Talk:Israel

Wrong numbers in Religion section

I think that the percentage of seculars in Israel and traditional has been shifted somehow. It's actually the opposite, as seculars are the majority. Anyway, I checked for a proof in the reference (http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/relinisr-consensus.htm) and couldn't find any of those numbers, nor anything that is trying to estimate the role of religion in Israel population. In the article "Religion in Israel", under "Religious self-definition" there are the correct numbers with reliable source. I was wondering if anyone could bother editing "Israel" articles with those. I can't do that as I don't know how to. The source document that is linked to the correct number is in Hebrew. Use Google translate on the 6th dot in the first page if you want a verification. Edit: I found data from 2010. http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3890179,00.html The numbers are in the first paragraph. 217.132.237.70 (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Culture section

I noticed that the Culture section does not mention any non-Jewish cultural activity. Does anyone have any suggestions for improving the section? There's a sub-section on cuisine, for example. Presumably, non-Jewish Israelis do at least eat (?). --FormerIP (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

what are you talking about, there are many mentions of Arab culture throughout the section, including in the food subsection. Do you have a specific Israeli culture you wish to add? Or are you just here to complain that Israel is too Jewish? 74.198.9.177 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be no mention of any non-Jewish artist or any non-Jewish culture practised in Israel. There's a vague reference to a "minority imprint" at the top of the section, but no details on how, where or when. In the cuisine section, it is mentioned that Jewish cuisine incorporates Middle Eastern foods, but there is no discussion of non-Jewish cuisine.

Perhaps it really is the case that there is no non-Jewish contribution to Israeli culture worth mentioning. But if that is the case, then probably that in itself would be something that merits discussion in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

you appear to not know how to read. It clearly states Israeli cuisine incorporates both Jewish and also Arab cuisine. Again, if you have something to add to the article, let's hear it. Stop soapboxing your distaste for Israel's Jewishness here. 74.198.9.177 (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It states that Jewish Israeli cuisine incorporates Middle Eastern foods, which is not the same thing. Not soapboxing, just soliciting views on something that looks to me like an issue with the article. Thank you for yours. --FormerIP (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it better now? --Ravpapa (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ravpapa! That looks like a big improvement. --FormerIP (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Article size

This article is way too long at the moment, more than double the reccomended limit, and slows down loading times. WP:Article size suggests 100k warrants a split. Perhaps culture and government can be further split for starters.Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Per alphabetical order, I put Arabic ahead of Hebrew, in the languages section. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Putting Arabic ahead of Hebrew is WRONG! The majority of Israelis (Jewish) do not speak Arabic. English is also an official language in Israel. The correct order should therefore be Hebrew, Arabic, English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.8.145 (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"..is a parliamentary republic in the Middle East located..."

I think we should use formulations in the intro similar to the Kosovo article: "...is a disputed territory", "...partially recognized". That would be more appropriate.--Severino (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, a sentence like this: "The Land of Israel, known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisrael, has been sacred to the Jewish people since Biblical times." has no place in a serious encyclopedia. We must not mix history with religion and myths.--Severino (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo is entirely irrelevant here. Kosovo declared its independence two years ago and was never a state before that point. Israel has a sixty year history of existence as a state. To refer to the entire state of Israel as a "disputed territory" would be to advance a point of view that is simply not held by more than a fringe in the Western World. I fail to see how your second quote is problematic. Wikipedia is not commenting on the validity of Jewish beliefs, merely the existence of a belief that the land of Israel is "sacred to the Jewish people". This is a fact. GabrielF (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If I was an alien reading this article and I read the first 3 paragraphs, i would have no idea about the ongoing war and Israel's status as an actualy and historically disputed territory.Warkos (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

edit requst

there is a constant mistake in how "state of Israel" is pronounced in Hebrew. it is not pronounced "Medīnat Yisrā'el", but instead it should be pronounced "Medīnat isrā'el". it is written with a "י" as in "I" and not "Y" it is also not pronounced with a "Y", but pronounced as an "I". its "ISRAEL" not "YISRAEL". pronounced as in EES-RA-EL. mistakes occur in:

officially the State of Israel (Hebrew: About this sound מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info), Medīnat Yisrā'el; (also in the speech recording it is pronounced wrong)

also in : State of Israel מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (Hebrew) Medīnat Yisrā'el دَوْلَة إِسْرَائِيل (Arabic) Dawlat Isrā'īl

and many more places.(including this talk page)

Danial27b (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Where do you get that from? Remember we won't consider dialects or mispronunciations. The Hebrew clearly shows ישראל / Yisrael as the standard, not אשראל / Israel. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew - English cannot be translated letter per letter seeing how the letters don't have the same tone and or usage!. some letters have multiple uses such as "י" being used as an "I" and as a "Y", in this case it is used as an I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danial27b (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the "Economy" section, you need to add a reference to the recent discovery of massive quantities of natural gas off of the Israeli coast. This has been widely reported in major news outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post. The discoveries are expected to make Israel energy-independent, and possibly a net exporter of energy, with profound long-term implications for its economy, and raising an additional dimension to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It has been described as a "game changer" in the region. At a minimum, it should be mentioned in the 'economy' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joegelman (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

as said in Israeli news, the gas is not at a massive quantity, and is not enough to make the country energy independant. but that should still be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danial27b (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

International Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikibias blog has brought this up: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Israeli government think it is critical - see e.g. headline communication from the Ministry of Public Diplomacy here[2], a government-sponsored branding study here[3] or even more impactfully the "Background and Purpose" from a paper at this year's Herzliya Conference here[4].
• The people of Israel see it as a huge issue - see the poll data provided above, or another one here [5].
• Supportive academics think it is fundamentally important to Israel's ongoing existance (see e.g. the quotes provided by Dershowitz, Hagee and Bard).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This externally imposed national avoidance behaviour has also been a dominant factor in the success of Israeli democracy. Much of this democracy is not really democracy, but the attempt by near-socialist sectors of the Israeli population to be seen as 'holier-than-thou', afflicting themselves with every kind of 'humanitarian' stringency most countries never implemented in a sort of state-wide Stockholm syndrome behaviour where in a situation of traumatic entrapment (leading to PTSD),[6] being not fully accepted in the 'West', and facing threat from the 'East', appeasement may seem to be be the only defensive option for some to achieve hoped-for end to abuse.

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

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

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

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

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

• Include - notability and WP:RS confirmed and unchallenged, both in the previous discussion on this page, and in the main article's deletion discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations

It seems to me the section needs a bit of reorganisation.

It is after all about relationships, and relationships as we (hopefully) all know are:

• chronological (start and end)
• contextualised (family, work, social group, etc. - translate to regional, economic or common goal oriented international org., etc.)
• occur within specific environment (cooperative, adversarial, predatory, mentoring, etc.)
• contain a degree of dependence or interdependence
• are ideally based on commitment to common goals, but can be dysfunctional, and even destructive

And, unsurprisingly all this relates as much to relationships between states as it does to individuals.

The current section does not seem to reflect these commonly-known truths about relationships. Perhaps this is due to the poor authorship of the foreign relations article that had until now been a disambiguation page, or the equally poor article on foreign policy that was confused with foreign affairs. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I think you should change "The IDF Namer (Heavy IFV), introduced from 2008" to "The IDF Namer (Heavy IFV), introduced in limited service since 2009"

As there are only 60 in service, and actual service only started in 2009...

- 93.97.255.48 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

what's up with this?

Sagi Nahor (talk · contribs)/[7] This was the 2nd in 24 hours and the 3rd since Jan 9. Where is the discussion? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased map

This map in the article claims that Jerusalem belongs to israel. Under international law and world consensus, east jerusalem does not belong to the state of israel. This picture should be modified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_districts_numbered.pngNPz1 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You can make out East Jerusalem in that map? Don't you have better things to do with your time? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The map doesnt make a distinction between east/west jerusalem, it just says 'jerusalem' and this part is inside israel. That should be fixed.NPz1 (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Since only one of the three maps in the article shows the city of Jerusalem, I assume you're talking about that one, in the "Occupied Territories" section. On that map, the boundary line clearly (especially if the map is viewed full size) passes through the circle representing Jerusalem, with part of the circle in Israel and part in the West Bank. Why is this a problem? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought NPz1 was referring to the map linked above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Sorry, I missed the link while re-scanning quickly today. But again, the map I referenced is the only one showing the city of Jerusalem, so complaints about how a place not shown at all is represented on a map seem a bit ridiculous, moreso since the one map that does show the place, does so "correctly". Fat&Happy (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The map is referring to Israel's administrative districts. The Jerusalem District does include East Jerusalem. I don't think the map can be modified because this is how the state of Israel is broken up into administrative regions. However, perhaps a footnote in the caption can state that the Jerusalem District includes areas whose annexation by Israel has been challenged? GabrielF (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think GabrielF has a plausible solution, namely to use a footnote.NPz1 (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need for a footnote. As I wrote above, if anybody can see East Jerusalem in that map, they have too much time on their hands. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said there is no distinction of east/west regarding the map, thefore I called for a clarification, maybe through a footnote as mentioned.NPz1 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The map doesn't show the city of Jerusalem, which is why we don't need to say anything about East Jerusalem. It shows the administrative district of Jerusalem. I don't see how that map shows East Jerusalem at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the whole of Jerusalem does not belong to the state of Israel which the map/part now depict, therefore I call for a clarification on this matter.NPz1 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)