinions about the occupation or not are include governmental and academic sources and both have weight in regard to Wikipedia discussion. Several sources regard a recently recognised State of Palestine as being occupied while fewer sources regard Tibet as being occupied. There is no black and white here. We cannot pick and choose sources and draw some arbitrary and subjective line in the sand to say this is the point to which we accept what sources say and this is when we don't.

If a view is to be considered to indicates that Palestine is occupied then (if we are to have neutrality) the view must also be considered that indicates that Tibet is occupied. If it is then proposed the we consider Palestine to be occupied at the same time that we consider Tibet not to be occupied then it would need to argued that relevant sources provide acceptable arguments to say that Palestine is occupies while indicating that relevant sources provide unacceptable arguments in their presentation of an occupied Tibet. I don't think that this can be done. At each point NPOV requires us to consider both sides of the story and, at each point there are two sides. Various academics may take their individual views but, as an encyclopaedia, we cannot take sides. NPOV must either cause us to describe neither to be occupied or both to be occupied. We cannot pick sides with subjective judgements. Relevant questions are not being asked.

Relevant question Which is the longest Military occupation of a population that wanted independence? Arguably the answer here is Palestine. We can look back at history but one current survey that I referenced seemed to indicate that Tibetans, while having a general antipathy for the Chinese, were not seeking independence. I don't know if this means that they wouldn't choose independence if it was offered on a plate but if clear and reliable survey information was available then this may provide a let out. Failing this I think that NPOV is best applied as presented above. GregKaye 17:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

late comment on above strike, This is in response to comment by Oncenawhile below. The case re Palestine-Israel is different in that Israel presents a democracy in which Arabs are not allowed to vote by the Tibet-China situation is different in that China does not allow any general member of the population to vote. GregKaye 09:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There are millions of people around the world who want independence but do not meet the definition of Military occupation (Irish in Northern Ireland, Native Americans in the USA, Tibetans in Tibet, etc.). This key issue is if all the people are given "formal sovereignty" and allowed to become full citizens. Israel does not allow the Arabs in the occupied territories to become citizens because they don't want them voting in their elections. That is why this continues to be a military occupation, while Tibet, Northern Ireland and the USA are not.

A good example where this issue has already been beaten to death is Wikipedia's List of military occupations. Note that Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights are the only occupations on the "current" list that have been going on since the 1960s. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Point well made Gouncbeatduke. My two cents here is that since noone has provided any sources suggesting that Tibet represents the worlds longest military occupation, then there really is no debate. If an editor is determined to perform his/her own WP:OR to try to disprove a well sourced statement, they are welcome to do so as thoughtful testing is always helpful. But a very high bar should be set when balancing the talk page OR of wikipedia editors vs. sourced scholarly statements, and since a reasonable explanation has been provided (the well attested difference between military occupation and annexation), there really is nothing to discuss any more. As I mentioned above, unless Ykantor can find an WP:RS which concludes directly that a different situation represents the longest military occupation, then the Tibet point should be treated as WP:HORSEMEAT. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Gregkaye, I just read your comment in the previous thread as well - the difference between occupation and annexation are explained for example in [6], [7], and [8]. The third one explains this in its most simplest form:

• "The significance of the temporary nature of military occupation is that it brings about no change of allegiance. Military government remains an alien government whether of short or long duration, though prolonged occupation may encourage the occupying power to change military occupation into something else, namely annexation" (page 44)

The reason that Israel sits at the top of this prestigious list of longest occupations is because the West Bank has remained in a state of political limbo under a supposedly "temporary" arrangement for almost half a century. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just found another great source [9]:

• "Although the basic philosophy behind the law of military occupation is that it is a temporary situation modem occupations have well demonstrated that rien ne dure comme le provisoire A significant number of post-1945 occupations have lasted more than two decades such as the occupations of Namibia by South Africa and of East Timor by Indonesia as well as the ongoing occupations of Northern Cyprus by Turkey and of Western Sahara by Morocco. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is the longest in all occupation's history has already entered its fifth decade."

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Kuril Islands dispute is still not resolved: "The San Francisco Peace Treaty [1] with Japan from 1951 states that Japan must give up all claims to the Kuril islands,[2] but it also does not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over the Kuril Islands.[3] Furthermore, Japan currently claims that at least some of the disputed islands are not a part of the Kuril Islands, and thus are not covered by the treaty." Ykantor (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources that discuss the Kurils probably don't discuss the occupation of Palestine, so the Kurils are irrelevant here. Most sources that discuss Tibet probably don't discuss the occupation of Palestine either, so Tibet is likewise irrelevant here. Most sources seem to simply say this is the longest occupation. By saying "is considered to be" we leave open that it may not be so considered by everyone, and do it in a compact way that doesn't include excessive trivia about this minor point. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, please could you respond directly to three points you keep avoiding: (1) none of the situations you have raised are under military occupation - the word "military" is crucial here, (2) the populations of all of the examples you raise are citizens of the controlling power (Tibetans are Chinese citizens and Kuriles are Russian citizens), and (3) the credentials of the sources brought to support the proposal here are all high quality. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

More sources: (1) Perry Anderson: [10] "longest official military occupation of modern history—currently entering its thirty-fifth year" (in 2001); (2) Saree Makdisi: [11] "longest-lasting military occupation of the modern age"; (3) Lisa Hajjar: [12] "longest in modern history"; (4) Edward Said: [13] "These are settlements and a military occupation that is the longest in the twentieth and twenty-first century, the longest formerly being the Japanese occupation of Korea from 1910 to 1945. So this is thirty-three years old, pushing the record." Oncenawhile (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

to Oncenawhile: Your points 1,2,3 are correct. How can we convey the right information into the article? I am not sure that the "occupied" status of an occupied territory is canceled at the moment of annexing it by the occupying power. E.g. China annexed Tibet, but on 1961, the U.N resolution 1723 said "this events violates...the principle of self determination of people and nations' [14]. That means that after the Chinese occupation and annexation, The U.N indicated that the Tibetian people are occupied.

-In my opinion, the article should state that there are other occupied populations and for longer terms, but those other cases are "enjoying" "ordinary occupation" rather than military occupation.

- Territory: Gaza is not occupied. The west bank population is under partial autonomy. Ykantor (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Propose comment with footnote

In view of comments by Oncenawhile I propose the use of a simple comment as proposed above but with the addition of an explanatory Template:Efn footnote. The case re Palestine-Israel is different in that Israel presents a democracy in which Arabs are not allowed to vote by the Tibet-China situation is different in that China does not allow any general member of the population to vote. I think that NPOV can be satisfied in the inclusion of the comment based on sources but that comment is best qualified with additional information to provide context. GregKaye 09:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that the assertion that "Arabs are not allowed to vote" in Israel is downright wrong. All citizens can vote. There are Arab political parties and Arab MPs. I think what Greg meant above is that most Arabs in the occupied territories cannot vote in Israeli elections because they are not Israeli citizens. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure the Arabs in the disputed territories can vote, in 2006 they even gave a terror organization a majority in their parliament. Could such a thing happen under military occupation ?“WarKosign” 12:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding GregKaye's original statement at the top, please note all citizens can vote in Israel. Inside the 1967 Israeli borders, both Jewish and Arab residents are allowed to become citizens. In the Israeli-occupied territories, Jewish residents ARE allowed to become citizens of Israel, and Arab residents are NOT allowed to become citizens of Israel. All residents in Tibet are allowed to become citizens of China, and all citizens of China can vote, but China's elections leave a lot to be desired in terms of democratic freedom. While I think you are misstating the problem a bit, the explanatory Template:Efn footnote sounds workable to me. The footnote might say something like “The international community (including the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, the International Criminal Court, and the vast majority of international human rights organizations) consider Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The government of Israel and some of its supporters have, at times, disputed this position of the international community. See Wikipedia’s details on International views on the Israeli-occupied territories for more information.”Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you consider the disputed territories part of Israel ? You can claim that either the territories are under Israel's occupation or that they are part of Israel; don't use both contradictory claims in the same argument. If the territories are a part of Israel there can be no occupation (maybe there is discrimination, but it's a different issue). If the territories are not a part of Israel, obviously the residents are not allowed to vote in Israel's election; they can (and occasionally do) hold elections of their own.“WarKosign” 17:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign To clarify what has been said by Gouncbeatduke, so that the issue is not riddled with confusion:

• Comments above which are using Tibet's situation as comparison are not aware of the difference in situation between the two. That is what is being highlighted here.
• Tibetan are allowed to become citizens of china and all citizens of China can vote
• The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not afforded the same privilege. This point was not made to highlight any point other than to say a comparison is not possible.
• No country in the world disputes the sovereignty of China over Tibet, as opposed to;
• Countries, international bodies (UN), human rights organisations, regional bodies (EU) and the international criminal court consider Israel to be occupying.
• Points above which may have attempted to link the ability of jewish residents to seek citizenship, and the inability of the occupied people to do the same, to discrimination are not valid.
• This is not an issue of discrimination. Jewish residents living is settlements within occupied territories are allowed citizenship. These settlements are built against international law anyway so the issue is more complex than the one being suggested of discrimination.

In light of this could I request another proposed wording to be made. Mbcap (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well said Mbcap. I suggest the following sentence be added to end of the second intro paragraph.

"Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times." [“The majority of the international community (including the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, the International Criminal Court, and the vast majority of human rights organizations) considers Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The government of Israel and some supporters have, at times, disputed this position of the international community. See Wikipedia’s details on Israeli-occupied_territories#International_views for more information.”]

The note would include: “The majority of the international community (including the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, the International Criminal Court, and the vast majority of human rights organizations) considers Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The government of Israel and some supporters have, at times, disputed this position of the international community. See Wikipedia’s details at International views on the Israeli-occupied territories for more information.”

Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That is acceptable and also well balanced with the note. Does anyone have any objections? Mbcap (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I support that as well. --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I would support this solution. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke: There is agreement from 3 other editors and no objections have been raised so far. Please feel free to edit the lead in line with what we have discussed. Mbcap (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Make that four also adding my support. There is ambiguity in the claim regarding occupation and I think that the footnote clarifies this well. GregKaye 11:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Do you have reliable sources that say that this is the longest military occupation in modern times or are you just looking at the date and declaring other long standing Military occupations before modern times? Seems like synth and undue weight. Wikipedia isn't here to lobby against Israel for the Palestinians or Vice versa.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello -Serialjoepsycho-, this reply is out of order. My apologies. Just wanted to say that you should really take head and follow your own advice. Also I think you may need to test out your faculties, especially memory, vision and frontaspatial function. For us to discuss this issue at such a length and for you to come and make an off the cuff remark about just looking at the date is honestly deserving of disgust. Please read the discussion before making ignorant comments. Mbcap (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No need for a test of my faculties. They are working just fine. I did not read half of the above when it started to seem like a partisan pissing contest.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap The above discussion has been largely WP:CIVIL. There is no need to comment on your judgements regarding another editor's cognitive abilities. I would further like to remind you that you had previously agreed to argue the argument and not the person.

-Serialjoepsycho- If you want to accuse Wikipedia editors of adopting partisan views then you should substantiate your claim. GregKaye 11:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of deference for you GregKaye, I will withdraw my comment. Mbcap (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

[Comment above moved from within my edit. Its a minor point here but my edits are mine. GregKaye 19:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)]

-Serialjoepsycho- Yes, the reference has now been added. These are some among others:

• http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40609-014-0004-y/fulltext.html
• http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03071840108446671
• http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/palestinian-authority-continues-fail-its-people-689817861
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LkUhBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT120&dq=%22longest+military+occupation%22+and+%22Gaza%22+and+%22West+Bank%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PDuvVLHtLKrD7gaU3IHACg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22longest%20military%20occupation%22%20and%20%22Gaza%22%20and%20%22West%20Bank%22&f=false
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KnJ94LFpow0C&pg=PA29&dq=%22longest+military+occupation%22+and+%22Gaza%22+and+%22West+Bank%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PDuvVLHtLKrD7gaU3IHACg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22longest%20military%20occupation%22%20and%20%22Gaza%22%20and%20%22West%20Bank%22&f=false

Mbcap (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

reference list

Undoing no consensus editing

How come that a discussed sentence with no consensus is inserted into the article? were is the supposed good faith editing?

- this text has a factual mistake - Gaza is not occupied.

- East Jerusalem is annexed to Israel. You can not claim that Tibet Military occupation expired when annexed , but did not expired for east Jerusalem. You can't agree and disagree in the same time.

- The West bank is occupied, but there is a partial autonomy. Ignoring the autonomy is a clear wp:pov.

- note 2 has unsupported claims that should be supported or being erased.

- source no. 25 - Alexandrowicz, Ra'anan is not a source, since this is an opinion and not a newspaper report.

-I am not sure that the "occupied" status of an occupied territory is canceled at the moment of annexing it by the occupying power. E.g. China annexed Tibet, but on 1961, the U.N resolution 1723 said "this events violates...the principle of self determination of people and nations' [15]. That means that after the Chinese occupation and annexation, The U.N indicated that the Tibetian people are still occupied.

-In my opinion, the article should state that there are other occupied populations and for longer terms, but those other cases are "enjoying" "ordinary occupation" rather than military occupation.

- I revert this bad edit. Ykantor (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, I have reverted your edit. The statement was well sourced and deliberated over since the 18th of December. We finally reached concensus and the sources were so strong you would have to have an above average disposition towards psychosis to object. That is just an example to demonstrate how far your statement "factual mistake" is to reality. If an editor makes a contribution in good faith and with credible sources, you discuss first then edit. The above editors spent a long time collecting sources and editing them in appropriatley, together with the footnote. They also spent a considerable amount of time discussing the issue with you despite there being enough evidence to merit inclusion. Your revert shows the utter disregard you have for the hard work that was done. If this is repeated again despite concensus on the issue, I will personally take you to ANI. A point to take not of is, everyone is aware of your circular arguments. I hope you are able to entertain yourself as I will certainly not be giving any consideration to the above points. We have covered them in exeptional detail. Which is why I mentioned, I think you are either possibly psychotic or a paid pro-zionist pusher. Definatley one or the other. Mbcap (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

to Mbcap:You are encouraged to complain since it seems that you do not bother to refer to this edit problems, e.g Gaza is not occupied. Ykantor (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

- Gaza is not occupied. sources:

1. "Is Gaza Occupied?- Redefining the Legal Status of Gaza", by Elizabeth Samson: " Although Israel’s loss of “effective control” over Gaza is legally sufficient to indicate that the occupation of the territory has ended, there has been a reluctance on the part of the international community to accept the change in status. While it is not legally necessary to obtain international recognition of Israel’s position, it is politically important for the absence of occupation to be acknowledged by international legal experts so that Israel would not be held to the more stringent legal requirements of an occupier and to lend greater legitimacy to Israel’s acts of self-defense". Also [16]
2. Tel Aviv University, [TAU, Law] Eyal Benvenisti: "the so called "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip in 2005", in his article:"[id=174 The Law on the Unilateral Termination of Occupation]"
3. Solon Solomon, winter 2011 issue of the Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law
4. Peter Berkowitz,"Israel and the Struggle over the International Laws of War[Peter Berkowitz (9 April 2012). Israel and the Struggle over the International Laws of War. Hoover Press. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-0-8179-1436-3.] Ykantor (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, the article by Elizabeth Samson (who is a lawyer, not an academic) is, as you said of another article above, merely an opinion. Further, as she notes repeatedly in the article, international law still recognises Gaza as being occupied; she is trying to change that: "It is, therefore, imperative that the official legal status of Gaza be changed." This therefore proves exactly the opposite of what you contend; it establishes that, even in the view of someone who does not believe that Gaza is occupied, the international legal status is that it is indeed occupied. RolandR (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of your second link. This is not, as you imply, by Eyal Benvenisti, but rather an attack on him by a non-reliable advocacy site, and carries no weight at all. I can't open your third link, which is behind a paywall. But it too seems to be an opinion piece, by a former legal adviser to the Knesset Foreign Affairs committee, arguing why international consensus is wrong and should change. And your fourth link is again to an argument, this time by political scientist and Republican politician Peter Berkowitz, that international consensus is wrong and should be changed. The conclusion from all of these links is that, much as you and some commentators may not like it, the consensus under international law is that Gaza is still under Israeli occupation. Unless and until you find a reference in a reliable source asserting that this is not the international legal consensus (not simply one which argues that it should not be the international legal consensus), ythen you cannot assert this in the article. RolandR (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Here are three clear sources confirming the consensus re Gaza:

• Sanger, Andrew (2011). "The Contemporary Law of Blockade and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla". Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2010. 13. Springer Science & Business Media: 429. ISBN 9789067048118. Israel claims it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip, maintaining that it is neither a Stale nor a territory occupied or controlled by Israel, but rather it has 'sui generis' status. Pursuant to the Disengagement Plan, Israel dismantled all military institutions and settlements in Gaza and there is no longer a permanent Israeli military or civilian presence in the territory. However the Plan also provided that Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip as well as maintaining an Israeli military presence on the Egyptian-Gaza border. and reserving the right to reenter Gaza at will.
  Israel continues to control six of Gaza's seven land crossings, its maritime borders and airspace and the movement of goods and persons in and out of the territory. Troops from the Israeli Defence Force regularly enter pans of the territory and/or deploy missile attacks, drones and sonic bombs into Gaza. Israel has declared a no-go buffer zone that stretches deep into Gaza: if Gazans enter this zone they are shot on sight. Gaza is also dependent on israel for inter alia electricity, currency, telephone networks, issuing IDs, and permits to enter and leave the territory. Israel also has sole control of the Palestinian Population Registry through which the Israeli Army regulates who is classified as a Palestinian and who is a Gazan or West Banker. Since 2000 aside from a limited number of exceptions Israel has refused to add people to the Palestinian Population Registry.
  It is this direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza that has led the United Nations, the UN General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, International human rights organisations, US Government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a significant number of legal commentators, to reject the argument that Gaza is no longer occupied. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
• Scobbie, Iain (2012). Elizabeth Wilmshurst (ed.). International Law and the Classification of Conflicts. Oxford University Press. p. 295. ISBN 9780199657759. Even after the accession to power of Hamas, Israel's claim that it no longer occupies Gaza has not been accepted by UN bodies, most States, nor the majority of academic commentators because of its exclusive control of its border with Gaza and crossing points including the effective control it exerted over the Rafah crossing until at least May 2011, its control of Gaza's maritime zones and airspace which constitute what Aronson terms the 'security envelope' around Gaza, as well as its ability to intervene forcibly at will in Gaza.
• Gawerc, Michelle (2012). Prefiguring Peace: Israeli-Palestinian Peacebuilding Partnerships. Lexington Books. p. 44. ISBN 9780739166109. While Israel withdrew from the immediate territory, Israel still controlled all access to and from Gaza through the border crossings, as well as through the coastline and the airspace. ln addition, Gaza was dependent upon Israel for water electricity sewage communication networks and for its trade (Gisha 2007. Dowty 2008). ln other words, while Israel maintained that its occupation of Gaza ended with its unilateral disengagement Palestinians - as well as many human right organizations and international bodies - argued that Gaza was by all intents and purposes still occupied.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it worth confining the statement re: occupation to the west bank and golan heights? Perhaps a further note of clarification can be given to the historic situation in Gaza. Before Israeli "withdrawl", was Gaza amongst areas that had been occupied for the longest timespan in midern history? I am dubious about the validity of inclusion of Gaza as an occupied territory on the grounds of NPOV. There seem to be different academic opinions as just being previously mentioned that are brought to bear. GregKaye 12:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

-Sanger says: "maintaining an Israeli military presence on the Egyptian-Gaza border. and reserving the right to reenter Gaza at will.", which is a factual lie.

- Scobbie, Iain :" because of its exclusive control of its border with Gaza and crossing points". , which is a factual lie.

- Gawerc, Michelle : "Israel still controlled all access to and from Gaza through the border crossings"., which is a factual lie. also: "Gaza was dependent upon Israel for water electricity sewage communication networks and for its trade" - Instead of thanking Israel that supply electricity to Gaza, although they try to kill us with rockets, he use it as a tool to demonize Israel. Are there some honest people around? Ykantor (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if you think the occupation of Gaza ended in 2005, which is a small minority view and probably WP:FRINGE, the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem is still the longest military occupation in modern times. The sentence is factual and accurate. The occupation of the Golan Heights should probably be added to the sentence for completeness, but then we are likely to get entangled in the whole annexation vs. military occupation argument all over again. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Disputed territory

The map in the Russia article has Crimea marked in light green on the grounds that the peninsula is "de facto administered by Russia." Now, Israel de facto administers the Golan Heights, to say nothing of the Judea and Samaria Area. Why no consistency?124.180.140.187 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Because most Wikipedia editors allow a NPOV on Russia, but only allow pro-Israel/anti-State-of-Palestine views to be expressed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comparing a very recent event to a long term situation. The Israel maps usually show dashed lines or other methods to demonstrate the dispute. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The map in the infobox of the Israel article has no dotted lines or any other indication of the occupation of the Golan Heights. The only border shown on the map regarding the Golan Heights is the pre-1967 Syrian border. A better map is needed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Should we also have dotted lines to indicate Israel's borders as defined in the Partition Plan? --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine, is more reacent, and it's light green.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine 5.29.165.246 (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Russia's control of Crimea is indeed a recent situation, but Morocco's control of Western Sahara certainly isn't. The map on Morocco's page has Western Sahara covered in thick green stripes, which are only really visible when you zoom in - otherwise you can barely see the difference.

Some consistency is definitely in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbecke2012 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015

while viewing the Israel page in wikipedia, i have stumbled upon a wrong map of an existing borders of this country. While it is known widely, i don't understand why the golan heights were removed out of the map,while israel got cities there, and even jurisdiction. All of this while Israel is the last fort of Resistance to terrorist groups.

sources :http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/Middleeastweb/snapshot/GolanHeights.htm http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3411166,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/04/al-qaida-fighters-along-israel-border-in-golan-heights-give-israelis-new-cause/ Dmagio (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no explicit request here. The question you seem to pose is whether we should change the map. The answer to that is no, we use the map with Israel's internationally recognised borders.Jeppiz (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The Golan Heights are a sovereign part of Israel according to international law. Why is the OCHA map displaying boarders that haven't existed since 1967 being shown?124.180.140.187 (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No country has accepted Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, just as no country has accepted Armenia's annexation of Nagorno-Karabach.Jeppiz (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP's definition of “international law” is the exact opposite of what every international court has said. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This article details Jewish casualties but not Arab casualties, is it giving a NPOV?

Editor Ashurbanippal changed (via a revert)

This was a major cause of the Arab revolt of 1936–39 in which the British killed 5,032 Arabs and wounded 14,760, [Hughes, M. (2009) The banality of brutality: British armed forces and the repression of the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936–39, English Historical Review Vol. CXXIV No. 507, 314–354.] and resulting in over ten percent of the adult male Palestinian Arab population killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled.[[[Walid Khalidi|Khalidi, Walid]] (1987). From Haven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the Palestine Problem Until 1948. Institute for Palestine Studies. ISBN 978-0-88728-155-6]

to

This was a major cause of the Arab revolt of 1936–39 and led the British to introduce restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine with the White Paper of 1939.

This is typical of the editing throughout this very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab non-NPOV article. When every a small number of Jews are killed, it is discussed in great detail. If any editor attempts to mention Arabs or British casualties, the edits are immediately removed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to argue for neutrality, please start acting accordingly. Without taking a stand on who is right or wrong, your description above is heavily biased. It's not the case that Ashurbanippal changed it. What happened is that you changed the article, and Ashurbanippal reverted your edit. I'm not saying it was right (or wrong) of Ashurbanippal to do so, but if you want to argue NPOV, start by giving NPOV accounts of events. As for the article being POV, you're free to give examples. I think it manages to be surprisingly NPOV, and the best proof of that is that POV-warriors from both sides regularly accuses it of not being NPOV, so clearly we don't give in completely to the POV of one side or the other.Jeppiz (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps English is not your first language, but what I said was “If any editor attempts to mention Arabs or British casualties, the edits are immediately removed.” If I, or any other editor, attempts an edit that included information on Arabs or British casualties, it is immediate reverted by a pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pusher. Above is an example of that. The article history section includes information like “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured.” Why is that more important to Israel’s history than 5,032 Arabs being killed and 14,760 wounded? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

So first you misrepresent what actually happened, and when this is pointed out then your next strategy is a personal attack? For the record, I do agree with your edit but when an edit is reverted the correct strategy is to go to the talk page and discuss it calmly in a factual way. Making strong accusations against other is seldom the right strategy.Jeppiz (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I just think "immediately removed" and "immediately reverted" mean the same thing in the English language. I don't understand what you think the difference is. Maybe if I said "Editor Ashurbanippal changed (via a revert)" instead of just "Editor Ashurbanippal changed" it would be more clear? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: before your edit, there was no mention of casualties of the revolt on either side. You apparently decided that the casualties number of this specific event in whole of Israel's history is important enough to mention, but only for one of three sides. It does not sound like very NPOV to me. It also seems UNDUE - could you elaborate what's the reason to tell the number of casualties of one side of this specific conflict, when (as far as I see) there is no mention of casualties numbers for any of the wars (which had far more casualties), only links to their appropriate articles ?“WarKosign” 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to mention the relatively small numbers of British Security Forces casualties (262 killed, c. 550 wounded[8]) and Jewish casualties (c. 300 killed), I have no problem with that. Given many events with much smaller Jewish casualties are include in the article (for example, “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured.”) I do not think it is UNDUE to include the over 20,000 Arab casualties here. I would disagree with calling it a "war" from a NPOV, it was really a genocide of indigenous people to clear room for Jewish colonialists, so using the current "revolt" term is more NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to add all casualties to the revolt here; if someone wants to read full details, he can click on the main article. Maybe you can start yourself if you are so one-sided on this topic. Many of the British policies were actually pro-Arab during the 1930's and 40's, and overall the Arab population had a huge population growth and their numbers doubled during the 25 years of the Mandate. That's the opposite of "genocide". Yuvn86 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the very unbalanced treatment of Jews and Arabs throughout the article. If Arabs kill Jews, casualty number are included, regardless of whether you can click and get information. For example, in the “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured” statement currently in the article, you can click on Coastal Road Massacre and get the casualty numbers, but you don’t have to because Jewish casualty numbers are almost always included and Arab casualty numbers are almost never included. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

For the first intifada the article says "More than a thousand people were killed in the violence", without mentioning Israeli casualties. There should be a policy that determines when and which casualties numbers are included and not every editor free to add numbers that promote the POV they like. “WarKosign” 22:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to WP:SOAPBOX. Calling the Jews returning to their homeland (which they never abandoned) "colonials", and calling the Palestinians (who did not exist as distinctive people before 19th century ,coinciding with Zionism, and who happened to multiply rapidly just as Aliyah commenced) "indigenous people" is a wild misrepresentation of history. “WarKosign” 15:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

While some feel there was no distinction of "Palestinian" Arabs from other Arabs prior to the 19th century, the history of both Jews and Arabs in Palestine extends well over 2000 years. The term colonialist refers to people being thrown off their land without payment to make room for immigrants. None of this has anything to do with the central question. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources on History of the Palestinian people prior to 1834, you should add a section there. Don't forget that before people were thrown off "their land" (or sold it, or left on their own), they colonized this land after previous inhabitants were "thrown off without payment". If you want to trace back, trace all the way to the Canaanitess or Philistines, if they still were around they would have the most valid claim on the land. “WarKosign” 18:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to edit the History of the Palestinian people article, and I don't even know if all Arab history in the area of today's Palestine belongs in that article. If you are interested in the subject, I suggest you read the Islamization of Palestine article which includes the Arab conquest of Jerusalem from the Byzantine Romans in 636 and some of the Arab history following. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This far Gouncbeatduke has given one example of "just Israeli victims", the massacre in 1978. If Gouncbeatduke would like to start being constructive instead of pointy, they could either make a list of cases instead of just mentioning one single case or make a rational argument for what should be changed.Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to the Question

I think the central question here is: Why should the article detail Jewish casualties (for example, the “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured.” statement) and not detail Arab casualties (such as the 20,000 Arab casualties of the Arab revolt of 1936–39 or the 107 Arabs killed in the Deir Yassin massacre)? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't. In most cases, if a fatal incident doesn't link to a dedicated article than it's probably not notable enough to be mentioned, especially in such level of detail. If there is a dedicated article then the causalities are already numbered there. “WarKosign” 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A life is a life. Israel has territories in its occupational perimeter and, as it has so far "failed" (for want of a better word) to release these territories, then they remain Israel's responsibility. A life is a life and every life within the responsible borders of Israel should be equally and fairly accounted for. GregKaye 19:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well said. Unfortunately, the POV-pushing editors will never allow this to happen unless more people stand up to them. All reference to the Deir Yassin massacre has been removed via reverts, as well as any reference to the 20,000 Arab casualties in the Arab revolt of 1936–39. When Jews are killed, such as the 38 killed in the the Coastal Road Massacre, the numbers are itemized in the article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Both Semitic casualties should be mentioned. Kashta (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to do so might etymologically be regarded as being anti-Semitic. I think that any editor who has deleted relevant references to lives lost in Israel should be challenged potentially on prejudice/partisan attitude and certainly on POV and with reference to this thread.

However I don't know whether it is relevant to limit the issue to Semites. As per Demographics of Israel#Ethnic and religious groups there are other groups that can have representation.

I think that it would be fair to also permit commentary on the figures. There are a lot more Arab casualties (with an even larger number when other groups are factored in) than Jewish casualties. I think that care must be taken that this does not become a soapbox for any Palestinian antagonism but there must be a fair representation of the facts. GregKaye 11:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You are bundling together Arabs who died on the territory of Israel and Arabs from neighboring states . This article deals with Israel, so it makes sense to concentrate on casualties in Israel + disputed territories, of the citizens/inhabitants of either ethnicity. Here are total numbers of casualties in all the Israel-Arab conflicts. If you sum up casualties of terror, riots, intifadas and operations in the disputed territories you'll see the numbers are quite similar (12K vs 15K). “WarKosign” 15:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library is a very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab web site that should not be cited in any NPOV article. Even the web page you are pointing to at this very biased web site shows the "total" deaths in the conflict to be about 25K Jewish and 91K Arab. There is nothing at the web page that supports your original research numbers (12K vs. 15K). Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Arab–Israeli conflict gives essentially the same numbers (22K vs 91K), but without breaking them into to specific wars. GregKaye made the OR claim that there "a lot are more Arab casualties" without providing any evidence, and I gave a proof that this OR is wrong. Vast majority of these Arabs were not Israeli Arabs nor Palestinians but citizens of countries that attacked Israel. You can't expect an article on a country to focus on casualties in other countries that chose to attack it and suffered the consequences. There are slightly more Israeli Arab/Palestinian casualties in internal conflicts, and the article should treat all loss of life similarly. “WarKosign” 17:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign sorry for the lack of quotation but I thought this would have/ should have been common knowledge. My background is from having connections to Israeli, Arab peace groups where both sides were well aware of the proportionately high level of casualties on the Palestinian side. Here are a few references that immediately came to hand from a search on palestinian israeli death ratio.

• http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/deaths.html
• http://www.amnesty.org.uk/gaza-operation-protective-edge#.VLqiliusWnY
• http://www.countercurrents.org/polya120714.htm

These are just talk page references and clearly article contents should be properly checked. All lives within the demographic area of the borders of Israel must be considered equally with whichever statistics are chosen to be used.

Can I ask if there are any Arab/Palestinian residents within Israel who have become casualties the conflict who are not accounted for in your re-conning of "Israeli Arab/Palestinian casualties". What are your references. GregKaye 18:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that 2 of the source deal on with Operation Protective Edge, while one covers only events since 2000. My comment was about all the deaths since before founding Israel; not just the recent years. I was looking at this source, but I don't think there is major disagreement on the facts between the sources, only on their interpretation. I'm not sure about your last question, Here is a partial list of Palestinians killed by other Palestinians. “WarKosign” 20:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, your problem is you are presenting well cited, NPOV facts. The Wikipedia editors that control the Israel article only allow pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pushing original research to be included in the article, any NPOV citation of NPOV secondary sources is immediately reverted. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I think a NPOV article on Israel would contain reference to the Deir Yassin massacre and King David Hotel bombing, and include the casualties of the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. The article already includes many events with mostly Jewish casualties, such as the “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured” statement. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign Can I suggest that if you want to continue a discussion regarding the ratio of fatalities between Jews in Israel in comparison to other resident ethnic groups in Israel, that you consider doing this in a new thread dedicated to the topic. This thread started by posing the very specific question, "This article details Jewish casualties but not Arab casualties, is it giving a NPOV?, Gouncbeatduke then restarted this discussion under the heading, "Back to the question". At present, on this important issue, I fear we are straying off topic. Demography is the study of human populations and, in the article being discussed, we are discussing the demographic facts as they relate to Israel, a country placed in categories such as "Western Asian countries", "Arabic-speaking countries and territories", "Member states of the Union for the Mediterranean", "Member states of the United Nations", "Middle Eastern countries" and "Republics". Surely the article on Israel should adopt a similar practice in presenting figures on populations with the same impartiality as other articles. First we have a simple question relating to the relevance of placement of information casualties from, for example, the Arabic ethnic group. Another discussion can then debate the specifics regarding the specific contents to be included. the following signature was added in retrospect. GregKaye 19:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to the question resumed

The question has been presented by Gouncbeatduke proposed in the form: "This article details Jewish casualties but not Arab casualties, is it giving a NPOV?.

Comment has subsequently been added by, Jeppiz, Gouncbeatduke, WarKosign, Yuvn86, GregKaye and Kashta. Further RfC responses relating to the above mentioned question are welcome. GregKaye 12:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the POV-pushing edit warriors are no longer going to allow this discussion. The POV tags for this subject have now been reverted from the article repeatedly. Gouncbeatduke (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be more constructive to write here a list of non-neutral mentions of casualties and discuss whether/how each should be fixed to achieve neutrality. Putting the neutrality tags on a whole section is not (always) enough to know which spot you consider biased. “WarKosign” 18:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It is very clear from comments above and below that support is given for the concept that well cited information of casualties regardless of their ethnic roots (and the trifling differences in their DNA) should be added into the article. If information is cited then its inclusion may be disputed in the talk page but I would regard its removal without discussion to be disruptive. Sources such as those like Amnesty should be used. I am very wary of the use of citation information from sources like jewishvirtuallibrary.org within the article (which currently receives 14 links from the article) and would prefer WP:RS sources to be used that may be less prone to bias. However, if sources like the jewishvirtuallibrary.org can be used then I think that this opens up a wide range of potential source use. GregKaye 12:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Doesn't this fall under discretionary sanctions? If people are actively making the article less neutral, report them to Arbcom. They'll probably get topic banned or blocked. And, yes, of course one standard needs to enforced for both Palestinian and Israeli casualties. One suggestion that I saw earlier in this conversation is that no conflict should be described unless it has an independent article. That seems like a fairly reasonable rule-of-thumb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • NinjaRobotPirate There may be listings by credible agencies of casualties that go beyond Wikipedia articles. The teenage soldiers of the IDF carry riffles and security forces have detention facilities in which people have been known to die. I was on the bus in Israel chatting to an IDF soldier and I asked (these might not be my exact words) for a bullet. I was informed that all bullets are accounted for but, when he saw that I was disappointed, he gave me one saying that they always carried spares. GregKaye 11:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The current “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured.” statement in the article would set the "standard" at 38 deaths. Are we in agreement to undo the reverts of casualties numbers where the Arab revolt of 1936–39 is covered in the article, as the deaths are greater than 38? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What borders should be used as base for information presentation on Israel: the UN arranged borders of 1947, the Green Line borders of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the borders to which Israel established military control in areas named the West Bank, the Golan Heights and (possibly) Gaza or another option?

Notice of discussion change in response to comments in the later thread #Neutral representation of the listing of the largest cities in Israel I have changed the topic of this RfC from "Neutral photographic representation for areas within Israel's borders" to its current title. content from, as previously titles, thread topic, "Neutral photographic representation for areas within Israel's borders"

It is proposed here that photographic representation within various sections of the article should be in close proportion to the proportions of areas and populations within Israel's borders. This means that, if the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights contribute to a certain proportion of the area within the national boundaries of Israel and to a certain proportion of the population, then the representation of photographs within various sections of the article should reflect these proportions. It is proposed that the sections of the article that should have the type of photographic representation mentioned above are: Israel#Geography and climate Israel#Culture and possibly also being applied to: Israel#Economy Israel#Politics Thanks for your consideration. GregKaye 19:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

UN "Sketch map" of the "plan on partition" between an Arab State, pink, and a Jewish State, green

Israel's 1949 Green Line (dark green) and demilitarized zones (light green)

What borders should be used as base for information presentation on Israel: the UN arranged borders of 1947, the Green Line borders of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the borders to which Israel established military control in areas named the West Bank, the Golan Heights and (possibly) Gaza or another option?

It is proposed that Wikipedia should present clear border defined content related to its presentation and that the article should not include some information and images from within one border defined area while discounting other information from within the same border defined area.

I think that it also needs to be decided/clarified which description of borders are to be used and to what extent reference should be made to other borders.

Parameters of the 1949 Armistice Agreements
I think that it should be noted that Armistice Demarcation Lines do not change borders. As noted by another editor in another discussion, the Armistice Agreements specifically say;

Egypt/Israel - Article 4. 3. "It is emphasized that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognize, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement, whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice." [17]

Lebanon/Israel - Art 2. 2. "(a) The provisions of this agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations."[18]

Syria/Israel - Art 2. 2. "It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military and not by political considerations."[19]

Jordan/Israel - Art 2. "2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.[20]

GregKaye 13:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would support either clear and consistent use of either the UN mandate borders as a base for a definition of the content of Israel or the use of green line boundaries. I think that whichever borders are used within the article then that set of borders should be applied consistently. The UN mandate borders are those that contain an area that is most widely accepted to be Israel and I have a slight preference for this area to be used for a base description for what is Israel. I think that the article would gain in informational content if it specified if a mentioned location is situated between the UN mandate demarkation and the green line if, indeed, this information on such locations is to be added at all. I do not think that any information on locations on the Palestinian side of the green line should be added into the article and I believe that this would be a neutral approach to the presentation of information on these areas by Wikipedia. GregKaye 12:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree similarly along those lines. However, I would want to make a special indication of East Jerusalem with it's borders to indicate that it is the most disputed part of the map and possibly indicate Israeli control of East Jerusalem. The Golan Heights should have lines noting the DMZ exists. West Bank and Gaza should also be labeled in the map as part of Palestine. I would want to have the map labeled with both Israel and Palestine because a discussion of the border of Israel will always involve a discussion of the border of Palestine. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• The 1949-1950 armistice line, aka "Green line", was made into an international border by Resolution 242, adopted by the UN Security Council in 1967. The legalistic aspect is not relevant to the issue of how the map should be drawn. We should follow what other mapmakers are doing. See here and here for typical maps of Israel. Mapmakers seem to be living in the past. I don't see anyone showing the modern boundaries with areas A, B, and C. NotUnusual (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The 5 June 1967 borders were recognized by the U.N. Ykantor (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite get the point in this RFC. Presentation of any information follows what sources say on that specific information, we can't make blanket judgement like this since we don't know what sources will say. I haven't heard that the Green line would have been made into an international border by Resolution 242. The Security Council doesn't, as far as I know, have the authority to draw international borders. Even the famous Partition plan from the General Assembly was only a recommendation, which didn't succeed since both parties didn't accept it. Resolution 242 stated Israel should withdraw to behind the Green Line, not that Israel would have title to land West of the Green Line. Therefore e.g. the Arab view that Israel has no sovereign territory whatsoever isn't contradicted by Resolution 242. --Dailycare (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral representation of the listing of the largest cities in Israel

Is there any reason why Arabic cities within the border region controlled by Israel are not represented in the Template:Largest cities of Israel? This template currently displays a limited selection of cities within Israel's borders as follows:

Largest cities or towns in Israel Israel Central Bureau of Statistics["Population, by Population Group, Religion, Age, Sex and Type of Locality". Statistical Abstract of Israel (in Hebrew and English). Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. September 11, 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2013.]
	Rank	Name	District	Pop.
Jerusalem Tel Aviv	1	Jerusalem	Jerusalem	796,200*	Haifa Rishon LeZion
	2	Tel Aviv	Tel Aviv	404,500
	3	Haifa	Haifa	269,300
	4	Rishon LeZion	Central	231,700
	5	Ashdod	Southern	211,400
	6	Petah Tikva	Central	210,800
	7	Beersheba	Southern	195,800
	8	Netanya	Central	188,200
	9	Holon	Tel Aviv	182,000
	10	Bnei Brak	Tel Aviv	161,100

 * This number includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas.

Other cites within Israel's borders include:

• Gaza City 949,221
• Hebron 563,146
• Nablus 426,132
• Jenin 260,004
• Ramalla 197,092
• al-Bireh 179,202
• Tulkarm 171,941
• Bethlehem 165,266

I propose that a listing of the largest cites in Israel should be inclusive of all of the largest cites within Israel's borders.

GregKaye 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The article says that Israel borders the Palestinian territories, so clearly the consensus is that these territories are outside of Israel. Ignoring for a moment the question whether it should be changed, do you believe it can be changed ? If these territories are not a part of Israel, how can these cities be listed as cities in Israel ? “WarKosign” 21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, you're aware that no government, including that of the State of Israel, considers Gaza or any city in Gaza to be a part of Israel, right?ni believe this has been the case since 2003. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Tevet 5775 00:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign I did not realise that this was the situation of the article. Am I right in saying that the "Old City of Jerusalem" and its 'holy' sites are all within the area described as Palestinian territories and that, by the reasoning presented by the article, these locations are not to be regarded as being in Israel? In your opinion, in what way should areas within Palestinian Territories be represented. Should they be included in the Israel article or not? GregKaye 18:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Israel considers the whole city of Jerusalem, east and west, part of it. Palestinian National Authority considers east Jerusalem occupied. Because of this disagreement, the number in the template has a comment "* This number includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas.".

The rest of the cities in your list are in the Palestinian territories, so I see no reason to include them in the list of cities in Israel. Parts of Israel right wing might consider them part of Greater Israel, but this view is not mainstream. “WarKosign” 19:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign So what is it to be? The article can't have it both ways. The article should either consider areas in Palestinian territories as part of Israel inclusive of locations such Hebron, Nablus etc. as well as occupied east Jerusalem or it should not consider these areas as part of Israel. I can only consider that neutrality has, intentionally or not, departed. The article is not here to advocate for either the Israeli government's interpretations and propaganda or that of the Palestinians. However there are two sets of borders that can be considered in the cases of Gaza and West Bank/Golan regions - either Green Line (Israel) or the borders of occupation/control/military domination. If the first option is chosen then East Jerusalem, the old city inclusive of its holy sites cannot be considered as part of the article's description of Israel and if the second option is chosen then, certainly, East Jerusalem et.al. should not be presented as being part of Israel. GregKaye 09:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is not universally accepted as a part of Israel and it should not be presented as such. There are two options: either present no information at all on the population of Jerusalem, or provide it with the disclaimer that the inclusion of east Jerusalem is disputed. Clearly existing consensus is to use the second option. “WarKosign” 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This blatantly untrue and this is something that I think that anyone with the even rudimentary familiarity with topics such as the green line and Israeli/Palestinian history will clearly realise. The article can't have it both ways. It should either use one set of borders or another. GregKaye 11:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that East Jerusalem is universally accepted as a part of Israel ? This claim needs an WP:EXCEPTIONAL source. “WarKosign” 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Inclusive I agree that all the cities in Israel should be included so long as a footnote, or other type of note, explains the unique problem such a list involves. This includes those cities in the occupied zones so occupied after the various wars. Again, the status of such cities should be accurately noted...drs (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong Oppose and support removal of Jerusalem. The rest of the West Bank is occupied. There is no dispute. Pretending there is a dispute, or taking the Zionist position and including all of the cities, is patently POV. In fact what I don't understand is why Jerusalem is in the template. All of Jerusalem - including West Jerusalem - is, according to the international community, not a part of Israel. East Jerusalem is specifically referred to as occupied Palestinian territory. It should be removed. Keep it strictly within the green line and strictly NPOV. JDiala (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose including cities in Israeli-occupied territories and support the removal of Jerusalem. I would add a note (ref group=note) to the "Largest cities or towns of Israel" title which explains this list does not include cities in the Israeli-occupied territories, and explains the special case of Jerusalem. Alternately, the list might include the city of “West Jerusalem” with a population of “unknown” (as no one has separate population numbers for West and East Jerusalem today), and then explain the West and East Jerusalem story in the note section. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Support JDiala. West Jerusalem isn't recognized as being in Israel, otherwise the embassies would be there. We covered this in the Jerusalem RFC a while ago. If Gaza City was included, then Beijing could be included too. ---Dailycare (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose and comment I have to say GregKaye's proposal of including cities that not even Israel claims as part of its territory seems to me to be extremely odd. Israel has never passed laws purporting to annex either the West Bank or Gaza. I think the most NPOV way to deal with this controversial issue is essentially what we have now: we should limit the list to cities that Israel claims, while putting prominent footnotes and so on beside any that are disputed. Jerusalem, for example, should have a note concisely summarising the controversial situation, and making clear that any figures include occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas. So in my view all we need to do is expand the footnote. On this topic: West Jerusalem is so far as I know generally accepted as part of Israel proper; it is East Jerusalem, the part it conquered from Jordan in 1967, that is so controversial. The embassies being elsewhere is actually primarily because of the separate, albeit closely related, issue of the international community not accepting Israel's claim that "Jerusalem", single and united, is its capital (see Positions on Jerusalem and Jerusalem Law). There were foreign embassies in Jerusalem until Israel passed the law claiming to annex East Jerusalem in 1980. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

See e.g. "Whither Jerusalem" by Hirsch, Housen-Couriel and Lapidot at page 17: "west Jerusalem (...) most states have not recognized its sovereignty there". --Dailycare (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps that can go in the footnote as well? Though so far as I know the Green Line is what is generally used to divide what the international community considers Israel proper from what it does not. West Jerusalem is on the western side of the Green Line and I have never heard anybody argue that Israel should pull out of it (apart from those who reject Israel's existence/legitimacy altogether, of course). Moreover I've never heard it argued that West Jerusalem is under military occupation—East Jerusalem yes, but West no. To get back to my original point: regardless of the international community's stance, the fact is that Israel claims Jerusalem and controls it in practice. So in my opinion the most neutral (and accurate) thing to do is to include it, but with a prominent note next to it explaining the controversy. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Countries have explicitly stated that they do not, at this time, consider any of Jerusalem to be a part of Israel. Have they changed their mind since 1980? I don't know. That's irrelevant, however. Moreover, we cannot include cities which Israel claims. Israel can also, as Dailycare noted, claim Beijing. What it unilaterally claims for itself we don't care. Its international status is what is relevant. If a thief steals something, after all, even if "in practice" he controls it, it does not become his. JDiala (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

See Positions on Jerusalem: "The chief dispute revolves around Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem, while broader agreement exists regarding the Israeli presence in West Jerusalem". “WarKosign” 06:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is agreement, why are there no foreign embassies? Read the third sentence in the lead on the Jerusalem page, and this. "While the international community regards East Jerusalem, including the entire Old City, as part of the occupied Palestinian territories, neither part, West or East Jerusalem, is recognized as part of the territory of Israel or the State of Palestine". JDiala (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

See West Jerusalem: "A number of western countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States acknowledged de facto Israeli authority, but withheld de jure recognition". Jerusalem Embassy Act "was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem". Jerusalem, east and west, is de-facto the largest city governed by Israel and settled by Israeli citizens/permanent residents. There is already a note in the template about the legal complications surrounding its international recognition status. “WarKosign” 07:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no dispute regarding de facto authority. We are talking about the recognition of legitimate, legal sovereignty, however. This, so far as the evidence suggests, no country has accepted. The Jerusalem Embassy Act is irrelevant, because, in the United States, the executive branch [ie the president] has constitutional authority over foreign policy, not Congress. Thus the official US position does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. You don't need to try and obscure the issue and create some fictitious 'dispute' regarding Jerusalem. This is the unanimous opinion of the international community. JDiala (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The opinion is far from unanimous, therefore there is a dedicated article. This discussion is about a list of largest cities in Israel. Jerusalem is a city that is de-facto governed by Israel, whether it is internationally recognized or not, so it belongs on the list. Not having it in the list would misrepresent the reality. “WarKosign” 08:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@JDiala:—Dailycare did not equate Israel's claiming of Jerusalem to a hypothetical claim to Beijing. He equated including Gaza City in this list of "cities in Israel" to including Beijing. In which he is correct, in my opinion, as neither the Israeli government nor any other government considers Gaza to be in Israel. If Israel were to establish de facto control over and lay claim to Beijing or any other city outside its borders, then pass laws purporting to annex it as Israeli territory (as it has done since 1967 regarding East Jerusalem) then my stance would be the same. It should be included with a very prominent note explaining the situation. Not simply omitted. You yourself said above "Keep it strictly within the green line and strictly NPOV". See City Line (Jerusalem). The Green Line goes through the middle of Jerusalem and what we now call "West Jerusalem" is on the western side of the line. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cliftonian: Fair enough, I'll concede I misread that. However, again, there is absolutely no consensus that Jerusalem - any of it- should be considered a part of Israel. This is hardly the first time the issue of Jerusalem has been raised. Does the Jerusalem article consider it to be the capital city of Israel, or indeed even a city in Israel(as opposed to a city claimed by Israel)? No. Why, then should the article on Israel include Jerusalem? Makes no sense. Again, this discussion is pointless; it's been raised many times, and an RfC in 2013. It is not compliant with NPOV to say that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel, or that it is a city in Israel. Regarding my point Keep it strictly within the green line, that was in response to the OP's absurd proposition to include occupied Palestinian territory in the largest cities. West Jerusalem, though it's exceptional in the fact that it is within the green line, is nevertheless, per, again, the unanimous international consensus, not legally Israeli territory. The Jerusalem article states, in unequivocal terms, that "while the international community regards East Jerusalem, including the entire Old City, as part of the occupied Palestinian territories, neither part, West or East Jerusalem, is recognized as part of the territory of Israel or the State of Palestine." I cannot stress enough the fact that this discussion is almost pointless. Debating an issue which has been debating non-stop for years now is meaningless. It's best to go by the already agreed upon consensus. JDiala (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a fair amount of sympathy with the core arguments presented by Cliftonian. Since the original UN mandate which constituted an area of Israel at an extent that gained the highest level of international support the green line demarcation also came into play. If the article is to use this line as Cliftonian suggests then it should be used consistently. This would mean that East Jerusalem, its population and its sites cannot be considered as part of Israel. As far as I am concerned then the claim of Israel is either most clearly substantiated by the borders of the original UN mandate or it may be defined by the area of military control/dominance which would include Gaza, Golan and the West Bank. GregKaye 11:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not about the supposed consistency the green line demarcation has, or your somewhat binary attitude that the only borders of Israel that the article can represent are either the entire regions of military occupation or the 'original UN mandate' [do you mean the UN Resolution 181?] but, rather, what the consensus - both the international/legal/scholarly consensus, and the consensus reached by other editors - says which should dictate what this article says the borders of Israel are. JDiala (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

JDiala There is a big issue regarding the consistent use of borders in the article as the article, in I think flagarant disregard to neutrality, currently includes information on East Jerusalem, and not on other Palestinian locations. To me this looks like picking and choosing content. I readily agree that other issues are of greater importance but consistency is still an issue and agree (add: think) that the areas defined in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine should be the borders that are used within the article. GregKaye 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're bringing up the UN Partition Plan. Those are not the borders of Israel as internationally recognized. Moreover, the logical thing to do in order to maintain consistency would be to remove East Jerusalem, not add in all of the other Palestinian territories. JDiala (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You asked about "UN Resolution 181" and, in response, I commented on United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. My view is that this agreement showed "an area of Israel at an extent that gained the highest level of international support" and I cannot see what is wrong with that statement. I agree that consistency would be achieved by removing references applying to East Jerusalem. GregKaye 14:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's just irrelevant though. The partition plan was never implemented, and, moreover, even if it had considerable support then, this article is concerned with Israel's borders right now. JDiala (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How about the following compromise—we include Jerusalem in the list as "Jerusalem (West)", accompanied by the population figure for West Jerusalem only, and put a footnote as I described above, but explaining the various points of view and giving the reported population figure for the "united" Jerusalem, East and West, as claimed by the Israeli government? (the district would still be listed as "Jerusalem"). My concern is primarily that both sides of the dispute should be represented. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this is not a "let's split the difference" discussion. Jerusalem is not a part of Israel. This is the international consensus. You have not addressed that point, which is the most relevant. It should be removed. JDiala (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem is administered by Israel, settled by Israeli citizens and is considered by Israel to be its capital, so you can't say as a plain fact that it's not a part of Israel. There is a dedicated article that begins with "There are differing legal and diplomatic positions on Jerusalem held within the international community", so clearly the matter is not as simple as you're trying to present. “WarKosign” 15:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, if you can find a recent population figure for West Jerusalem. A source giving both total and east would also do, but WP:CALC can't be applied to numbers from two different sources. “WarKosign” 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, because otherwise we need to change the population figures for the whole state and it'll just mess things here. East Jerusalemites usually have permanent residency, but are included in Israel's total population. So the numbers should stay but mention that it's for Jerusalem as a whole, or that the Eastern part is disputed. Yuvn86 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done this way this discussion is idle. Should be at Template talk:Largest cities of Israel. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not moved this discussion to the right place? Are WikiProjects invited? How is Israel about West Bank? Could this be related to WP:PALESTINE? -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian, the source I cited said quite clearly: "west Jerusalem (...) most states have not recognized its sovereignty there". You can't try to dismiss this by saying that you haven't heard about it. FWIW, requests to withdraw and being under military occupation aren't the same thing. The technical term for West Jerusalem's current status is "armistice occupation". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It remains utterly contrary to NPOV to include information on East Jerusalem and perhaps any part of Jerusalem in the Israel article while not including information on all the other city areas in militarily controlled areas. Very clearly the information on East Jerusalem cannot be included if any conception of NPOV and consistency be applied. GregKaye 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your logic, nor, to be frank, much of anything you're saying. If it's a violation of NPOV to include East Jerusalem, wouldn't it be more of a violation to include the other occupied cities? JDiala (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's universally agreed that cities such as Haifa or Tel Aviv are in Israel. There is some disagreement over Jerusalem, more so over East Jerusalem, and much more (nearly complete) disagreement with the idea that cities such as Gaza city or Hebron should be considered to reside in Israel. “WarKosign” 14:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem is part of Israel because Israel says it is and controls it. De facto control is all that matters. However, for the sake of NPOV, an asterisk should be added to the Jerusalem total noting that the city is disputed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the content of discussion as above I edited the template to, I believe, an NPOV form as follows:

Largest cities or towns in Israel Israel Central Bureau of Statistics["Population, by Population Group, Religion, Age, Sex and Type of Locality". Statistical Abstract of Israel (in Hebrew and English). Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. September 11, 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2013.]
	Rank	Name	District	Pop.
West Jerusalem Tel Aviv	1	West Jerusalem	Jerusalem	(796,200)*	Haifa Rishon LeZion
	2	Tel Aviv	Tel Aviv	404,500
	3	Haifa	Haifa	269,300
	4	Rishon LeZion	Central	231,700
	5	Ashdod	Southern	211,400
	6	Petah Tikva	Central	210,800
	7	Beersheba	Southern	195,800
	8	Netanya	Central	188,200
	9	Holon	Tel Aviv	182,000
	10	Bnei Brak	Tel Aviv	161,100

 * This number includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas.

My edit note was: | city_1 = West Jerusalem |div_1 = Jerusalem District|Jerusalem | pop_1 = (796,200)* | img_1 = Knesset Building (South Side).JPG changes as per Israel talk page. (Other pictures may also be used but the Knesset image seemed appropriate to me).
WarKosign reverted my edit stating "There is no consensus to rename the city." I did not rename the city. My edit brought content in line with comments such as those of Cliftonian: "Keep it strictly within the green line and strictly NPOV". See City Line (Jerusalem). The Green Line goes through the middle of Jerusalem and what we now call "West Jerusalem" is on the western side of the line. Other editors are clearly against any unqualified reference to Jerusalem being added at all. GregKaye 12:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Your edit changed the name of the city in the list, that is renaming a city. The name of the city that is (arguably) in Israel is Jerusalem, not "West Jerusalem". Disputed status of East Jerusalem is already noted. Moreover, renaming the city makes the comment absurd: "This number [of residents in West Jerusalem] includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas." Per WP:BRD, once your bold edit was reverted, you should go to the talk page to try and convince other editors that your edit is correct, not edit war over it. “WarKosign” 13:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I object to the word "occupied." "Israeli controlled" is more neutral. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign given the content above, an option that you might have taken so as to pursue neutral content would have been to delete the entire content. Again the question is raised: how do we present content that is located to the east of the Green line? Do we include all the content include information on other cities in Palestinian territories or do we remove all reference to content to the east of the Green line? I was surprised by your revert which went directly against content of discussion presented here. Given the discussion above there was nothing bold in the edit that I made which concurred with editor views. Several editors support the view that all reference to Jerusalem should be removed as the whole region is far from the original area for the State of Israel as presented in the Partition Plan. BRD does not apply and it seems to me that you are misrepresenting the situation. Your edit so as to present information to the East of the Green line as being part of Israel against consensus here was disruptive. GregKaye 13:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: The discussion was about your proposal to add Palestinian cities such as Hebron or Gaza city, and it's clear that the consensus is not to include them. Jerusalem was discussed, but all the comments made in the last week were that it's de-facto in Israel and therefore belongs to the list, with a comment clarifying the special status of East Jerusalem. Simply renaming it in the list is wrong for several reasons, and this option certainly was not agreed upon. “WarKosign” 14:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I support WarKosign. Wikipedia should reflect reality, and the city name is Jerusalem, and not "west jerusalem". Ykantor (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I think I jumped the gun here I think that my point is still valid. The Wikipedia content at: Annexation#East Jerusalem clearly presents the following: "... On June 27, 1967, Israel unilaterally extended its law and jurisdiction to East Jerusalem and some of the surrounding area, incorporating about 70 square kilometers of territory into the Jerusalem Municipality. Although at the time Israel informed the United Nations that its measures constituted administrative and municipal integration rather than annexation, later rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court indicated that East Jerusalem had become part of Israel. In 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law as part of its Basic Law, which declared Jerusalem the "complete and united" capital of Israel. In other words, Israel purported to annex East Jerusalem.[16][17][18] The annexation was declared null and void by UNSC Resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 465, 476[19] and 478.[20]"

It is not in Wikipedia's remit to WP:ADVOCATE for a POV of an Israeli government that has been declared null and void internationally. This seems to me to be partisan editing by the contributors involved and in contravention to Wikipedia's clear guidelines on NPOV. The Israeli government have declared East Jerusalem as being part of Israel. The Palestinians and the International community disputes this. While I think it is fair to support the existence of a State of Israel. We should not present any "fact" until that "fact" has been established by agreement. GregKaye 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The Israeli government has also declared West Jerusalem to be it's capital and part of its sovereign area, which has also not been accepted internationally. So the name of the city is "Jerusalem", and the view that it would be in Israel, in part or in whole, is fringe, since Israel is the only country to hold that view. See e.g. this document concerning U.S. efforts to dissuade countries from establishing embassies in Jerusalem prior to the 1967 (that is, in West Jerusalem). --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

De-facto Jerusalem is within internationally recognized borders of Israel. It is governed by no entity but Israel. It is settled by Israeli citizens or permanent residents. De-juro positions on Jerusalem are complicated enough to warrant a dedicated article, yet de-facto status is enough to say in laymen's term that the city is in Israel, with a big disclaimer about the complications, especially regarding East Jerusalem. “WarKosign” 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Largest urban areas of Israel
This, or similar, should be the rightful title of the template as this represents the content of the source material here. The content presents a list of "Urban localities". East Jerusalem is not internationally accepted as being in Israel. GregKaye 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between a city and an "urban locality" ?“WarKosign”

Urban is an adjective pertaining to the quality of towns and cities and it may, amongst other things it may be used to describe, for instance, a single "urban dwelling" or the entire city of New York. City, Town and -wikt-urban GregKaye 09:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The document uses "ישובים עירוניים" as the term translated to "urban locality", but it could be as well be translated to "urban settlement" or "urban area" which could mean "cities, towns or conurbations". Naturally state's largest urban areas are cities, so by renaming the list from cities to "urban localities/areas/settlements" we would loose precision. What is the gain ? Do you need references to the fact that Tel Aviv and Haifa are cities and not towns or villages ? “WarKosign” 12:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"ישובים עירוניים" and "urban locality" are both used in the document but, with English being at least the predominant second language of many Israelis, there is every possibility that none of the wording was translated at all. Yeshooveem literally means places/locations sat in and 'i,roonieem is used as the correspondingly plural adjective to describe urban. Other words, wording are more commonly used to describe cities, towns and conurbations while urban locality, amongst other things, can also cover these meanings. In any case I think that the point is moot. East Jerusalem is not recognised as being an annexed part of Israel either in Palestine or by the international community.

See also search on "ישוב בעיר", "settlement, in (the) city" 15:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC) comment placed out of chronological sequence GregKaye 16:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Only West Jerusalem is in ISrael, the rest is occupied. If Israel claims anything (+RSs), that can be a footnote. Small print. By the way, did you hear what Israel said about Mexico City last time? -DePiep (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think GregKaye's "West Jerusalem" solution above is a reasonable compromise. Given the wording of UN resolution 63/30, one could argue no mention of Jerusalem should be included, but I think the compromise is reasonable. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, in a situation in which Israel makes unilateral claim to Jerusalem while both Palestine, the UN and constituent nations reject this claim, inclusion of Jerusalem in this content seems utterly unfounded on the grounds of NPOV. This seems obvious to me and I hope that editors here can see this. We can't just present content with no more than an asterisked note with incomplete content regarding the full situation. If anything reference might be made to Jerusalem as being intended to be an international city with rights of access to all. GregKaye 07:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I see two problems with this solution:

1. The name of the city not "West Jerusalem". It can be easily solved by listing it as Jerusalem (west) or something like it.
2. As far as I know, there is no official source for population of west portion of Jerusalem alone. “WarKosign” 07:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

1. West Jerusalem is the Wikipedia designation for the "Urban area", "Urban locality" to the west of the Green line. WarKosign it you want to propose a change in designation of this then you should submit a RM as per normal procedure. The original UN intention was for the whole of Jerusalem to be a separate entity under international regime. War ensued and, at one interval, battle lines were drawn. The resultant situation was reminiscent of a number of divided or otherwise partitioned cities such as East and West Berlin. Berlin was united with the unification of Germany. There has been no unification of Israel with the West Bank. The lack of recognition of West Jerusalem is arguably shown in the prevalence of foreign embassies located in Tel-Aviv although I wouldn't be surprised if moderately better accessibility to the airport and, more importantly, much better access to the beach etc. were also factors. This, however is my original research in acknowledgement that the beach is very nice but, all the same, I think there is valid call for the complete removal of Jerusalem from the listing.
2. I agree that there is a problem in regard to the lack of specific information on West Jerusalem but, if anything, this constitutes reasoning for a removal of West Jerusalem from the list. It is a problem raised by the Israeli authorities who make unilateral claim to Jerusalem in contradiction to UN mandates. Wikipedia is not here to WP:ADVOCATE for political assertions made in Israel but to present NPOV content. Both Palestine and elements in the International community variously reject Israeli claims to Jerusalem. GregKaye 10:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of your posts are confusing, GregKaye. I don't see what the issue is, the article mentions more than once the disputed status of Jerusalem and the different views on control of the Eastern part and the city as a whole. Yuvn86 (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yuvn86 I have tried to be as clear as I can. Please specify which posts have you found confusing and how and I will be happy to try to clarify. Put simply, the section presents population in/of Israel. We can use any connecting wording that we like such as city, towns, urban locations or urban areas but the issue remains the same. The populations are presented as being in/of Israel. The Palestinians and several elements in the International community do not consider various parts of Jerusalem as rightfully being Israeli property. Information regarding East Jerusalem certainly should not be included here or on pages like List of Israeli cities.

On another point I find the divisions of urban locations as used to be quite interesting interesting. The continuous urban area around Tel-Aviv carries into areas such as Petah Tikva, Bnei Brak, Holon, and Rishon LeZion. I think that its quite curious that, despite a recent history of separation between East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem and the notable differences in ethnic populations, that Israeli authorities has chosen to view Jerusalem as a single entity while considering various areas in the Tel Aviv centred conurbation as being separate entities. A great number of people I've known living in Holon worked in Tel Aviv centre. I wouldn't be surprise, if Israel had an interest in making Tel-Aviv its capital, that all of its continuous urban area would be considered as one while Jerusalem might be considered to remain divided. I find the description of Tel-Aviv as being the second city of Israel to be quite questionable and politically convenient but this is just personal opinion. GregKaye 13:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Tel Aviv is a single city. Gush Dan consists of Tel Aviv and its surrounding cities. There are many reasons they are not considered one city. History is one of these reasons: Petah Tikva and Rishon LeZion for example were founded decades before Tel Aviv. There are long-standing plans to unify the local authorities, yet there is very little progress, probably because official are afraid to loose their jobs as number of position for them would shrink. “WarKosign” 19:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I took a look how List of cities in Israel handles Jerusalem. It doesn't. It redirects to List of Israeli cities, which includes Israeli cities that are not properly in Israel, such as Ariel. Before the list, the article explains that it lists cities reported by Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) and that some of them are located at areas that are not recognized as being in Israel. I think this subtle distinction - between cities in Israel and Israeli cities solves the issue. “WarKosign” 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign I have also seen this article which, on the clear basis of the above discussion, is shown to be extremely flawed and shows extreme POV. How can Ariel, a small settlement rated to accommodate 18,638 people (who presumably presumably retain voting rights in Israel despite their living locations) and built relatively recently within Palestinian territories, be considered to be a "city" in Israel while Hebron and Nablus (with populations of 563,146 and 426,132 respectively who largely are not given the rights to vote) are not counted as cities in Israel. WarKosign, it seems to me that you are argumentatively not getting the point that locations within the Palestinian territories are not, either by the Palestinian community or internationally, considered to be part of Israel. According to NPOV, these places cannot be directly listed. GregKaye 14:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: If it was a list of "Largest cities in Israel or Palestinian Territories" than clearly both Hebron and Nablus would belong there. Ariel is not a city in Israel, but it is a city (as defined by the CBC) and it is Israeli, therefore it is on the list of Israeli cities. It is an illegal settlement in the West Bank; the section before the list describes its status and it's location in the West Bank is clearly visible in the list.

Quite similarly, Jerusalem (east+west) is not legally a city in Israel, but it is a city de-facto managed by Israel and its population consists of Israeli citizens and permanent settlers. The difference between Jerusalem and Ariel is that nobody claims that Ariel (or parts of it) are/should be a Palestnian city, and this difference should be clearly noted. Removing Jerusalem from the list of Israeli cities is a misrepresentation of reality and sources. “WarKosign” 14:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Another possibility to follow is List of cities administered by the Palestinian National Authority. Does anyone dispute the fact that Jerusalem as a whole is administered by Israel ? “WarKosign” 22:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

References

UN and Israel views on borders

I have unilaterally changed the section title to the above from "Edit Warring by User:WarKosign" on the view that it is best not to highlight editors names in section titles but to address content. I believe that there is guidelines support for this change but this change does not reflect my position on the issue concerned. GregKaye 10:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of the guidelines on this issue. I will not make the mistake again. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign has twice reverted the article to his version removing all reference to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in regard to Israel's borders. The version WarKosign is pushing states "The borders of the new state were not specified." The version that states "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN, but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries." would be a more NPOV. Pro-Jewish/Anti-Arab groups in generally push a point of view the borders defined in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine should not be considered a part of the history of Israel. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: Consensus on the article before GregKaye added the {cn} tag was "The borders of the new state were not specified". I supplied the missing reference for the fact that it was decided intentionally not to mention the the partition plan in Israel's declaration of independence and removed the irrelevant wikilink. You did not provide any support for calling my edit NPOV, merely reverted it for no particular reason. Now you opened this section which assumes bad faith. If you disagree with the edit please state your reasons, do not attack the person making it. “WarKosign” 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we both know you are misrepresenting your edits. Your first revert was to change "The borders of the new state were not [United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine|specified]." to "The borders of the new state were not specified.", removing the hyperlink to United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Your second revert today was to change "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN, but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries." back to your first revert. Both times you reverted the article to a less-NPOV, that removed the reference to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

My first edit was to replace {cn} with a citation saying that the declaration intentionally did not specify the borders of Israel, those of the partition plan or other. I also removed the wikilink to the partition plan that became irrelevant with this citation. The second edit was a revert of your factually incorrect claim the partition plan actually defined the borders of the State of Israel (rather than being just a proposal that was never implemented). If you have a source that supports your claim, kindly point to it. “WarKosign” 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

When Israel was founded, it stated that it was "prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly". Oncenawhile (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: how does this statement prove that "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN" ? “WarKosign” 21:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It proves that Israel was prepared to cooperate with agencies ... that presented borders for the proposed Jewish State. WarKosign I am perplexed that, when you saw Gouncbeatduke edit on this you did not edit so as to give a representative picture of what I would regard as a more complete story but simply reverted to, what seems to me, to be a one sided presentation. I do not see this action as being conducive to building a NPOV encyclopaedia. GregKaye 00:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: "That day, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate. Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries." These two sentences together imply the incorrect notion that the borders of the newly declared State of Israel were "specified" by the partition plan, while the source clearly says "The initial draft stated that the boundaries of the state would be those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947. The inclusion of this was rejected by the larger committee charged with approving the draft by a vote of 5-4.", meaning that the borders of the state were not "specified" by the plan.

The partition plan is already mentioned two sentences earlier, and we could add that it was initially accepted by the Zionist movement but rejected by the Arab leaders, therefore never implemented. I think it's redundant to add these details in this article since there is already a wikilink to the partition plan which has these details. “WarKosign” 06:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh Look. Its a specification.

Here another presentation.

WarKosign Borders have clearly been presented. There are even maps that give the details.
The text previously contained the erroneous or otherwise misleading statement "The borders of the new state were not specified." Who added this?

• I added "citation needed" here
• You added your citation here which also removed the very relevant wikilink which, amongst other things, indicated a version of a specification providing map.
• Gouncbeatduke then amended text to "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN, but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" here with explanation "replace POV-pushing with NPOV version of article cited
• You made your objection based revert here stating "Factually incorrect - UN revision plan suggested borders for "a" state, not "the" state that was declared."
• I then reverted so as to present the text, <nowiki>"Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the [[United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine|UN]] but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries."</nowiki>

If you wanted to present encyclopaedic information why couldn't you have edited to something like this final version? Borders have been very clearly and obviously proposed. GregKaye 08:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: What you wrote isn't quite wrong, but it is redundant and out of chronological order. This is the chronological order, correct me if I'm wrong:

1. UN suggested the partition plan (which you could call "a specification" of the borders, although the article never uses the term).

2. The plan was not accepted (initially accepted by the Zionists but rejected by the Arab leaders)

3. Israel's independence was declared, intentionally not specifying any borders, those suggested by the plan or any other borders.

4. 1948 Arab–Israeli War broke out and the eventual armistice line became the de-facto border.

You added a tag for the article not having a reference for #3 - I fixed it. #2 did not appear in the article and I don't mind adding it (although I do think it's UNDUE in the lead), but it's chronological order is before the declaration of independence, not after it. We could go with something like this:

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of the Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine. The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations. Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division. The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate. The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration. Neighboring Arab armies invaded the former Palestinian mandate on the next day and fought the Israeli forces.

“WarKosign” 08:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You have done a good job of regurgitating the anti-Arab narrative. Wikipedia should not use the anti-Jewish or anti-Arab narrative, but a NPOV. The current version of the article is a much more NPOV than what you are suggesting. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

“WarKosign” 08:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• WarKosign There are more straight forward ways for you to admit, "you are right" than for you to say to me, "What you wrote isn't quite wrong". I continue to view your earlier edits as sticking to your POV rather then editing to improve a neutral encyclopaedia.

1. UN suggested the partition plan (which anyone could call "a specification" of the borders and I think the article should use some similarly descriptive term to describe its intergovernmental action).

2. The plan was initially accepted by the Zionists and this is an important point. It was accepted while it was expedient. I am certainly a Zionist to these limits but international law should be followed. The UN plan was rejected by the Arab leaders and this was their problem.

3. Israel's independence was declared and within the context that Zionists had agreed to the plan and to its provisions.

4. 1948 Arab–Israeli War broke out. Israel advanced to the [[Green Line|armistice line]]. It it chose not to withdraw to its internationally planned limits. GregKaye 23:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye and Gouncbeatduke: factual correctness comes before promoting your favorite POV.

1. The plan was initially accepted by one side but not another, there was never an official binding document based on the plan's borders. Eventually the plan was rejected by both sides and not implemented. I added a reference for this point.

2. Israel's declaration of independence did not specify any borders, it is evident from reading the declaration itself as well as the secondary source I added.

I tried a compromise edit to incorporate these facts while otherwise keeping the wording that you prefer, please give it a read. “WarKosign” 04:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I support WarKosign proposal. The partition plan was accepted by the Yishuv, but rejected by the Arabs. During the last weeks before the Mandate end, there was a discussion concerning the Independence declaration text. Sharet initial text specified the partition plan borders but Ben Gurion said that if the Arabs will invade, than Israel won't be limited by the partition borders anymore. Hence, Israel's borders were not mentioned in the text. Ykantor (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign "factual correctness comes before promoting your favorite POV." Please remember this when editing to flagrantly misleading text such as "The borders of the new state were not specified." The plan was initially accepted by the advocates of the forming Jewish State. This was the context of its formation and this should be rightly, factually and encyclopaedically said. Please also see WP:INDCRIT. If you have an example of where you think an editor is promoting POV beyond neutrality then state it clearly. Otherwise don't slander editors. GregKaye 08:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What is misleading in: "The borders of the new state were not specified."? Ykantor (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

They were specified by the UN partition plan (which was not implemented), but not by the declaration of independence. I assumed it was obvious that this sentence that appeared immediately after the declaration obviously referred to it, but apparently it wasn't obvious to everybody. “WarKosign” 11:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

On the day of founding of the new state, Israel stated its intentions to implement the borders specified by the UN. This is recorded in the Israeli Declaration of Independence, per my quote above. We cannot state that the borders were "not specified" without noting Israel's stated intention to implement the UNGA 181 borders. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your quote: "prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly". In my opinion, it is not the same like implementing the borders specified by the UN. Would you like to ask for RFC or a dispute resolution for the meaning of this quote? Ykantor (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Oncenawhile that stating that the borders were "not specified" is too confusing without covering the Jewish Agency's stated intention to implement the UNGA 181 borders. I think the right place for all this detail is in the "Independence and first years" section, the lead is becoming way too detailed. The UNGA 181 borders were ultimately (post 15 May 1948) not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries. All the additional detail of the May 14 & 15 status should be covered in the "Independence and first years" section. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yours: " the Jewish Agency's stated intention to implement the UNGA 181 borders". Are you sure? Ykantor (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor I would be interested to see the actual wording which, of course, should best be cited but I cannot see that it could have happened in any greatly variant way. The British and the UN have both been known for talking and checking understandings. The UN decision was made regarding a plan of partition and, within this context, sanction was given for migration to Palestine. You can also provide information on Jewish Agency responses. GregKaye 10:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the UN in http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch2.pdf "The Jewish Agency accepted the resolution despite its dissatisfaction over such matters as Jewish emigration from Europe and the territorial limits set on the proposed Jewish State." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I see two problems in the lead regarding the borders definition:

1. "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" quotes Harris, which does support this statement. I did provide a proper source for this claim which Gouncbeatduke removed for reasons I cannot understand.

2. Israel's declaration of independence did not specify its borders. Harris specifically says so. This statement was repeatedly removed, and I would like to understand your reasoning. We could say that the declaration did mention the partition plan but intentionally did not mention the borders. “WarKosign” 07:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose to return the sentence: "Israel's declaration of independence did not specify its borders.", and here is a source : [Yaacov Bar Siman Tov (19 September 2014). Justice and Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Routledge. pp. 61–. ISBN 978-1-317-68755-9.] . Ykantor (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is way too much detail for the lead. Has any country's declaration of independence every specified borders? I know the USA's does not. The lead keeps getting bogged down in the minutia of anti-Arab narratives. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Before GregKaye's and your edits, there was a single sentence: "The borders of the new state were not specified". We can add "by the declaration" to make it unambigous. UN division plan was already mentioned and linked to a few sentences before, I do not think it's DUE to discuss the borders of a rejected plan in this article's lead. What exactly is anti-Arab in stating a plain and well-documented fact ? “WarKosign” 20:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign I find the presentation of a single negative statement regarding borders to be unbalanced, unencyclopaedic, utterly on one partisan side of POV and disruptive. Normally information is presented in the form of what legislation does and in regard to its significance. No map has been added. No comment on the intentions on the division or the like and yet a negative is still added. The description should show, with encyclopaedically presented limitation, what the partition plan did do. GregKaye 08:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: this discussion began when you tagged with {{cn}} the claim that the borders of the state were not specified. Now there are references, and it is clarified that the sentence refers to the declaration of independence and not to the borders suggested by the UN partition plan. The plan is mentioned earlier in the same paragraph. I do not object to adding "The UN plan specified borders that were eventually not recognized by either side", but I don't see the point. I still do not understand what is this alleged partisan POV vs NPOV. There are different POVs when there is a dispute over the facts - are there any disputed facts in this matter ? “WarKosign” 09:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I would use the phrase "The UN plan specified borders that were eventually not recognized by either side" because it is more direct and definitely neutral. There is a difference between borders not specified and borders being suggested but not recognized. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

PointsofNoReturn has suggested another NPOV way of stating the facts. Like all NPOV statements, it is unlikely to make it into the article as the Israel article is an non-NPOV Anti-Arabism narrative designed to hide the fact that UN set borders in 1947 (and most Wikipedia editors want to keep it that way). Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1. UN plan suggested/specified borders but was not implemented.

2. Israel's declaration of independence did not specify the borders.

Both facts are well-documented. #2 is far more relevant to this article, #1 is arguably UNDUE here. What is POV in presenting fact #2 ? “WarKosign” 18:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The UN Plan that conceived Israel is not Undue. Honestly, it should be in the article. Your second point is also valid. That should be in the article. However, just mentioning Israel's declaration without mention the surrounding nations' take would be placing all of the burden on Israel for the current crisis in the Middle East. That is not NPOV. If you are going to mention Israel's declaration of independence, you have to mention the surrounding countries' view of the UN Plan too. That is why I think the above statement is the best sentence for the lead because it mentions both sides of the debate. Would you want to put this to a vote (and possibly an RfC), or do you want to discuss this further? Honestly, this debate could have an entire paragraph in the history section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

At last some explanation of the elusive POV issue. I do not think the definition (or lack thereof) of the borders in Israel's declaration of independence has any bearing for responsibility for the conflict. Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division. If Israel was declared within the plan borders, they would still invade it. I do think that the actual border (or lack thereof) that Israel had after its declaration of independence is of more interest in an article on Israel than a planned border that was not eventually implemented. Of course it's the other way around for the article on the division plan. “WarKosign” 22:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A recent attempt to present a historical context to Israel's original territorial area was made by the humbly named, yet irregular editor, SpeckInTheUniverse. S/he changed: The borders of the new state were not specified to The borders of the new state were "within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations", as stated in the letter from the authorised agent of The Jewish Agency in Palestine, Eliahu Epstein, to President Truman dated 14 May 1948 [{{cite web |url=http://trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/3-5.pdf |title= Letter of Proclamation to President Truman |date=14 May 1948 |publisher=Truman Library}}] here. The letter concerned began, "I have the honour to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as and independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, ..." This seems to be an extremely notable text regarding the early frontier boundaries of the newly formed state of Israel. Israel had accepted these boundaries. Circumstances then changed but, to be encyclopaedic, the article should clearly state the original conditions of Israel's national setup. GregKaye 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like something that's important to add to Israeli Declaration of Independence.“WarKosign” 22:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This book quotes this letter but also says "the declaration did not specify any borders for Israel". “WarKosign” 04:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a more relevant content to add to the article on Israel than a scholars interpretation that "The borders of the new state were not specified". That quote continues: "But in a message to President Truman urging him to recognize Israel, the Agency said it was proclaiming statehood "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nation in its Resolution of November 29, 1947." Use of the designation "Eretz Israel" suggested, however, that broader claims might be intended. (add: this last statement is again interpretation and is presented in relation to lands which were not legally designated to the Jewish State). Truman immediately extended de facto recognition of Israel. That recognition led---according to Dean Rusk, director of the State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs---to "pandemonium" on the floor of the UN General Assembly, since delegates (including U.S. delegates) felt that the United Nations should establish a temporary trusteeship." Basically the agency established Israel "within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations". This was commented on in political correspondence and yet, in time of war, Israel still took further lands. I would be interested to see how the specified interpretation/reference is substantiated. A "partition plan" was clearly presented with maps provided as reference. GregKaye 10:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

We have conflicting hints for the intentions of the committee that wrote the declaration. On one hand they mention the partition plan and later send this letter, indicating that the borders are "within the frontiers", which could mean exact adherence to the plan borders or a subset of the territory. On the other they mention "Eretz Israel", which could mean all of Mandatory Palestine or even more. We should avoid speculations and stick to the facts. “WarKosign” 12:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

What GregKaye is proposing is a NPOV representation of the facts. What WarKosign is pushing is an anti-Arab cherry-picked version of the facts. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: I urge you to take this statement back. "Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously". You are welcome to state your arguments for the changes that GregKaye and you would like to introduce into the article. Neither you nor GregKaye bothered to explain what exactly was non-neutral in the way article was before your factually incorrect edits.“WarKosign” 17:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with you other than you editing behavior, as far as I know you are a good person. I think we both recognize that most of your edits to date push a pro-Jewish POV, and I don't see how we can make progress towards a NPOV article without being honest about that. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a pro-Jewish or a pro-Arab POV, just that NPOV Wikipedia article is not the place to express it. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have a policy-based reason NOT to restore the statement that Israel's declaration of independence did not specify the borders ? “WarKosign” 21:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, I think it gives undue weight to borders being specified in a declaration of independence. I am not aware of any country's declaration of independence specifying borders. The United States' declaration of independence does not, and the fact is does not is never mentioned in the United States article. I think this statement was a relic of someone's original research that had incorrectly presumed borders being specified in a declaration of independence was important. Gouncbeatduke (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• The text in the lead currently states, "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries." I personally think that this is already displaying a pro-Israeli bias as reference to Israel's acknowledgement of Israel's boundaries, frontiers gets no mentioned. If the article does not display information that is presented in original documentation I see no reason to add reference to an absence of a content in a specific document. WarKosign, it looks to me that your advocacy of this statement of a negative is symptomatic of one sided POV pushing in the article. GregKaye 08:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I still do not understand what is inherently POV and pro-Israel in saying that the declaration did not specify the borders. The independence section in the article says in similar length that Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan and that it did not mention the borders in the declaration. Yet, you are insisting to have only one of them in the lead and calling it NPOV. Also, while initially Jewish Agency accepted the partition and it was not implemented because of objections of the Arab leaders, you insist not to have it in the lead and call this well-documented fact "pro-Israeli narrative". Why are you cherry-picking facts related to the borders ? What makes the UN plan that was eventually not implemented (because of its rejection by the Arab leaders) more WP:DUE than the declaration that did happen ? “WarKosign” 20:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing all the editor inputs here, I looks to me like most think the UN view on the borders should be included and is not WP:UNDUE as you claimed. Do you want the UN reference removed, or is there some other reason you want this? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote before, I do not object to including the partition plan in the lead although I do think it is unnecessary clutter. The borders specified by an unimplemented plan are far less important than the fact that the state was declared without specific borders. You haven't answered my question: what reason is there to remove the declaration not specifying borders, and instead mention borders of a plan that was never officially accepted ? As for "most", it seems there is no consensus for the change that you are pushing therefore the default is to go back to the stable version. “WarKosign” 22:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Most editors have spoken in favor of including the UN POV as well as the Israel Government POV. Is there any wording that includes the UN POV that you would find acceptable? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this version ?

Why do you see it as UN POV vs Israel government POV ? Each of the two statements (UN plan specified borders, Israel's declaration of independence did not specify the borders) are well documented and undisputed facts, not some opinion that should be balanced by an opposing opinion.“WarKosign” 16:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Some users in this discussion seem to indicate that the UN has a current view on the Israeli borders. Perhaps it does, in which case it should be discussed. Arguing that the UN's partition plan almost 70 years ago constitute the current UN view would appear to be WP:OR. To the best of my knowledge, the UN has not once argued that the proposed borders that the Arab states rejected and which never materialized are the actual borders.Jeppiz (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2015

English Please add the English as official language in Israel. Israel was never established law that defines the language formality. It was decided on three major languages are Hebrew, Arabic and English. (Primarily for Hebrew). In addition, English is widely used in signs, and for external relations and trade. 85.65.44.158 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This source says that Arabic is the second official language. If you can find some reliable source that says that English is also an official language in Israel, please paste it here and re-active the request. “WarKosign” 20:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

Please add the missing information in the independence section on the right side of the page: The existence years of the "Kingdom of Israel" and these of the "Kingdom of Jehuda" so that people will not be misled about Israelis historic connection to their land and about the fact that Jews lived in Israel way before Arabs did which is believed by many as the opposite and creates an unfortunate untrue belief that there is no place for Jews in Israel. 24.84.133.58 (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the modern State of Israel. It already has a section dedicated to ancient history and links to Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and Kingdom of Judah. “WarKosign” 07:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

New section: controversy

This article treats the subject as if Israel were "just another country" like Canada or France. The reality is that a huge portion of the world views Israel as illegitimate and it is perhaps the most hated country in the world. Regardless of whether editors agree with these opinions, it is intellectually dishonest to exclude the enormous controversy inherent to Israel from what is intended to be an informative article. While it is mentioned that Arab and Muslim countries consider Israel an enemy, it is not mentioned that they (and almost certainly the majority of people around the world) hold particular exception to certain Israeli policies such as the persistence of military occupation over millions of people, discriminatory housing legislation in "Israel proper", settlement expansion and creeping apartheid policy in the West Bank, the ongoing siege of Gaza, indiscriminate use of force against civilians in Gaza as well as neighboring countries, continuous violations of other countries' sovereignty, etc., as well as being a state created out of a premeditated act of ethnic cleansing facilitated by ruling European colonial powers. To exclude these crucially important events from an article dealing with Israel is bias.96.33.227.245 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There are articles dedicated to Antisemitism and Criticism of Israel. Wikipedia has a policy of Neutral point of view: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." “WarKosign” 19:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unbelievable low level anti Israel propaganda. Israel is not perfect of course, but such a biased view which is full of lies I have not seen yet. Ykantor (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's quite literally impossible to dispute any of the things just listed. You can, for example, say "I agree with the ethnic cleansing because...", but you can not say "the ethnic cleansing did not happen" with any more seriousness than saying "the holocaust did not happen." In any case, what the other poster referred to as "criticism of Israel" has played a massive role in Israeli history and policy, and it is impossible to understand any of Israel's apparently bizarre decisions without understanding the fact that it is hated, and why it is hated. This is why it needs to be included in the main page.96.33.227.245 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

- Lies :"Israel as illegitimate...discriminatory housing legislation...apartheid policy in the West Bank...ongoing siege of Gaza...state created out of a premeditated act of ethnic cleansing...facilitated by ruling European colonial powers."

-"Arab and Muslim countries consider Israel an enemy"- some does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel and wants one Arab state instead of Israel and the PA, in which most of the Israeli population will have to disappear. Here the description is totally misleading.

-turning upside down the reason and the resulted action: "indiscriminate use of force against civilians in Gaza as well as neighboring countries...continuous violations of other countries' sovereignty" that means that when Israel is attacked with rockets and shooting it is fine, but when Israel reacts it is condemned.

- Such low level propaganda is a shame. Ykantor (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you indeed want to improve the article and not only to promote your opinion, what specifically would you like to change in the article ?“WarKosign” 20:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• 96.33.227.245 While I sympathise to an extent to what you say I think that you should get things in context. Please see the List of states with limited recognition to find a host of varyingly controversial Geopolitical entities. Unlike some of the entities mentioned Israel has a mandate from the UN to exist as described within an original proposal for a partition of Palestine. I think it is important to differentiate between the existence of this form of Jewish State and the current condition of a nation exerting military, political, economic, financial etc. influence over other populations. GregKaye 10:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• WarKosign From what I have seen there are some quite marked the differences in the content, tome and stance of the Antisemitism article and that of articles such as Anti-Americanism and Anti-British sentiment and I personally think that this too is a sign of WP:Tendentious editing. It is also of personal concern to me that terms like "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Zionism" have been adopted when the common designation for Jewish people is Jewish and the common designation for Israel is Israel. As I am sure you have had the chance to see Criticism of Israel acts as redirect to Criticism of the Israeli government. While I fully support the existence of Israel I can also see that it could be relevant to start a section on Criticism of Israel. GregKaye 10:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• There is an article on Criticism of the United States government, but there no such section in the article on USA. Why should there be such a section in this article ?
• The term Antisemitism was coined by the antisemites in an attempt to give scientific credibility to their prejudice. The term is a known misnomer, but we are stuck with it.
• Zionism is the ideology that culminated in the reestablishment of the modern state of Israel. Not every criticism of Israel's government is anti-Zionism. Israel's extreme right wing traditionally criticizes the government for being too soft. Neturei Karta are an example of Israeli citizens that oppose Zionism. Who and where confused "anti-zionism" with "criticism of Israel" ? There are opinions that often Israel is critisized out of blind hatred, i.e. new antisemitism. Comments made by the IP user are a good example - instead of legitimately criticizing problematic decisions made by Israel, the user requires Israel not to be treated like "just another country" but as "illegitimate and ... perhaps the most hated country in the world".
• Criticism of a state is criticism of the actions made by the state, that is decisions made by the state's government. Is there criticism of Israel that does not concentrate on the decisions that a government (or the Zionist organizations before its founding) made ? Criticism of Weather in Israel doesn't sound like a very interesting article. “WarKosign” 12:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The United States has not maintained extended control over other populations, has not controlled water rights to populations (I found a look at the article's satellite image to be quite instructive) and is not accused of systematically supporting apartheid type practice. A better analogy would be South Africa or a similar (POV word) regime.

Antisemitisch and Antisemitismus were the German words coined by Austrian Jewish and German authors respectively and we have since become stuck with anti-Semitic terminologies in English and a wide range of other languages despite the fact that the common name for Jewish people is "Jewish". My suspicion is that PR has historically performed some aspects of a good job.

I would say that Israel is both "perhaps the most loved country in the world" and "perhaps the most hated country in the world". Different strokes for different folks. However I would not go as far as to claim that either the love or hatred was totally blind. Blinkered may arguably be a better description. There is criticism of "Zionist" populations that have gone way beyond the establishment of a Jewish State and have established expansive settlements in Palestinian territories. There is criticism of various sections of Israeli population that foster extreme views. On the other hand there are plenty of really chilled out Israelis who have opposing views. Our job here is to present all relevant content neutrally and factually. I am not saying that this necessarily happens but it would be helpful if editors here did not consider criticism and critical observation to be rooted in hatred and anti-Semitism. In many cases constructive and observant criticism is the most beneficial thing that can be offered. GregKaye 12:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

- yours: "The United States has not maintained extended control over other populations". What about Poerto Rico? the Philippines? their relations with the Indians - the natives?

- yours:"controlled water rights to populations". What do you mean?

- yours:"systematically supporting apartheid type practice". This is a lie, marketed to people who does not know what is the meaning of apartheid.

- yours:"analogy would be South Africa or a similar". There nothing similar in this analogy. It is just a piece of unbased propaganda.

- yours:"My suspicion is that PR has historically performed some aspects of a good job." What do you mean?

- yours:"constructive and observant criticism is the most beneficial thing that can be offered." I fully agree. A fair criticism should use the same criteria for the same cases, and should not create special one of criteria in order to use it against Israel only.

- yours:"have established expansive settlements in Palestinian territories". I am an Israeli, and oppose the continuation of those settlements. However, in my opinion the main obstacle is the "right of return". The Israeli public will never accept this big scale population move that will convert Israel to one more Arab state with a minority of Jews. If you are interested in the Israeli public view, you can read Stop Giving Palestinians a Pass by Dennis Ross. BTW Dennis Ross was not shy when he criticized the Israeli government, so his not a pro Israeli addict. Ykantor (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

yours: "The United States ... their relations with the Indians - the natives?" that's powerful and pretty damn barbaric IMO. Re: Puerto Rico see Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012. The British certainly have not had clean hands over the centuries but, even though the UK shelled out vast sums to bail out Scotland at the time of the union, we were prepared to give a free pass to leave on the mere condition of a majority Scottish vote.

Ykantor

yours: "what do you mean?" See for yourself via search: "water rights" AND (Israel OR Palestine)

your: "This is a lie, marketed to people who does not know what is the meaning of apartheid." Its marketed in books like Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by the likes of Jimmy Carter a US president who was well versed in apartheid political issues.

yours: "There nothing similar in this analogy". There are certainly differences. People can use the same buses and shops but from my five years of living in Israel and my occasional trips into West Bank areas it became clear that preferential treatments are routinely given.

Yours "What do you mean?" I suspect that the use of referential use of Semitic and Zionistic terminologies have been proactively fostered. All other peoples use direct reference to the name of their people and their nation in relation to issues of prejudice.

Yours: "in my opinion the main obstacle is the "right of return"." This is something that I think is vital on a number of levels. Israel ranked a worrying third in the world on the Population Matters overshoot index relating to its population : natural resources ratio. I haven't been able to track down the article on immigration rights from africa but this was a case that I argued with against Wikipedia POV pushers that seemed to think that Israel could have open borders without consequence. We have similar immigration problems in the UK and I think that a number of countries, especially those in the middle east, will be fucked when non-renewables run out and we have to, for instance, grow our fuels. On other issues, two migrations were involved in the Partition of India. Something like this, with base references being made to area population levels at time or partition with later immigration also taken into account might work. Some situations of paying people to give up passports might also work. GregKaye 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

-@GregKaye: USA and Puerto Rico. Sure, there is a difference. The USA is one of the richest countries and virtually annexing the tiny Puerto Rico does not carry a risk of converting the huge USA to one more "puerto Ricans" state. Tiny Israel can not annex and give full rights to the Palestinians and then become one more Arab state. In my opinion the solution is immediate and unilateral Israeli retreat from the west bank, similar to the retreat from Gaza some 10 years ago. However, it seems that a majority of the Israeli public won't accept it, since there is a common belief that the Arabs want to slaughter us. (I am not joking). The situation was the same just before 1977 surprise visit of president Sadat in Israel, and then the Israeli public changed its mind overnight. I hope that the Palestinians would adapt Sadat's principles.

-Water rights and Palestinians. I read the BBC article (appears 2nd in your suggested search). It has only a slight bias against Israel, which is good of course. The article does not really explain what is the source of the current water problem in the west bank. Does Israel stop them from drilling more wells? I do not know. Generally, the BBC article misses altogether the dramatic change of the water situation, due to the relatively cheap availability of desalinated water. Anyway, the Water situation in Gaza is really poor, although Israel retreated about 10 years ago. I found an internet article (I guess it is pro Israeli) that claims: "Hamas and the Palestinian Authority in general failed to manage Gaza’s civil affairs. Even prior to the July 2014 Operation Protective Edge, an alarming collapse of Gaza’s physical infrastructures was evident: electricity, sewage, and most gravely, the supply of drinking water". So, it might be that their problems are self made. Do you know what is their real water problem?

-Apartheid. Israeli is indeed maltreating the Palestinians but Apartheid is something else. Apartheid is a racist principle. A black guy could not "move" to the whites class, but a Palestinian can get Israeli citizenship, mainly through marriage, and an Arab Israeli can not lose his citizenship. Black in Johannesburg were stripped of their citizenship and became citizens of remote black states, so they could continue to live in their home but as foreigners. (I am not sure to what extent it was really applied). There are a lot of other differences.

-Palestinians refugees. It is clear that the refugees should be generously compensated and start new and better life. Israel can not afford to let them return , but there is plenty of available space around, and in 2000 Camp David Summit there were discussions about proposing them to immigrate to Canada and other places. Ykantor (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor I greatly appreciate your reference to tiny Israel with it being, by my calculation, the size of a less well irrigated Wales. In my opinion the solution many years ago might have been a withdrawl to an approximation of partition plan "boundaries" but keeping control of a thoroughfare strip to a Jerusalem which was meant to have been under international jurisdiction. Then, if expansionist Zionists had wanted to try to buy land in "the Arab State" they might be able to do so in a similar way in which the US bought Alaska from the Russians. Israel has developed non confrontational relationships with Arab States such as Egypt and Jordan and I agree that this arms length policy should be extended to Palestinian lands. However, I think that a unilateral withdrawl just from the West Bank would result in Palestinians saying that they didn't agree to less than a withdrawl to partition plan boundaries.

I believe that it is a documented certainty that there are "Arabs want to slaughter" the Jewish people and I am certain that there are people who don't want peace. When I walked around Al-Quds university with a "Salaam / Shalom" tee-shirt, an Armenian friend who was with me was nervous for both his safety and mine. Ironically its the Arabs that Israel is in closest contact with that retain the greatest extent of animosity.

Apartheid is a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race and this certainly exists, or has done, across Israel controlled territory. On visits to the West Bank it was notable that the check point queues for Palestinians took a great deal longer than for other people. Israeli border guards would also regularly comment that I would be better off queuing in the non-Palestinian line. The British like a good queue lol.

I am uncertain of the extent to which compensation schemes would work in anything like the the current situation. There is hatred and allied dispositions prevalent amongst large sections of the Palestinian population and, in this context, I wouldn't doubt, that if compensation routes out were made available, birth rates might go up even further to take advantage. I suspect that there could be a risk of parallels to failed attempts to "control" population by opt in means in India.

back to the thread which started with the assertion "The reality is that a huge portion of the world views Israel as illegitimate and it is perhaps the most hated country in the world." The world is huge and a number of states have refused or withdrawn diplomatic recognition. There is widespread dispute regarding Israel's territorial gains including but not limited to the establishment of settlement. I agree with the nom that there are several situations with Israeli political situations that make the country (in line with several sometimes opposing arguments) a special case. GregKaye 13:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Israel is a special case. I don’t know if a new controversy section is the place to fix this. I think most of the issues being discussed here belong in an Israeli-occupied territories section. I think this article suffers from systemic bias, likely the unintentional result of the majority of the editors being English speakers from Israel, the United States and the UK, the three populations traditionally most sympathetic to Israel in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I think the Israeli-occupied territories section and several other sections need to be reworked, with editors paying particular attention to obtain a world community NPOV, and removing non-NPOV bias. I think more weight needs to be given to the UN and world community POV, to balance the article’s current focus on the Israeli Government POV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Israel should be treated much differently. In order to be neutral, its legitimacy as a state must be accepted axiomatically, and, with respect to human rights, we shouldn't have double standards; Israel, though its human rights record is appalling, is not much worse than its neighbours. Nevertheless, I do think that this article suffers from a general pro-Israel bias. Efforts should be made to curb this bias, especially considering how Israel is a pariah state in many ways, and continually violates international law. JDiala (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Creating a NPOV Israel article in regard to massacres and bombings

This article contains reference to many events where Jews are killed, such as the Coastal Road massacre. When editors attempt to add events equally important to Israel’s history with a greater number of deaths but the victims where non-Jewish, the events are immediately reverted from the article. The Deir Yassin massacre and King David Hotel bombing are two examples; no reference to either of these events has been allowed in this article. I would like to know if editors support adding references to the Deir Yassin massacre and King David Hotel bombing to balance the currently included historical events, and, if now, why? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Survey (if editors support adding references to the Deir Yassin massacre and King David Hotel bombing to balance the currently included historical events, wording to be discussed below before adding to article)

• Support giving equal weight any side in any dispute here or elsewhere. This has been extensively discussed and resolved in the thread #This article details Jewish casualties but not Arab casualties, is it giving a NPOV? above. Any editor who is deleting relevant material is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia with balanced content. Such editors should challenge themselves and likewise be challenged by others. A life is a life and a non-theistic point of view would consider each life to be of equal importance regardless of what is taught in places like some yeshiva. GregKaye 12:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Greg, are you supporting the general idea or are you supporting the actual text below?Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose and possible support To make this clear, I support adding an NPOV mention, but strongly oppose the very un-ecyclopledic and heavily POV-text suggested below.Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

How would you phrase it? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Unsure at this stage its not very clear what wording is actually being discussed.Cathar66 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Here is what I would suggest adding to 1948 history to help bring about a more NPOV:

During the massive 1948 ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel, numerous war crimes including massacres and rapes were committed by Israel Defense Forces and Zionist paramilitary groups.[Morris, Benny (2001). Righteous victims : a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-2001 (1st Vintage Books ed. ed.). New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0679744757. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)] Some of the worst massacres were the Lydda death march, the Deir Yassin massacre, the Al-Dawayima massacre, the Saliha massacre, and the Abu Shusha massacre.[Shavit, Ari. "Survival of the Fittest (an interview with Historian Benny Morris)". Haaretz, Magazine Section, 9 January 2004. Retrieved 2 February 2015.]

Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

These are quite exceptional claims that need a much better source than this partisan site. Not sure if Benny Morris's book is an acceptable source, but even if it is - it has to be balanced by other sources. “WarKosign” 19:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I ammended the wording to make it more NPOV.

The historian Benny Morris described this as justifiable ethnic cleansing which was accompanied by numerous war crimes including massacres and rapes committed by Israel Defense Forces and Zionist paramilitary groups.[Morris, Benny (2001). Righteous victims : a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-2001 (1st Vintage Books ed. ed.). New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0679744757. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)] Some of the worst massacres were the Lydda death march, the Deir Yassin massacre, the Al-Dawayima massacre, the Saliha massacre, and the Abu Shusha massacre.[Shavit, Ari Shavit (Jan. 8 2004). "Survival of the fittest". Haaretz. Retrieved 2 February 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)]

The reference is to the Haaretz site directly. Why delete?Cathar66 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The idea of an RfC is to request comments and to discuss and then insert the result of the discussion. The idea is not that everybody in the RfC insert their own versions, that is precisely what we're trying to avoid. As for your suggestion, based on what argument should we dedicate a paragraph specifically to Benny Moris's view, rather than hundreds of other historians?Jeppiz (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This version is better, but a few issues remain:

• As Jeppiz asked, why is a single historian's opinion WP:DUE here ? It is already represented in 1948 Palestinian exodus.
• The source talks about expulsion, not ethnic cleansing. From 1948 Palestinian exodus: "The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing, while others dispute this charge"
• "According to Morris" or such must be added so it is clear that the term "worst massacres" as well as the list of the events are still in his opinion and not in wikipedia voice. “WarKosign” 20:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course if Morris is to be quoted, we mustn't cherrypick. He also said "You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that were perpetrated in Bosnia, that's peanuts. In comparison to the massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad, that's chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well."“WarKosign” 20:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Gouncbeatduke, I would suggest a rephrase, representation. Some of the wording seems gratuitous. For instance I would not use "massive" unless weight was a factor. We cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice about war crimes as we are not an international court. We can only quote others unless a presentation of a clear case has already been presented. I know people who have been in the IDF who are certainly far from being rapist material so I would suggest reference to whatever atrocity as being performed by "members of", "soldiers in" or some such.. "the Israel Defence Forces". Even with ISIL I wouldn't allow "rapes were committed by ISIL forces" or by any group unless rape was used as a sanctioned weapon. I am saying this, however, without being familiar with quoted reference from your citations. WarKosign, what are the possible problems with Benny Morris who, by choice, might easily have been self designated as "Professor Benjamin..." The article is stuffed with citations from sources like the jewishvirtuallibrary.org which has been suggested to be partisan. Bringing in other sources seems to me a way to restore "balance". GregKaye 20:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I was referring to [21] as partisan, a serious newspaper quoting opinions of an established historian is a much better source.“WarKosign” 20:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign, If a suggested criteria for citation is the quotation of established notable people such as academics being quoted by serious newspapers, should we then expunge all the references from jewishvirtuallibrary.org and similar sources? GregKaye 20:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Sources that might be considered partisan should only be used for simple facts that don't leave much room for interpretation. jewishvirtuallibrary.org is used only once as the source for "The US is expected to provide the country with $3.15 billion per year from 2013–2018", and even then it's backed up by nytimes. Which similar sources do you mean ?“WarKosign” 21:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point my edit was very NPOV because I used the phrase justified genocide as it was used in the article.Cathar66 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This was the edit that I think Cathar66 had in mind above. I have no problem here in regard to factual content although I am wary of reference being made to justification for ethnic cleansing. We had a related issue raised in the ISIL article. I would also like to see clarification of the extent that the ethnic cleansing involved killing or depossession of lands (also wrong). I don't think that merely saying "The historian Benny Morris described this as justifiable ethnic cleansing..." without presenting reasoning for justification of provision of refutation may give the full story. None the less I think that the presentation of Benny Morris's interpretation of events is a great step towards NPOV from the current one sided presentation of the article. GregKaye 10:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe “During 1948, the historian Benny Morris describes a justifiable population transfer as accompanied by unjustified…” would be better? I find the Benny Morris description of justifiable ethnic cleansing fascinating, but I agree the ethnic cleansing term is problematic. Also, I agree your suggestion to say "by members of Israel Defense Forces ..." would be an improvement. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

-The horrible crimes are of course important and should be mentioned. However, the war section has about 270 words only(excluding the captions) and we have to consider what to add in terms of relative importance. There is hardly any description of the war operations or the Yishuv feeling that the invading Arab armies intended to slaughter them in accordance with their blood curdling declarations. Also, should we include massacres of Jews by Arabs ? (Haifa oil refinery, Kfar Etzion, the convoy of doctors and nurses to Mount Scopus in Jerusalem etc.)

- After the year 2000 2nd Intifhada Benny Morris changed his views. His personal opinions are that Israel could not have a chance to survive with the planned 40% (or more) Arab minority. But The historian Morris is not justifying crimes or expelling civilians. His books are very good and very honest. Please note that when he updated his book with more crimes against Arab civilians, based on new discoveries, it was already after he changed his minds. Ykantor (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should pick some neutral criteria and apply it equally to both sides, such as the number of war crime deaths. 38 civilians were killed in the Coastal Road massacre. I am not claiming 38 is the right number, just that it is a precedent set by the current editing of the article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Israel as Representative Democracy

I was informed we had to talk to resolve this, so... let's talk to resolve this. Sabot Cat (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, checking it myself, I don't need to talk to resolve a dispute, I just need to find reliable sources and add them. That's what I did. Sabot Cat (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no shortage of reliable sources taking either side of the Representative Democracy debate (see [Peled, Miko (2012). The general's son : journey of an Israeli in Palestine. Charlottesville, Va.: Just World Books. ISBN 978-1935982159. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)][BARAT, FRANK. "Why Israel is Not a Democracy". Retrieved 15 September 2014. Ilan Pappé: No, Israel is definitely not a democracy. A country that occupies another people for more than 40 years and disallow them the most elementary civic and human rights cannot be a democracy. A country that pursues a discriminatory policy against a fifth of its Palestinian citizens inside the 67 borders cannot be a democracy. In fact Israel is, what we use to call in political science a herrenvolk democracy, its democracy only for the masters. The fact that you allow people to participate in the formal side of democracy, namely to vote or to be elected, is useless and meaningless if you don't give them any share in the common good or in the common resources of the State, or if you discriminate against them despite the fact that you allow them to participate in the elections. On almost every level from official legislation through governmental practices, and social and cultural attitudes, Israel is only a democracy for one group, one ethnic group, that given the space that Israel now controls, is not even a majority group anymore, so I think that you'll find it very hard to use any known definition of democracy which will be applicable for the Israeli case.][Gorenberg, Gershom. "Is Israel a Democracy?". The American Prospect. Retrieved 20 September 2014. Whether it ends the occupation and discrimination against Arab citizens within its borders will alter our perception of whether the nation began as an imperfect democracy or a false one. Today's political battles, strangely enough, will determine not only its future but also its past.]["Israeli-Occupied Territories". http://www.freedomhouse.org/. Freedom House. Retrieved 15 September 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)] ). The central question here is: Can a country occupy another country for 48 years, allow Jews in that occupied country to become citizens and vote in Israel, not allow Arabs in that occupied country to become citizens or vote in Israel, and still be a Representative Democracy? As no country other than Israel has done anything like this in modern history, the issue is a subject of debate. As it is unlikely all most of the editors here will every come to agreement on this issue, the best option in just to leave the disputed tag in place. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I see some merit in the post above (of course it's problematic that Jews and Arab inhabitants of the West Bank are treated differently). Still, there are also a few errors in the above post, I'm afraid. There weren't any Jews in the Jordanian and Egyptian territory Israel occupied in 1967, so it's not a question of letting Jews become citizens and not letting Arabs. In the area that did become Israel after 1948, both Jews and Arabs became citizens. As for tags, the idea is never to leave a tag in place. Tags are placed to initiate a discussion, then remove the tag when the discussion has reached a conclusion. Last point, all editors don't need to come to a conclusion.Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I misspoke when I said "all", I should have said most. I believe the problem of citizenship does exist as children born in the Jewish West Bank settlements become citizens and eventually vote, while Arab children in the West Bank do not. Gouncbeatduke (talk)

But that is the case almost everywhere, it has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine. If children are born to Israeli parents in London or Paris, they also get Israeli citizenship. While there are a few countries that grant citizenship to anyone born on their territory, most countries grant citizenship to infants based on the parents' citizenship. If an Israeli couple gets a kid, no matter if the couple is Jewish or Arab, the kid will also get Israeli citizenship. I don't see how this question is connected one way or the other to the question of Israel being a representative democracy.Jeppiz (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It has everything to do with occupied Palestine and the settlements in occupied Palestine. Even strong Zionists like Theodor Meron said the Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine would be illegal under international law for exactly these reasons. Having a child in a foreign country while living there under a legal visa and having a child in an illegal settlement in an occupied country are two different issues. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the logic. Are you saying that anywhere in the world, a kid born to an Israeli couple should get Israeli citizenship except in the West Bank. Moreover, how do you connect this to the question of democracy. Kids born to Israeli (or Swedish or British) couples are Israeli (or Swedish or British), no matter where in the world they are born. Kids born to non-Israeli (or non-Swedish or non-British) couples aren't Israeli (or Swedish or British). In this matter Israeli is like any other country.Jeppiz (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There's several issues with your sources, or I'd gladly incorporate them into the article. The first of which is that they're mostly opinion pieces, WP:QS states that among other things, questionable sources are those that rely primarily on opinion. Unless we're documenting the opinions of someone, it's not appropriate to cite opinion pieces this way. Furthermore, you're cherrypicking information from Freedom House, which lists Israel as Free [22] and an electoral democracy [[23]] which is explicitly defined as being as a democracy with elections "representative of the public will" [[24]]. I personally understand your concern with deeming Israel as representative democracy without caveats, but I haven't been able to find sources which dispute its status from any reliable political index or neutral text. Sabot Cat (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a long discussion a few months ago about this which went unresolved. I've opened an RFC which will hopefully come to a more concrete conclusion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Representative Democracy

Is the phrase "Israel is a representative democracy..." present in the lead accurate and neutral? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Unless a superscript note [markup tag] is added, I would vote No. I think a superscript note could explain the West Bank is not considered democratic and that the Israeli Government claims some of the West Bank as within its borders. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I understand the feeling of needing to caveat this, as the Palestinian people are generally under the military authority of Israel without participating in their political system, but I don't think that this feeling should be acted upon when it would conflict with presenting the facts from a neutral point of view. Details of the military occupation of the Palestinian territories are already made in the lead before this statement, and consequently I don't think any readers will be misled into thinking that the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank or Gaza Strip somehow participate in the Israeli electoral system. This is especially so when the lead explicitly states that Israeli laws have not been extended to these areas. The evident consensus among political scientists and others in fields pertaining to the classification of governmental systems deem Israel a representative democracy, and contrary viewpoints would be giving undue weight to fringe theories. Sabot Cat (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the fact that Israel has a democracy (without symptoms of vote rigging within its closed system) should rightly be celebrated. However, the fact that Israel exerts militarily enforced influence over large populations that are not afforded the right to vote requires direct explanation. Israel's democracy is representative of the subsection of people within its controlled territories that it represents. If Israel wanted to be regarded as a representative democracy then it could withdraw influence from Palestinian territories. As it is the statement, at minimum, needs qualification. GregKaye 11:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with GregKaye that the "representative democracy" statement needs qualification. The Israel article contains a great deal of pro-Jewish/anti-Arab WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and needs work to move to a NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment I would like to point out WP:OR. Saying that "I don't think Israel is a democracy because of X", as in the two comments above, is by definition a moot argument at Wikipedia. What matters is whether good, respected sources say Israel is a democracy or not.Jeppiz (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment What matters is WP:NPOV and the development of neutral encyclopaedic content that fairly presents all sides of any particular story. Jeppiz, please do not polarise discussion and characterise editors as "saying" that Israel is not a democracy. My view is that the democratic elements of Israel's constitution should be celebrated but that the fact that Israel exerts militarily enforced influence over large populations that are not afforded the right to vote requires direct explanation. GregKaye 15:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to polarize in any way, just to keep the discussion focused. This is not the place to expand on personal views, no matter what those personal views are. The question here is not whether Israel is a democracy or not, the question is whether the article should say it's a democracy or not. And that decision needs to be based on reliable sources, not on our personal opinions about Israel.

Jeppiz (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

to GregKaye. yours:"do not polarise discussion and characterise editors as "saying" that Israel is not a democracy". Editors who are pushing an agenda without a wp:rs quotes, are indeed "saying". This is not the proper way to write in Wikipedia. Ykantor (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

YkantorTo be clear, Jeppiz presented in his/her 14:36, 2 February 2015 edit above: "Saying that "I don't think Israel is a democracy because of X", as in the two comments above, ...". The two comments above this edit contained none of the content the Jeppiz claimed. You have misrepresented my content by I think selectively omitting my starting "please..". I was perfectly in my rights here to politely request "please do not polarise discussion and characterise editors as "saying" that Israel is not a democracy." Jeppiz misrepresented me in the 14:36, 2 Feb edit. You have misrepresented me now. Without requesting distraction from the purpose of the thread what exactly it is that you think was improper? GregKaye 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment There are sources for Israel being a representative democracy. Are there sources saying otherwise, and if so - are they prominent enough? “WarKosign” 15:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

comment More sources:

-Democracy index, 2012 ranking list, Israel is included in the category of "Flawed democracies" [25].

-Democracy Ranking, 2013 ranking, Israel's score included in the category "High'" [26] and also [27].

-Freedom House, (the relevant one), 2014 review, status is "Free" and political rights are categorized as "Best" [28].

any comments? Infantom (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment The article should say that Israel is a democracy because the form of the government of a country is one of the most vital parts of an article about a country. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment The article should note that the definition of Israel's borders throughout the Israel article is an ever changing line depending on which pro-Jewish/anti-Arab narrative the current paragraph is trying to sell. When discussing the capital, all of Jerusalem is part of Israel. When discussing discussing democracy, suddenly the borders change, and all the sources noting the West Bank is one of the least democratic places in the world are no longer "relevant". Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The western part is in Israel, the eastern is annexed. The difference is that Jerusalem is under Israeli jurisdiction and the west bank isn't. Don't you think there is a reason why Freedom House have two different reviews about "Israel" and the "occupied territories"? Infantom (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's quite clear that Gaza and the West Bank are not in Israel, since Israel never annexed them. Parts of these territories are controlled/occupied by Israel, parts are controlled by the PNA. Palestinians living on these territories can vote in Palestinian elections, while Israeli settlers cannot.

East Jerusalem and Golan heights were officially annexed by Israel which is disputed internationally. Residents of Golan heights are full citizens and can vote in Israeli elections. East Jerusalem residents are "permanent residents" with limited rights compared to full-blown citizens.

Do you disagree with this description ? Is there a place in this article where the borders are presented differently ? “WarKosign” 20:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

In the view of UN and every other international body outside Israel, the Dome of the Rock and everything east of it is part of the West Bank. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Does the article say otherwise anywhere ? “WarKosign” 16:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. As I said before, when discussing the capital, all of Jerusalem is part of Israel (including the West Bank parts). When discussing discussing democracy, suddenly the borders change, and all the sources noting the West Bank is one of the least democratic places in the world are no longer "relevant". Is that not clear? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lead: "Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is not recognized internationally"
• Israel#Further conflict and peace treaties: "The position of the majority of UN member states is reflected in numerous resolutions declaring that actions taken by Israel to settle its citizens in the West Bank, and impose its laws and administration on East Jerusalem, are illegal and have no validity".

If there are places where East Jerusalem is described as a part of Israel in WP voice without clarifying that it's only Israel's POV that is not accepted by most of the international community it should be fixed. Please point out such places.“WarKosign” 17:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Does anyone know why residents of Golan Heights were afforded full citizenship while residents of East Jerusalem were categorised as "permanent residents"? Again I think that it is great that Israel has a representative democracy but I think it important to note the limits or bounds of the representation of the democracy involved. GregKaye 08:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment Israel is not a democracy; Palestinians living in the West Bank, which is de facto under Israeli control, have no voting rights or right of return. Indeed, a plethora of sources describe it as an apartheid state or an ethnocracy. Care needs to be taken when using words like "democracy" to define Israel. It is the Zionist narrative, factually questionable, that Israel is this peace-loving liberal democracy. I, and, again, a multitude of sources, disagree with the contradictory notion that, firstly, you can define yourself as Jewish and democratic (it's as though Nazi Germany—were it not a dictatorship—could have been defined as "Aryan and Democratic"); and, secondly, that Israel can be considered a democracy whilst still maintaining the longest military occupation in modern times. JDiala (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have sources that support this claim, or are you using original research as an argument ? Reductio ad Hitlerum is not a valid argument either.“WarKosign” 20:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

JDiala I do not see that the question extends to whether Israel is a "peace-loving liberal democracy" as recent history is full of examples of democracies that have declared war on other democracies. However I think it is notable that, when you do a search on ethnocracy, Israel is given substantial mention. WarKosign, you are also welcome to research this in our development of encyclopaedic content. I would also be interested to know whether Jewish residents in West Bank areas, such as in their expansive settlements, are afforded votes in neighbouring Israel while other residents of Palestinian territories are not. GregKaye 13:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Palestinian permanent residents of East Jerusalem can apply for Isreli citizenship at any time, but most of them choose not to. If this is correct, nothing prevents them from voting in Israel. “WarKosign” 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Israeli citizens vote in Israeli elections, Palestinian citizens vote in Palestinian elections. The only arrangement out of the ordinary is that some ballot boxes are placed in settlements in the west bank, easing the voting for the settlers (they don't need to go far to vote). “WarKosign” 14:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign, People in Palestinian territories pay taxes to Palestinian authorities right? GregKaye 15:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Palestinian citizens pay taxes to Palestinian authorities. When they are employed by Israeli settlers they earn much more therefore pay more taxes. Israeli citizens pay taxes to Israel. Israel normally collects the customs and VAT for the Palestinians and transfers it to the NPA after deducting cost of water and electricity Israel provides. See Taxation in the Palestinian territories for more details. “WarKosign” 17:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign: astounding. It is a true example of Settler colonialism and its not that it can be said that the Palestinians are particularly happy about the situation. Even though Israel has achieved peaceful relations with countries such as Jordan and Egypt, individual Palestinians are prepared to act as suicide bombers for a mixture of these and religious reasons. GregKaye 18:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: There is a lot to criticize about settlement policy in the West Bank, but calling Israel "not a democracy" or "apartheid" is simply factually incorrect. “WarKosign” 19:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Could a superscript note address this? One that explained the West Bank is not considered democratic and that the Israeli Government claims some of the West Bank as within it borders? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign who are you addressing with regard to your "not a democracy" reference? I don't think that we can necessarily speak in Wikipedia's voice to describe an "apartheid" situation but the analogy has been notably and meaningfully applied by some very prominent people who can be well quoted. GregKaye 22:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: This analogy is notable enough to have a dedicated article, which achieves NPOV by listing both support and the objection to the analogy. My reference above was a bit of soapboxing triggered by your questions and comments. “WarKosign” 22:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have moved everything above to "Threaded Discussion" where I think it belongs. If you disagree, please revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. “WarKosign” 17:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

so do I. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

-@JDiala: Yours:" a plethora of sources describe it as an apartheid state". If you wish to see why Israel is not an apartheid state , you may read Benjamin Pogrund articles and books. He was fighting Apartheid in South Africa during the bad times, and gained the respect and confidence of leaders such as Nelson Mandela:

-Is Israel an apartheid state? Answers from someone who’d know. In South Africa, Benjamin Pogrund was jailed for opposing the regime. Now, in Israel, he abhors the occupation but insists there’s no comparison]

-Israel has moved to the right, but it is not an apartheid state, by Benjamin Pogrund

-An Israeli and a Palestinian scathed by South Africa apartheid rhetoric, Despite their limited knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, South Africans have many prejudices that are being fueled by anti-Israel groups, By Benjamin Pogrund and Bassem Eid Ykantor (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ykantor: I stated that there are a plethora of sources describing it as an apartheid state. If you wish to go over these sources, which are again plentiful and easy to find, simply look at the Israel and the apartheid analogy article. Other South Africans, most notably Desmond Tutu, believe that the analogy is a legitimate one. I never stated that the analogy is not criticized. It certainly is. This simply means, however, that there is a dispute. Wikipedia, of course, should not take sides in such a dispute. Referring to Israel as a "representative democracy" seems to me to be clearly taking sides. JDiala (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source that actually speaks about Israel not being a democracy ? Going from "Some critics said that Israel's hafrada is similar to apartheid" to "Israel is not a democracy" is a big leap that needs sources. “WarKosign” 04:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think it is problematic to describe Israel as a representative democracy, but there should be an inline clarification along the lines: although most non-Jewish residents of East Jerusalem are not permitted to vote in national elections. Formerip (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, they are permitted. “WarKosign” 04:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, most are not permitted. Formerip (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to apply for citizenship is permitted to vote. Unless the sources are wrong and a large number of people who apply are refused. “WarKosign” 21:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

But anyone who lives in East Jerusalem, is not Jewish and does not care to do so is not permitted to vote. This applies to the majority of non-Jews in East Jerusalem. Formerip (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, only people who care to vote can vote. Voting is a right, not an obligation. Does it work differently where you come from ? “WarKosign” 22:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, voting is normally considered a right but, in East Jerusalem, there are a large number of people, who are not immigrants, who do not have that right. It is not simply that they have the right but don't exercise it. I don't know of any other democracy in which anything similar happens, and it should be mentioned prominently and in close proximity to mentioning that Israel is a democracy. Formerip (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

They have the right (to apply for a citizenship and then vote) and many don't exercise it. They had the option to be granted full citizenship in 1967, and they still do. An Israeli citizen who didn't apply to receive an ID card upon reaching majority wouldn't be eligible to vote too.

We are foruming here when the real question is - do you have sources supporting your claim that "residents of East Jerusalem are not permitted to vote" ? It doesn't matter what either of us thinks, what matters is what the sources say. “WarKosign” 23:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

-@JDiala: According to Wiki rules, The proof / refutation of the Apartheid claim should be based on wp:rs and not notable figures like Desmond Toto. However, since we are expecting each other to be open minded, we can try to understand the issue by reading anti apartheid veterans articles, including the ex South African, Benjamin Pogrund who was jailed for opposing the regime. Now, in Israel, he abhors the occupation but insists there’s no comparison. Ykantor (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Desmond Tutu won the Nobel peace prize for his anti-Apartheid efforts, I think his view is at least as relevant as Pogrund's, and I'm being generous to Pogrund here. But here, too, we're not on a mission to discover whether Israel is or isn't an apartheid regime, we only need to describe the significant views on the subject. And relating to this particular discussion, the apartheid regime is often described as being in the West Bank rather than in Israel, although of course it's run by Israel in the West Bank. --Dailycare (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

For me a democratic problem relates to the imposition on Palestine by Israel of the rules regarding settlers. Settlers occupy great swathes to West Bank land and yet pay taxes to and vote in Israel. I can't imagine that the Palestinians are happy about the situation and I think that it goes to show just how non integrated the settlements actually are. GregKaye 17:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Greg, I would agree with you but I fear you're constantly missing the point. You seem to treat this as a WP:FORUM to vent your different opinions about issues related to Israel. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia, the only think we discuss at this talk page is how to improve the article. As for this RfC, again, the idea is not to discuss our personal views on whether Israel is a democracy or not, it's to establish what reliable sources have to say about the question.Jeppiz (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering Ethnic democracy was coined specifically to describe the form of democracy in Israel, I would think this would be the best description. 70.50.123.188 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"disputed" tag

As with section #Edit Warring issues January 2015 above (which raised issue with a different editor) I have unilaterally changed the section title to the above from "User:Gouncbeatduke entered a "disputed" tag" on the view that it is best not to highlight editors names in section titles but to address content. I believe that there is guidelines support for this change but this change does not reflect my position on the issue concerned. GregKaye 11:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

to Gouncbeatduke: You are an experienced user, and know the rules. Where are the wp:rs that are backing your "disputed" tag? -Pape and Karsh are not a wp:rs for this purpose, even if they are wp:rs for other purposes. -Karsh indicated text is not dealing with the issue, nor does the "Freedom House." - BTW when you using this tag, it must include a pointer to a relevant talk page section. Ykantor (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not originally add the tag to the article. I reverted the removal of the tag as I believe this is just more pro-Jewish/anti-Arab WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Propose lead text such as "The claim is made within Jerusalem Law that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" but the validity of this legislation disputed both internationally and by Palestine."

Current text at the end of the first paragraph of the lead currently reads:

• Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv,[12] while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is not recognized internationally.[note 1][13]

This has three perceived problems. It presents Jerusalem as a single entity while international rulings have utterly rejected Israel's claim to East Jerusalem. It presents Jerusalem as "the country's most populous city" when, according to Palestinian and international opinion are concerned, at best only the population of West Jerusalem should be considered. It uses Wikipedia's voice to describe Jerusalem as "the country's ... designated capital" and presents "Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem", in my interpretation, of the text as merely being something that is not recognised. Israeli claims to East Jerusalem have been rejected with the footnote referencing connected legislation as being "Null and void".

Basically there are two leading references to Israeli possession of Jerusalem in entirety followed by one non representative half qualification. Propose text with similar content to:

• Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv.[12] The claim is made within Jerusalem Law that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" but the validity of this legislation disputed both internationally and by Palestine.[note 1][13]

GregKaye 11:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Britannica deals with the issue this way: "The following year [1949], Israel declared the city its capital....Although Israel's actions were repeatedly condemned by the UN and other bodies, Israel reaffirmed Jerusalem's standing as its capital by promulgating a special law in 1980."[29] Wikipedia's sentence structure is quite tortured compared to this. NotUnusual (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several statements made in this text:

• Tel Aviv is Israel's financial center - seems to be fine with everybody
• Jerusalem was designated [by Israel] as the capital - this would clarify who designated Jerusalem
• Israel passed the Jerusalem Law in 1980, declaring the whole united city it's capital - this part is missing
• United Jerusalem is Israel's most populous city - it is disputed that Jerusalem in its entirety is Israel's city, but assuming that it is, it is the most populous. Perhaps "Jerusalem is the most populous city populated by Israel citizens and permanent residents" ?
• The Jerusalem law is disputed internationally

Britannica describes the history of Jerusalem, while here we are describing the current state of affairs. Does anyone object in general to the statements that I listed ? Can anyone phrase them in a short, clear and logical manner ? “WarKosign” 20:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• I find the phrasing about the city's "recognition" and "validity" as a capital inappropriate. If you see a statement in the RS to the effect that the Foo City is the capital of the Fooian Republic, it is assumed that this refers to Fooian domestic law. Countries don't normally recognize each others' capitals or borders. Britannica shows how you can describe the city's status without using problematic phrasing of this type. NotUnusual (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume the disagreement is with "undivided Jerusalem" belonging to Israel, not with it being the capital. Is there another historical example of a nation declaring a disputed city as its capital ? “WarKosign” 14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This old bone again? I recall this argument having occurred two or three years ago. Why not simply say that Israel claims united Jerusalem as its capital, but Israeli sovereignty over the eastern portion of the city is not recognised by the international community? It's neutral, accurate, and doesn't encourage the ridiculous idea that capital choices need to be validated by other countries or the idea that Israel's claim on the whole city is recognised by anyone else. All I'm going to say on this matter as this talk page is probably my least favourite page on Wikipedia. Always has people trying to push one agenda or the other, using their own interpretation of common sense and the truth instead of just editing the article neutrally.... And sorry, but WP:AGF has its limits. Especially given this page's history. /rant Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 01:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • NotUnusual, the mention of validity is a direct reflection of the content of UN documentation that declared Jerusalem Law "null and void". Encyclopaedically it would certainly be appropriate to reflect content of Jerusalem Law at the same time as it would be appropriate to reflect on responses to the claim. WarKosign, the same can be said if the designation wording is used. If we talk of the Israeli government designation then we should also clearly represent international rejection of this claim.

My quote talked of "claim" and "validity" being "disputed". Another way of doing things might be to talk of Israeli governement "designation" and of something such as international "rejection". Surely there has to be balance in the presentation of content of various sides if we are to attain NPOV. GregKaye 01:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• • I agree with User:Flinders Petrie wording its about the best NPOV that can be achieved. How many wording sections are now being discussed this Talk page is is impossible to decipher without using edit difs. Cathar66 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• BTW, I have also edited references in the State of Palestine article here to Jerusalem being "designated" its capital as being claimed to be its capital. To me designation is something that is official in the effect of official recognition. The designation has been officially made by Israel and officially rejected by many others. GregKaye 18:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Manual of Style specifically lists claim as one of the words to avoid. Claim is a loaded term that often implies that whatever follows is likely to be false. Claiming something may mean "formally request or demand" or "assert that one has gained or achieved".

In case of Jerusalem, you could say that IDF claimed east Jerusalem during the Six Days War, but the important point is that Israel announced that Jerusalem is its capital. It was not some claim or request that Israel filed with some organization, it simply declared/appointed/designated the city as the capital. This designation was not accepted internationally.

Palestinians also didn't submit a claim to receive Jerusalem, they simply declared that it is their capital, currently under military occupation. You could say that they claimed it in the meaning "A demand or request for something considered one’s due", but there are too many other meanings that it's best to avoid this word.

What is wrong with using the word "designated" in both cases? “WarKosign” 18:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

All right, I'll make the thing I said a lie and comment again as this looks worthwhile. I prefer "designated" actually as it's even more neutral than my use of claim and might lead to a happy resolution of this issue. I was writing the previous comment whilst on a metro north train heading out of GCT after having a particularly foul double G&T. You understand. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The country Infobox on State of Palestine has "Proclaimed capital" while Israel just has "Capital". A NPOV Wikipedia would use the same capital designation on both articles. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There was an ARBCOM-mandated, formal RFC about the "Jerusalem question", which is readable here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. A change in the agreed wording should probably come through a similar process. I think that using a wording that more closely follows that now in the lead of Jerusalem would be well in-line with this RFC, but departing from it would, obviously, be much less so. --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign I think that there the use of claimed in this case is totally acceptable and, in this case, a preferable description. We are not talking here of a claim about some academic conclusion such as s/he claimed that 2 plus 2 equalled 5. This is a claim to rights to something tangible and specific. See searches on: claimed (fishing OR mining OR drilling) rights and "claimed rights to". The claim is directly made as fact but, in the cases mentioned, the claims can be disputed and contested. How can the Palestinians designate West Jerusalem as part of their capital when any territorial claim they may have on West jerusalem may be contested and how can Israel designate East Jerusalem as part of their capital when any territorial claim they may have on East jerusalem is even more strongly contested? The designation is also a claim. One side basically labels something as theirs and, in this case, both sides do this. In effect, both are calling dibs and, as far a I can see, the situation is a mess. I think that the best that we might do is present the claims that each side makes. GregKaye 20:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015

the capital of Israel is jereskam it is locatred on the continent of asia amd the Jordan river is near ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭its nationa lanthum is hatktiva and yes. ♯♭♭♦ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.66.243 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an actual edit request and so...

 Not done Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 18:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

English as an official language

Please see this edit and this discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, might be the most widely known second language in Israel (not counting Arabic or Hebrew depending on the speaker) and many things might be written in English, but it's still not an official language. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 13:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Israel geography

There is a historical error Look for "ATLAS historique et geographie" HACHETTE 1981 I.S.B.N. 2.01.007977.9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogl Noys (talk • contribs) 13:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gogl Noys: It would really help your request if you could be a bit more specific. It is highly unlikely anyone is going to actually go looking for that book simply because you said there is an undefined historical error. The talk page is rather chaotic as you can see. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 13:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Israeli girl

An Israeli girl in a park near Tel Aviv.

Israel's most famous girl (Bar Refaeli) in an Israeli TV commercial on Israel's Channel 2 for the largest Israeli food company {Strauss (company)} in a park near Tel Aviv. Stop editing it out and saying it's not from Israel. There is even an exclusive Hebrew article for this photo (he:הקרב על המילקי#הסרטון השלישי) on the Israeli Wikipedia. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Would it be in order to modify the caption to reflect who this girl is, with a wikilink to her article ?“WarKosign” 21:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The caption doesn't really add anything to the article as it keeps referring to her like she's a random little girl. Also, Bar Rafaeli is a grown-woman so even though she's an adorable munchkin in that photo, I'm not sure what all it actually adds to the article as it's just a close-up of her face and you can't see anything of the park. Also, everything User:Dr. Feldinger is all well and good, but someone would have to actually be familiar with the commercial and the park to get all that from the photo with that caption. Assume WP:NOCLUE here.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 21:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just added an alt-caption with more details, even though the file name already says "Bar Refaeli_3.jpg" by itself. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not everyone will click the file name and not everyone will read their address bar. As I said, it's also just a picture of her face and you can't tell where she is unless there's actually a description. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 21:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What does the picture add to the reader's understanding about the State of Israel? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: What does the girl at State of Palestine#Demographics add ?

I do not see many other articles with such photos, though. Mexico#Demographics has several images showing diverse ethnic groups. “WarKosign” 21:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What Israeli children look like, because that's the only picture of an Israeli child in the whole article even though they make over 30% of Israel's population. You also have pictures of children in the State of Palestine page, and I'm not suspicious why you (Malik Shabazz, an Arabic name) haven't deleted any of those and why it bothers you so much for the page of Israel. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

On the note about pictures of people, why are there only pictures of Ashkenazi Jews even though Sephardim, Mizrahim and Arabs are all a very significant portion of the population? Maybe a compilation of kids from all four groups in photos that are not close-ups? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 21:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, surely it should be possible to find such a picture. The relative absence of Sephardim who (in the broader sense) is the largest group in Israel is rather conspicuous.Jeppiz (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this girl somehow "typical" of "what Israeli children look like", or of some demographic within Israel? If not I cannot see what the point of her picture being here is. Paul B (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there girl at State of Palestine#Demographics typical ?

Here is an image of a playground in Tel Aviv area I took a few months ago. I can crop to see more of the kids and less of the playground as well. “WarKosign” 21:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly rather more so, but justifying one utterly irrelevant image by referring to another one is absurd. This child could be from anywhere. Nothing in it tells us anything about "israeli" children. It's just silly. And I guess it's part of some childish tit-for-tat editing nonsense that disfigures articles in this area. Paul B (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Bar Refaeli's Wikipedia page, Refaeli has a grandparent from Italy, thus Sephardic as well as Ashkenazi. She also said that in an interview for Israel's Channel 10 (Guy Pines). She represents the majority of Israeli children, the Jewish ones which are more likely to see in Israel (83%). I support this picture for the sake of showing a girl, instead of a boy. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A professional model she says she represents "the majority of Israeli children"? How nonsensical is that? Paul B (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A grandparent from Italy does not automatically make her sphardit. There are also many ashkenazim in Italy (seems to be a North-South thing like most things in Italy). Is the 83% the percentage of Jews or the percentage of Jewish children one is likely to see? I don't really get what you're saying, I'm afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 21:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow, So you are the one to decide how Israelis look like? That's racist. As an Israeli of both Ashkenazi and Sephardic heritage i can say she has an All-Israeli look for a child. She is Israeli-born and both her parents are also Israeli-born, according to her Wikipedia page (Bar Refaeli). Dr. Feldinger (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Objecting to the inclusion of an utterly useless and irrelevant image is not "racist". You are the one who want a blue-eyed blonde to represent the people of Israel. I haven't promoted any race. Paul B (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That's original research, I'm afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 22:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Flinders Petrie, as a Super-Jew who even uses the Hebrew calender (which most Israeli don't) for his timestamps you should tell us if she looks like a kid from your family. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Afraid I'm only half-Jewish and so my opinion wouldn't mean much and would still be original research anyway. The Hebrew calendar's from when I was religious. I am now agnostic (which would put me in the same category as most Israelis were I not, in fact, American). Sorry, mate. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 22:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So are you an American or Israeli? You have confused me, brother. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

American, though I don't quite see how this relates to our current discussion or improvement of the article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 22:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, I can't see this discussion on the Talk page because of PaulB's edits. It's only viewable through Source Edit. Paul B (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's solved now. It's because I was removing the ref tags. It also creates edit conflicts leading to weird anomalies like the above edit by Dr. Feldinger being apparently written by me. Paul B (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Warko, your park photo is low-res, and even if you crop it in order to enlarge it, it still would be blurry. If you can take a picture of another kid who represents the vast majority of children in Israel: A secular Jewish girl of both Ashkenazi and Sephardic heritage (just like Bar Refaeli in my picture). Well, in that case- be my guest. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

When I first saw this image in the article I thought it was someone's joke, since it was obvious from the face and the file name that it was a young Bar Rafaeli but the caption just said "girl". It's amazing that some people think it enhances the article. As a mere "girl" it means nothing, and the "park" she is supposedly in is not visible, so the contribution to the article is exactly zero. It's also terribly composed (oh that shoulder). Basically, it looks silly and is silly. Since Bar Rafaeli is now a well-known Israeli, it would actually be fine to feature an adult Bar Rafaeli with a caption like "Israeli model Bar Rafaeli". Alternatively, show us an actual Israeli park with children playing; at least it would mean something. Zero^talk 23:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Request Could someone maybe hat all this? I was hoping we could talk about diversifying the article photos. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 20 Shevat 5775 00:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

[Offensive text removed by Zero0000]

I restored the above statement. Per WP:TPO "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection". Why does anyone object to the user stating their (possibly incorrect/biased/offensive) opinion ? “WarKosign” 07:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to cite a Wikipedia guideline, you should read it first. "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks". Calling other editors sexists and antisemites is not only a personal attack but a blockable offence. Zero^talk 08:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)