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)

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)

I find the map and the labeling very misleading. 1. Israel renounced all claim to Gaza and no longer controls it so why put it here? 2. The northern district includes the Golan Heights. Feel free not to accept Israel's occupation, but mixing administrative districts with anything else is problematic. 3. A, B and C are terms reserved for types of areas within the occupied territories in the west bank. A is under (nearly) full control of the Palestinians. B is under Palestinian civil control and C is under Israeli civil control. Using them here is very misleading. In fact, I had to check the map to realize you're not talking about this but some other A,B and C. 4. Finally, Gaza, Golan, Judea and Samaria are all biblical terms. The first two are accepted by all AFAIK. Don't have enough info about the last two though. 85.250.132.209 (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Roy

Minor translation point

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

That's true. What's your comment in relation to?—Biosketch (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably:

The Jewish Legion, a group of battalions composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine. Arab opposition to the plan led to the 1920 Palestine riots and the formation of the Jewish organization known as the Haganah (meaning "The Defense" in Hebrew), from which the Irgun and Lehi paramilitary groups split off.[63]

in the "Zionism and the British Mandate" section. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem annexed

explain this: how could Israel declare it the capital without it being part of Israel? That doesn't make sense. Of course it's annexed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Israel can declare whatever i:t wants. It doesn't mean that they have necessarily, as a matter of undisputed fact, formally annexed East Jerusalem or the Golan. See this article for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Annexation doesn't have t be recognized, and no-one ever says it was recognized. Nonetheless, when a government declares a certain territory part of its territory, that's annexation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in what wiki editors think. People have to cite reliable sources for the things they say in articles, it's policy. That's it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should take this debate to Annexation where an entire section is devoted to "what wiki editors think"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The content of this article should be discussed at this talk page, not at some other site. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Although the presence of a giant green wall of text and bright orange Hindi script on a talk page are normally enough to catch my eye, I'll pass this time. That article does need attention but Frederico is right. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to change the infobox so that capital is shown as "Jerusalem (disputed)^[a]"? This would more clearly direct the reader to the note about UN resolution 478 etc. - Pointillist (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to "(not recognized internationally)", the form of words already used in the article. - Pointillist (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask, if Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel, what is? Than, how can a country have no capital? And how can Jerusalem not be Israel's capital if it has the Knasset and all the political things there? What, can we just move them?

Edit request from Jojotruth1, 20 July 2011

there some incorrect information, i have the correction experience to correct it thank you

joseph camerieri Support Isreal

Jojotruth1 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your request must be in the form of "please change X to Y". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jojotruth1, 20 July 2011

please change ALL the incorrect dating system to correct historical Gregorian dating system dating letters from "BCE" to "BC" and "CE" to "AD" this will correct the offensive dating system to the correct Gregorian Calender dating to the Jews and Christians. Jojotruth1 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:ERA. In general, we don't change from one system to the other without a good reason.

Wikipedia works by consensus. If you can sway other editors and build a consensus that the eras should be changed, that would be a good reason to change. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note that calender system does not date to the Jews, and has nothing to do with the Jews. It is based upon the believed life of Jesus, a Christian figure. The Hebrew calendar is entirely different. If anything, use of BCE and CE is less offensive. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jojotruth1, 20 July 2011

please change all "BCE" TO BC and "CE" TO AD

Jojotruth1 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the response in the preceding section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jojotruth1, 20 July 2011

adminstrator malik thank you Jojotruth1 (talk)

Jojotruth1 (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Welcome to Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Misleading bit about Jerusalem in the lede

"Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories.[a]". This is misleading, it makes it sound like all of Jerusalem is considered occupied rather than just East Jerusalem. The area referred to as West Jerusalem is in areas recognised as belonging to the State of Israel by most of the world. It should say "partially located in occupied territories." Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact no country except Israel considers West Jerusalem to be part of Israel. East Jerusalem is under belligerent occupation, West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation. That leaves both halves under occupation. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Article page locked

Please perform the following edit -

Existing phrase:

Other minorities are Druze, Circassians and Samaritans.

should be:

Other minorities are Druze, Circassians, Samaritans and a large community of immigrants from the former Soviet Union gaining Israeli citizenship following the Law of Return.

Thank you. א/O 31.210.176.210 (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would they be listed as "other minorities" rather than a portion of the "5,818,200 are Jewish" group? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that we've got someone on one side or the other of the issue of friction between former Soviet Jews and the existing Israeli population. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Intro statement on status of Jerusalem

"Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories". If I'm correct, the definition of "occupied territories" includes only land that was not under Israeli control before 1967. Since West Jerusalem has been controlled by the State of Israel since 1948, is it really "occupied territories" any more than places such as Tel Aviv or Eilat? I'd be bold and add "partially" before "located" in the sentence that I quoted above, but I'm wary of someone becoming angry on such a hot topic. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

See the comment above, timestamped 20:01. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely your "no country" statement is wrong; see this map for an example. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Drumking, 28 July 2011

In the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Conflicts_and_peace_treaties, the link to the "Sabra and shatila camp massacre" is broken, most likely the name is obsolete.

The link should be to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

Drumking (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for noting the error. GabrielF (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)