Talk:Israel

International Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your thoughts. To summarise:

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

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

• Include - Denying that Israel's policy in the last decades has drawn significant reaction is to say nothing. On a sidenote, I think everybody should be welcomed to write in that section and accustom it according to NPOV policy. Userpd (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include as separate section - that does not match the style for country pages, including those with their own separate 'Criticism' articles. As one of the "include" comments above suggests, there is a place for mentioning criticism in existing sections, which seems to be house style. The current "politics and legal system" section and the modern "conflict" subsection of history would work. Notsuohs (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First to recognize

I'm not going to change it without a citation, but I swear I learned in one of my undergrad history courses that the Soviets actually beat the US to recognizing Israel after the UN vote. If I remember correctly, the difference was a matter of hours, if less.. Do we have a citation for the claim "The United States was the first country to recognize the State of Israel, followed by the Soviet Union."? 75.86.135.63 (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the source linked to at the end of the following sentence, "On May 14, 1948, the United States became the first country to extend de facto recognition to the State of Israel." (page 24) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I did some googling, and actually found the answer on wikipedia itself. While the US was the first state to recognize Israel de facto (11 minutes after the declaration), the USSR was the first de jure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#Aftermath Should this be mentioned on this page as well? 75.86.135.63 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you check Simon Montefiore's biography of Stalin he says the USSR was first, but given the conflicting reports and that it was a matter of a few hours I don't think its worth making an issue out of it. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I only ask in the interests of accuracy. This is one page where I wouldn't want to edit anything without consensus. Perhaps we should phrase it similar to the Israeli Declaration of Indepedence page? 64.134.33.57 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The US was the first to recognise. Ahron Bregman: "Thus, just 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion declared independence Washington recognized Israel [...]. Shortly afterwards Russia and the government of Guatemala followed the US example in recognizing Israel."--Frederico1234 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Just grammar

In the opening, "efforts by elements within both parties to diplomatically solve the problem have so far only met with limited success" might look a little nicer as "but efforts by elements within both parties to solve the problem diplomatically have so far met with only limited success". I might even go so far as to suggest "on both sides" instead of "within both parties", as the term "party" can refer to a party in the dispute or contract, or to a political party. I understand that we're dealing with the former case, the "parties" being Israel on the one hand, and the Arab states on the other. 200.121.6.219 (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This request has been up for 20 days now, highlighting a potential ambiguity and making a suggestion for a noncontroversial change; nobody has responded in opposition and yet no changes have been made to the article. If the editors with access to the article can't be bothered to edit it, perhaps it should not be protected. 200.121.200.43 (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – By following edit. --AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors interpreting things

Some discussion is needed about this edit. My view is that adding the text "but Israel as a Holy Land of the Jews was recognised in the Qur'an by the Sura 5:21." is an editor's rather than a secondary source's intepretation. The source used is Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad Sayyārī, Revelation and falsification: the Kitāb al-qirāʼāt of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Sayyārī, BRILL, 2009, p.118" (link here) which says "For God rescinding His decree granting the Holy Land to the Children of Israel" see etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Was not aware of it previously and in general I'm not an expert on Islam. It might appear that Sura 5:21 is "Zionist":

• In this book Abdul Hadi Palazzi from Islam-Israel Fellowship believes that opposing state of Israel is opposing Divine Decree.
• In this book Mordechai Nisan from Hebrew University of Jerusalem believes that Sura 5:21 can provide a platform for peace grounded in an acceptance of truth.

From other hand the source quoted says For God rescinding His decree granting ..., i.e. cancelling, and Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Sayyārī gives references, so I guess there could be number of interpretations. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think attribution should be used here along the lines of "some Islamic scholars say ...". --Dailycare (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The world's largest solar parabolic dish

Please change the description of the picture in the Chapter "Science and Technology". The picture does not show the "The world's largest solar parabolic dish" and also the article cited [271] does not describe it as such.

You can change it to "One of the world's largest solar parabolic dishes at the Ben-Gurion National Solar Energy Center in Israel." that is the description of the same picture under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_reflector. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.101.201 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

the lergest city in south israel is Ashdod, not Ashqelon please fix that.

] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.107.201 (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion in Israel

The source that tries to estimate religiousness of Jews is false. I made that statement about a year ago and it's stil here, unanswered. Here, is an oficial estimate, 2010: http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st07_04x&CYear=2010. Please, someone, fix it. 89.138.224.50 (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

History

I find statements like "In 1516, the Land of Israel was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the region until the 20th century..." to be word play with facts of history to make a false political and/or religious point. No one can honestly make an assertion that anyone had connquered the "Land of Israel" when no "Land of Israel" ever existed before 1948. The allusion that it has always been known as such, which is sprinkled throughout the article, is wrong, and the bible is not an historical evidence to be cited in what presents itself as academically factual. I am not going to edit these statements out because I do not know the editing history and what agreements had been reached, but I hope that sober minds who already have invested effort in this article do some needed editing to make it more acceptable to the non-biased mind. Biraqleet (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "No "Land of Israel" ever existed before 1948."? No extra-Biblical proof (which I presume is what you meant when you say "the bible is not a historical document")? Are you serious??FlaviaR (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose on the one hand the term Eretz Yisrael, Land of Israel or whatever have been in common usage since long before 1948 and on the other, it might be better to say something generic like the area, the region or whatever. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This little exchange is a good example of all the small moments that collectively make up Wikipedia's Israel/Palestine problem. There's a legitimate concern here: we should use contemporary terms when discussing historical concerns. But the first editor decided to add some unhelpful commentary; despite being unfamiliar with the history, they note the text is the product of dishonest wordplay from biased editors. That just invites a hostile response from another editor who will usually overreact, sidestep the real content question and engage in conflict over the commentary. I realize that Biraqleet is a new user so I don't want to criticize them although I would suggest reading WP:AGF. But I wanted to bring this up because I think the editors in this warped little corner of WP ought to recognize how interractions that would be mundane elsewhere are so problematic here. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, normally the way it works is: statement a -> statement b -> hundreds of oscillations between those and various other chaotic orbits around the basin of attraction -> some active or inevitable damping through energy loss -> some meta-statements and analysis -> a meta-meta-etc analysis -> everyone distracted by something shiny elsewhere -> the end -> sockpuppet makes an edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Might I make a suggestion?

I have noticed that the article text occasionaly uses terms that are not contemporary or specific to the subjects they describe. For example, the section "Jewish History in Israel and the Palestinian Territories" uses the term "Land of Israel" to describe the area as late as the 16th Century even though it is anachronistic there. It is also a nebulous description and one that may or may not correspond to modern Israel, the subject of this article. In fact, I would suggest that the term is more of a theological concept than a geographic one and it would be best if we reserved its usage for that purpose. I'm not picky about alternate terms but I'd be happy to hear any suggestions. Thanks --JGGardiner (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I recommend Cisjordan. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Cisjordan doesn't occur in dictionary.com. In French, "Cisjordanie" means the West Bank. If "Palestine" isn't usable what about going boldly with "the area"? ;) --Dailycare (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I recommend using whatever term was the prevalent at that time in history. "Israel" ceased to exist after the territory was conquered by the Assyrian army, so using that term prior to 1948 is just foolish. Similarly, the area was referred to as "Palestine" from sometime at least as early as 18th/19th century up until 1948 and from the time of the Roman occupation, the area was divided up into several smaller provinces such as Samaria, Judea, Peraea and Phoenicia. Although I'm a strong proponent of Israel and their historical claim to the area, I think we need to use the proper terminology for whatever historical period we are discussing throughout the article. My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

According to Palestine, that term has been used since 450 BCE. --Dailycare (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not gone to that page, but all I can say is I personally disagree. It is also not supported by historical documents that can be found in about a 15 sec Google search. For instance, I found a page that had numerous Roman maps, for instance, and Palestine was not a roman province - unless it was an "unofficial" reference. As we all probably know, the regional naming convention is a political football that is tossed back and forth depending on your POV and what axe you have to grind. Again, my 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

When I wrote the request, I wondered if anybody would respond and if nobody did, I was thinking of using the "area" term. It seems Cisjordan most commonly refers to the West Bank. In WP it is a redirect to that article. I think that it also refers to the are more generally but it seems that usage is mostly among academics. As for the contemporary terms, it seems that the Mamluks divided the area into sanjaks (districts) of the Damascus Wilayah (province). I'm thinking of using a term like "Mamluk Levant" since that also gives some of the bigger picture as well. But I'm fine with any of the terms I've heard. Thanks for all the input. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Academic writers in English call it Palestine with very few exceptions. This is true even for Israeli historians who call it Eretz Yisrael in the Hebrew editions of their books. To Ckruschke: the place was divided into three provinces, Palestina Prima, Palestina Secunda, and Palestina Tertia, in the late Roman and Byzantine periods. Zero^talk 01:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at some sources on Palestine, emperor Vespasian officially named the area Palestine in CE 70. Before that, the area was known as "Syria Palestina" and apparently the name ultimately stems from Philistines that lived in or around the area. --Dailycare (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of category

There are about 20 country's who don't recognize Israel and countries who call the area "Palestine", Hezbollah and Hamas (Hamas being elected by the Palestinian people) do not recognize Israel either. Is there any reason why the "Category:Disputed territories in Asia" shouldn't be in this article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor removed the category saying in the edit summary that it undermines Israel's legitimacy. That seems to be a case of "I don't like it". If Israel's legitimacy is impugned according to sources, the category belongs here. However, as I noted in my earlier edit summary the category can also refer to Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the Gaza strip and the West Bank which aren't "Israel" but still closely associated with Israel due to the ongoing occupation, also warranting the category. --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources I quickly found: Hamas: [7], they were elected by the Palestinian people. Hezbollah:[8], in the Lebanese government, Most Arab states:[9], map at Syrian parliament website: [10] Im sure more like these can be found showing that Israel is disputed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Israel is not a "Disputed territory". Don't be ridiculous. A country with territorial disputes is not a "Disputed territory". Marokwitz (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How is Israel not disputed? see the sources above, many surrounding nations do not recognize it, evidence for one neighboring country has been provided calling the area "Palestine", and Hezbollah and Hamas do not recognize it, Hezbollah has been in direct war with Israel, Hamas is elected by the Palestinian people, see the link above: "Hamas would never recognize Israel since such a move would counter the group's aim to "liberate" all of Palestine.", How is Israel not a disputed territory? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:CAT#Categorizing pages: It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Does this article say anything about Israel being a disputed territory? Nope. Hence, no category. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The cat: "Member states of the Union for the Mediterranean" is in the article, but there is no info about that in the article, I realize that this isnt an argument but still, info can be seen here at the talkpage justifying the cat.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If what SD says is true about the 20 or so states that do not recognize the existence of the Israeli state and therefore its sovereignty over all of its controlled territory, then there is certainly a territorial dispute by the common definition. That information about the disputant states should then be included in the "Foreign relations" section and there will be a basis for the category. Quigley (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, you were told this same thing at WP:A/E. It shouldn't be news to you here. And a Talk page isn't the article, is it? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Okey, Ill see if I can ad some info to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If this turns into an edit war, it will surely be added to WP:LAME. BarkingMoon (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

^ Like I was thinking the same thing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

On behalf of all Native Americans, I demand that the USA be categorized as "disputed".
To put it another way, the UN recognizes Israel, and the only ones "disputing" Israel are the ones who want to kill every living Jew in the world. Who gives a flying freak what terrorist organizations think? Israel is not "disputed" by anything legitimate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(FWIW, I'd just like to throw in that the few fringe Native Americans who do not recognize the United States are about as nuts as Hizbollah; you've just equated an entire racial group with terrorists. Good rhetoric, though... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC))

Most common definitions of a disputed territory do not include territory whose sovereignty is disputed between states and nonstate actors (such as Hezbollah or Native American tribes). However, if sovereign states, such as the 20 (I am assuming fully recognized Arab and Muslim states) that SD alludes to, reject Israel's sovereign rights over the entirety of its pre-1967 territory, then it is no joke to include the article describing the country and territory of Israel into the 'disputed territories' category. Quigley (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it IS a joke to call Israel's existence "disputed" by giving credibility to countries who have a goal of murdering everyone within it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It happens very often in territorial disputes that one country does not regard the territory they control to be "disputed". While Pakistan contends that Kashmir is "disputed", India maintains that its chunk of Kashmir is an "integral part of India"; however they word it, the fact of their disagreement on the sovereignty is what makes people regard Kashmir as a disputed territory. Many Indians would also think that Pakistan has the "goal of murdering everyone within [India]". However, one party cannot by definition assert a dispute out of existence, unless that party accedes to the other's claims. Quigley (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the premise, that it's strictly a matter of opinion(s), the category of "disputed" should be abolished altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you want to start a CfD on Category:Disputed territories (and an AfD on disputed territory, which while not having the most impeccable sourcing at the moment, will have reliable sources that reveal themselves on threat of deletion (or if you just look for them)). Until such a discussion succeeds in deletion, we can assume that the category's longevity and wide use means that the consensus is that the category and concept is a notable enough one that can be used correctly and according to reliable sources. Quigley (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is pretty silly. A state without full recognition is not the same as a disputed territory. Israel is not a territory, it's a state. It is not "disputed" it is unrecognized by a small minority of other states. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that a territorial dispute is a somewhat specific concept. Non-recognition however can occur for a variety of reasons. It has most commonly occurred when one country does not like the government of another country. So non-recognition is not evidence of a territorial dispute per se and is probably SYNTH to say so in my opinion. I would also note that 22 states don't recognize the PRC. Although I got that number from Wikipedia so you might take it with a grain of salt. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you dont believe non recognition, still in this case we have a neighboring country having a map at an official website saying "Palestine", and most importantly, Hamas, elected by the Palestinian people saying: "Hamas would never recognize Israel since such a move would counter the group's aim to "liberate" all of Palestine." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

To reinforce what JGGardiner (talk · contribs) says above, to go from saying that Hamas and Hezbollah dispute Israel's sovereignty over its land to saying that Israel is a disputed territory is WP:OR. A WP:RS needs to be produced – preferably several – that clearly indicates a reality to the effect that Israel is a disputed territory. Stating as fact that Israel is a disputed territory based on a source that says group X or group Y says so is in essence taking a side and violating WP:NPOV. As an aside, purely for irony's sake, it is of interest to note that a Google search for "Israel is a disputed" yields a whopping seven results. Lo and behold, the first three are to past Wikipedia discussions.—Biosketch (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats not all Hamas says, Hamas refers to the area as Palestine.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds even more SYNTH-y. A map with an alternate caption? Libya rather famously printed maps with England replaced by ocean but I don't think that made a territorial dispute. Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 and later assumed executive powers in a move that may or may not have been legitimate, depending on your point of view. In any event, I'm not sure an "aim" to "liberate" an ill-defined entity ("Palestine") is a territorial dispute per se. My friendly neighbours to the south liberated Iraq and I wouldn't call that a territorial dispute. They seemed totally happy with the territorial integrity of Iraq.

I will grant you that your SYNTH is very persuasive SYNTH. I've seen much worse SYNTH. Sometimes I say to a user "we can't use your argument because it is SYNTH and who are we to say it's right?" But I'm privately thinking "what a load of BS -- I wouldn't swallow your SYNTH if it was glazed in honey." But your SYNTH is actually quite reasonable and I have to say, were it not for WP:SYNTH I might actually use it, like if I had a blog or wrote a book or something. Kudos. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• See this source: "The contemporary conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East is a multi- layered dispute. One component is the struggle, since the early 1880s, between Jews and Palestinian Arabs for control of the same land, called "the land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) by the Jews and "Palestine" (Filastin) by the Arabs. The other is a regional conflict of more recent vintage, dating back to 1948, between states: the state of Israel and the various Arab states. This second conflict has been, at times, about the very existence of the Jewish state of Israel in the heart of the Muslim Arab world, but it has also been over tangible issues such as borders, resources, and territory lost and won in the cycle of wars between them" Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, Second Edition: Patterns, Problems, Possibilities (Indiana Series in Middle East Studies), p 3. Laura Zittrain Eisenberg, Neil Caplan, Indiana University Press. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It's true that without something in the article body to justify the categorization, the category can't be there. However, the source below has no qualms framing the conflict as one over disputed territory.

"Since the Zionist movement claimed Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people, that land came to be the site of conflict between the Palestinians and Zionists. Thus, at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at its current stage, is a disputed but shared territory - that of Mandatory Palestine - with which the history and identity of both sides are inextricably intertwined." - Israel and the Palestinian refugees (Springer 2007 Eyal Benvenisti (Editor), Chaim Gans (Editor), Sari Hanafi (Editor)) page 149, Transitional Justice and the Right of Return of the Palestinian Refugees by Yoav Peled and Nadim N. Rouhana.

Whether that provides an OR-free/SYNTH-less mapping to category membership I don't know because I don't know what the category membership rules are. I should add that it's probably fairly trivial to find other serious academic sources like this that use the term 'disputed territory' to describe Israel but unless everyone agrees on the category membership rules I would expect this discussion to go nowhere, and rightly so. I guess having categories without a documented decision procedure to decide category membership in cases like this is great for getting people to talk to eachother, but not very helpful when it comes to doing the categorization bit. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Good, at least now this can move from a purely theoretical discourse to one actually involving sources. That is a step forward. The Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace source provided by Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) doesn't justify the "Disputed territories in Asia" category because the source distinguishes between the dispute's territorial dimension, which the authors confine to what we call the "disputed territories" (i.e. not to all of Israel), and the political conflict over whether Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. The Transitional Justice source proposed by Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) is less clear, as it says "Mandatory Palestine" and not "Israel." It did, however, make me realize that Israelis from the anti-Oslo camp do often insist that the conflict with the Palestinians and with the Arabs is not over '67 but over '48 (e.g. the Phased Plan). In other words, they would actually agree with the claim Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is making.—Biosketch (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace source says: "The contemporary conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East is a multi- layered dispute. One component is the struggle, since the early 1880s, between Jews and Palestinian Arabs for control of the same land, called "the land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) by the Jews and "Palestine" (Filastin) by the Arabs.", so this is about all of the land of Israel, so I don't really understand how you can say: "i.e. not to all of Israel". The Israel and the Palestinian refugees source says: "Since the Zionist movement claimed Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people, that land came to be the site of conflict between the Palestinians and Zionists. Thus, at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at its current stage, is a disputed but shared territory - that of Mandatory Palestine", the territory of mandate Palestine is the same as Israel + the West Bank and Gaza. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Accoring to CNN fact checking of Jordan's King Abdullah its 36 countries The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the source Sean. I agree with your point that such sources should be easy to find. My point last night was just that SD was using weak sources. Quite often in I/P an editor with a source will continuously note its existence rather than engaging in real discussion with opposing editors. So I was just trying to say to SD that his/her sources weren't so great that they should preclude discussion. As for the specifics, I generally feel the same as you. I don't follow category policy much. It seems that it is inherently "LAME". I probably wouldn't have commented on this at all if I didn't have something snarky to say actually. So I should apologize to SD for that. I don't know how the category is defined but my one serious point last night is that the editors involved with it seem to have excluded the PRC which is a similar case. The distinction is probably arbitrary: a sovereign state is really a territorial dispute with an army and a navy. I would suggest this should be talked about at the cat talk rather than here. Besides, when was the last time I/P editors took a field trip? --JGGardiner (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), it's vain to keep trying to use these two sources. Simply put, "Eretz Yisrael" and "Palestine" are not Israel. If someone were so inclined, they could perhaps add the article Mandatory Palestine to the category of "Disputed territories in Asia." But Mandatory Palestine and Israel are two very different things.—Biosketch (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

@ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs), are you trying to argue that not recognizing a country is the same as engaging in a dispute with it?—Biosketch (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the term "disputed country." It is not whether two countries engage in disputes but wether the country is has recognition as fully legitimate itself. According to CNN 36 countries do not recognize Israel thus I do believe that it is a valid as category here. I am not going to sit and suggest that the entire article be written around the the theme but the view is prominent view point. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I much preferred the earlier SYNTH. This newer one is what I'd call "double SYNTH". CNN never uses the number 36 in relation to states that don't recognize Israel but only in one instance when talking about states that don't have diplomatic relations. Non-recognition and a lack of diplomatic relations are different concepts. Conflating the two is SYNTH. As well, neither of those two things are the same as a territorial dispute. Saying so is the second SYNTH. I'd also note that CNN does not state in its own voice that the 36 is the correct number of non-relations states but rather that is what an Israeli IMF list implies. Here is the CNN wording where they are careful to note it is not their fact: "According to their list, that would leave 36 U.N. countries that do not have diplomatic relations with Israel." Note that is the only sentence in that article which includes the number 36. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mandate or colony

An editor just added Israel and Jordan to the Category "Former British colonies" ([11], [12]). Can we all agree that this is a good-faith mistake and that Israel and Jordan were never colonies of the British Crown but rather mandated territories?—Biosketch (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Map labels

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

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

Minor translation point

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