Talk:Israel

International Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Include - notability and WP:RS confirmed and unchallenged, both in the previous discussion on this page, and in the main article's deletion discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Include - we should reflect the international criticism on israel in this article. at least one half of the aforesaid main article consists of answers, reactions, discussions of this criticism BTW. in the article about the PLO the criticism is camouflaged, for example in the section "wealth". in the PR China article criticism on the state is mentioned inter alia under "Sociopolitical issues and reform","Environment",...it would make sense to summarize the main points of the criticism here - without making this section a coatrack for counteraccusations and delegitimization and defamation of this criticism.--Severino (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include. If there is information relevant to this article in the travesty that is Criticism of the Israeli Government it can be included in the various relevant sections that already exist in this article. The addition of a section dedicated to criticism out of its context remains inappropriate considering that no other country articles appear to have such a section. --FormerIP (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include. No reason why this country's article should be any different than all the rest of Wikipedia's articles. Why Me Why U (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Why Me Why U (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Include - the notability and importance is unquestionable. This is simliar to how nations commonly accused of human rights problems have Human Rights sections while most nations do not have such sections. That Israel is the only nation with a specific criticism page also shows its notability and importance. Passionless -Talk 03:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks for your thoughts. To summarise:

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

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

• Include - Denying that Israel's policy in the last decades has drawn significant reaction is to say nothing. But this sensitive topic at this moment should strongly comply with the NPOV rules. ChaChing! (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include as separate section - that does not match the style for country pages, including those with their own separate 'Criticism' articles. As one of the "include" comments above suggests, there is a place for mentioning criticism in existing sections, which seems to be house style. The current "politics and legal system" section and the modern "conflict" subsection of history would work. Notsuohs (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding new subsection

Since noone has been able to suggest that a subsection on Criticism of the Israeli Government within the politics section of this article would be any less notable than the existing subsections such as the fascinating one on Museums, I will add a new subsection. Grateful for comments from all. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

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 Knesset and all the political things there? What, can we just move them? 109.65.213.130 (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.213.130 (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

France has no capital. You can read about the term capital and the diversity in it's meaning in the Capital city article. As for Jerusalem, I'm always surprised at how often statements made on this talk page simply ignore the fact that the word "Jerusalem" describes a spatial object, a city, that includes things that are not recognised by anyone except Israel as being in Israel. It's as if Western Sahara really is the "Southern Provinces" of Morocco because Morocco says so or Taiwan really is part of the People's Republic of China because the One-China policy says "Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China" etc. It's an odd way of looking at things. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Who has claims in West Jerusalem except for Israel, and where can I read more about these claims? I'm just trying to understand the source of the claim that "West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation." Thanks in advance. Dorian in the skies (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You can have a look at the articles Positions on Jerusalem, Corpus Separatum and sources therein. --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the two sources you cite mention that "West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation." On the contrary (and just for example), the first source says that a "broader agreement exists regarding the Israeli presence in West Jerusalem." I'll have to ask again: What is the source of the claim that "West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation?" Thanks in advance. Dorian in the skies (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The case for Palestine: an international law perspective by John B. Quigley discusses this issue. See page 225 for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. To summarize, if I understand Quigley correctly, the claim "West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation" follows from the fact that the partition plan "called for an internationalized Jerusalem."

• If this is a valid implication, then at the very least Quigley should be added as a reference to the article in order to support the claim that "Jerusalem is ... located in occupied territories," a claim which with regards to West Jerusalem is currently not supported in the article. Also, in case Quigley is added as a reference to the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, it should be noted in the article that it is the opinion of one scholar and does not represent an official position (in particular, it's not hard to imagine that one can find other scholars that argue the opposite); of course, if there is an official statement that supports the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, it should be given as a reference instead of Quigley.
• If the article is to use Quigley's argument to support the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, then since the partition plan designated Jaffa, Beer Sheba and other places in Israel to be Palestinian cities, the article should mention that these cities are located in occupied territories as well. In other words, if the article uses Quigley's argument to support the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied but does not use it to claim that Jaffa, for example, is occupied (surely an important issue with regards to Israel if true, if only for the reason that it hosts at least one foreign embassy), then it is being inconsistent.

Best regards. Dorian in the skies (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The article Dailycare cited Positions on Jerusalem includes some books that discuss the various opinions in some depth e.g. Whither Jerusalem?: proposals and positions concerning the future of Jerusalem Sean.hoyland - talk 09:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said above ("On the contrary..."), the article Positions on Jerusalem does not support the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, it does the opposite. The source you provided in your first response do support the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, in the sense that it gives the reasoning of one scholar for this claim. My two bullets, however, remain unanswered. Best regards. Dorian in the skies (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. I'm not arguing a point. I simply meant that if you are looking for a variety of views you will find them in the book I cited, Whither Jerusalem?, that is used as a source in the Positions on Jerusalem article. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My point was to make it clear that the two bullets I made in the comment you replied to remained unanswered. As you said below with regards to the issue at hand, "[t]here are a number of different views on this issue and they are discussed at length by academic sources. We should stick to those." Consequently, I would expect the article to reflect those different views, and not present just one of them, without even giving a reference to a scholarly work arguing in favor of that one particular view. That expectation of mine is basically the source of the above two bullets. Now, if someone else can address them, I would be grateful. Best regards. Dorian in the skies (talk) 21:18, 3 August 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.

• This is a gross distortion of history. Israel already controlled a part of Jerusalem prior to the Six Day War. Israel acquired the other end of Jerusalem (an end not formally defined btw) from Jordan, not the Palestinians - who were Jordanian citizens during this period. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and a sovereign state can declare any city as a capital. Israel controls all of Jerusalem - socially, militarily, financially, and politically. "Palestine" made no claims to any part Jerusalem until well after it was conquered. Whether or not the internationally community recognizes it is totally irrelevant. Republic of China is only recognized by less than 20 sovereign states and its status as a sovereign country is not simply disputed but ignored - officially. This includes any territorial claims, such as capitals. And yet, ROC has no "not recognized by the "international community" in their info box. Nations who specifically deny Israel's claim to Jerusalem should be mentioned in Jerusalem but "international community" is rather ambiguous and somewhat of a weasily buzzword. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. Soapboxing is not an ideal way to start post-topic ban. There are a number of different views on this issue and they are discussed at length by academic sources. We should stick to those. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not soap-boxing. See Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan and Six Day War. Daily is making edits under a false premise that is not supported by reliable sources. There is no such thing as "Western Jerusalem" and East Jerusalem was simply a result of Jordan's invasion in 1948. Israel conquered Jerusalem in a war with Jordan, not Palestinians. Palestinians made no claims to Jerusalem or the West Bank 4 years prior to the 67 war. Article 24. Resolution 242 makes no mention of "belligerent occupation" of Palestinian land. No binding law has declared an inch of Jerusalem as a part of an historic or past Palestine. Jordan didn't even recognize Palestinian claims until the mid-80s. Everything is up for a negotiated settlement. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure you are. "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" = soapboxing, there is no such thing as "Western Jerusalem" is the product of green-line-blind One-ChinaJerusalem socialization. I could go on but my point is that it's better to base discussion on what sources actually say and cite those sources in the discussion or else this page will rapidly turn into the normal steaming pile of forum-ish poop so popular in this topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily's claims are simply not supported by the facts and history. What claims do you specifically challenge? That Israel didn't conquer Jerusalem from Jordan? That the Palestinians made no claims to Jerusalem until after the 67 war - and the UN never considered the land to be "Palestinian" in UN242? Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This isn't my opinion, it is reality. How can you see that as soap-boxing? No international body has disputed Israel's capital, a lack of recognition is not the same thing as a binding charge. Now, one could argue what constitutes a "capital" and if "international" recognition is necessary to legitimize it. Positions on Jerusalem is where all support/opposition should go. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made IIRC only one claim in this thread, namely that West Jerusalem is occupied territory. See e.g. the UK position on Jerusalem for an example of a country that doesn't recognize Israel's sovereignty in that territory. It makes absolutely no difference who Israel captured the area from in 1948. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: what if we change the wording from "in the occupied territories" to "(...) since Israeli sovereignty isn't recognized there"? A downside in this suggestion would be that it's more complex than the current wording. --Dailycare (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether the wording is complex or not is not the most important issue. What's more important is that the wording is accurate and that it is backed up by the references given. Right now this isn't the case with regards to West Jerusalem. As my discussion with Sean.holyland suggests (and in particular by the book Whither Jerusalem? that was suggested by Sean.holyland), one can find scholarly work that suggests that West Jerusalem is occupied, and one can find such work that suggests that West Jerusalem is not occupied. The wording in the article should reflect these works, which in turn should be given as reference. Maybe the sentence in question should be rewritten as something like this: "Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, East Jerusalem is located in Palestinian Occupied Territory [reference UN definition of Palestinian Occupied Territory], and West Jerusalem is a disputed territory [reference scholarly work that argue in both directions]." (Note: the wording can be simplified, but as I noted above, that's not the main issue. Also, there may by official legal positions with regards to West Jerusalem being occupied or not, it's just that I didn't find any.) Best regards. Dorian in the skies (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that suggestion. --Dailycare (talk) 08:00, 4 August 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)

That map doesn't change or reflect official US policy, which doesn't recognize West Jerusalem as part of any sovereignty. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your source? Where is it stated that the US policy doesn't recognize West Jerusalem as part of any sovereignty? The thought that they for some reason lost sovereignty over West Jerusalem sounds silly, for it was theirs in the first place, was never captured, and so on and so forth. Are you certain of your findings?--Zamoonda (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a recent source which says the US doesn't recognize Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem. For another source, see source 33 in Positions on Jerusalem --Dailycare (talk) 18:22, 4 August 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)

Jerusalem occupied? Source says nothing.

Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories.[a]

Straight from the intro. The source does not describe Jerusalem as "occupied" but rather Israel proclaimed its capital as Jerusalem, period. So either this is an editor mixing up sources or simply including their own POV without consulting the material they supposedly cite form.

The reality is parts of Jerusalem are considered "occupied" by various bodies of government and non-binding resolutions, but the peace process - and history - has never inferred the whole city Jerusalem as occupied territory. Israel captured parts of Jerusalem from Jordan, not Palestine. And Jerusalem was never sovereign to begin with. So yeah Sean, write this off as Soap Boxing, but all I say here is predicated on facts. Editors must rely on sourced material rather than their own opinions when contributing to an article as sensitive as this. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Roberts, Adam. Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967 The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Jan., 1990)

p. 584: Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.

nableezy - 20:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam does not define "international community." Nor does he refer to the whole city of Jerusalem. No sovereign body has rejected Israel's claim to Jerusalem and no binding laws has described "Western" Jerusalem as occupied - which daily said it was. In fact the various peace accords signed - Oslo, etc - affirm Israel's claims to Jerusalem. At least parts of it. My concern is editors are inserting loaded language without proof. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And as I said, the source used does not say Jerusalem is in occupied territory. So why is it still in the article? It should be removed. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Several states have rejected Israel's claim to sovereignty in western Jerusalem, the UK being one (the UK recognizes de facto control, not sovereignty, see here). I have no problem adding this source to the article to alleviate your concerns. The fact is that Israel's proclamation that Jerusalem "complete and united" is its capital was the cause of the condemnation of the designation. If Israel had not included EJ in that declaration there would like have been no uproar. In fact, prior to the passing of the Jerusalem Law there were several embassies located within western Jerusalem. But the claim that occupied Palestinian territory was part of its capital is what caused the UNSC resolution and the moving of embassies to outside of the city. But I will adjust the text and source in a bit to suit your objections. nableezy - 00:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. The UNSC resolution does not explicitly refer to the entire city of Jerusalem as "occupied" but rather rejects Israel's annexation of it. The opposite of an annexation is not an occupation - that is what is being inferred in the article. And Israel retained a part of Jerusalem prior to the 67 war. The lead suggests the entire city of Jerusalem is "occupied territory" and that simply isn't the case. I think the whole Jerusalem issue is so mixed and controversial that it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. If so, context should be included - like Israel conquered Jerusalem from Jordan, not the Palestinians, and that the land was not considered occupied "Palestinian territory" until years later. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A good source for the entire sentence: Bowen, Stephen, ed. (1997), Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territories, International studies in human rights, vol. 52, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, ISBN 978-90-411-0502-8

In 1980 Israel's parliament declared "Jerusalem, complete and united" to be the "capital of Israel". The U.N. Security Council and U.N. General Assembly each declared this law a nullity on the grounds that an occupying power may not annex occupied territory.

nableezy - 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The source does not explicitly refer to the entire city of Jerusalem as occupied. And neither did the original UNSC resolution. I'm not sure if the interpretation of a scholar takes precedence over actual international law. What was the status of Jerusalem prior to 1967? Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, the source says "Jerusalem" and refers to the Israeli law that says "complete (...) Jerusalem". We shouldn't invent additional hurdles that sources would have to meet in order to count. Having said that, even though WJ is seen as under non-belligerent occupation, it's fair to say that sources often use different language for EJ and WJ, and the suggestion discussed in the thread above would reflect that. It might be modified to say EJ is occupied, and Israeli sovereignty over WJ isn't recognized. An interesting doc that relates to this all is GA resolution 303 from 1949, which affirms the international regime for Jerusalem. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The CIA source doesn't describe any part of Jerusalem as occupied, let alone "East Jerusalem." I'm concerned about the language being used. Israel's presence in Jerusalem is not as concrete as Israel's occupation of the West Bank. I much rather throw away the mention of Jerusalem in the lead. No other sovereign state article includes a mention of their declared capital. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"I much rather throw away the mention of Jerusalem in the lead"...I think that would solve many issues that are best dealt with in the body of the article but I'm not sure about the "No other" article statement e.g. UK says "with its seat of government in the capital city of London". Perhaps I misunderstood you. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a fair comparison because the capital must be mentioned explicitly as the UK is a collection of unique countries. United States, Jordan, Egypt, etc...do not have their capital's mentioned in the lead. The controversy behind the status of Jerusalem, and the fact that the CIA source says jack squat about occupation suggests the edit should be removed and merged to the dozens of articles on Jerusalem. It adds nothing to the article other than promoting a one-sided view point. Wikifan^{Be nice} 09:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the CIA has to do with anything. There is no policy according to which every source has to say something in order for it to be enterable in Wikipedia, which is a good idea since otherwise there would be no content. Per WP:LEAD, significant controversies should be mentioned in the lead and Israel's claims to Jerusalem unfortunately do amount to a significant controversy. However, there seems to be no opposition to the proposal discussed above so that may be a way forward. --Dailycare (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily, I'm going to make this simple. This source does not support " Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since parts of it are located in occupied territories." For something controversial of course you need a source to support it, especially in an article like this. The whole city of Jerusalem has a whole has never been recognized as part of occupied territory although this is a common accusation. And the parts of Jerusalem that later became "Palestinian territory" was a political mutation, Israel conquered Jerusalem from Jordan. So unless the lead is going to be hijacked so the issue of Jerusalem can be described with all the facts, that sentence should go. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, I'm not citing that source. I've cited other sources. --Dailycare (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then if those sources exist they should be in the article. Currently the claim that Jerusalem is an "occupied territory" (the entire city mind you) is not supported by the CIA link. The fact is Jerusalem - the city - is not entirely in "occupied territory" and no binding resolution has declared it so. There are dozens of positions on Jerusalem which are found in other articles. Something this controversial doesn't belong in the lead. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, several sources have been provided here that specify that the reason that Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital is because East Jerusalem is occupied territory and that Israel's effective annexation of that territory violated international law which proscribes the annexation of occupied territory. Your edit is both wrong and dishonest, as you are well aware of these sources. nableezy - 23:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I just went by what the sources said. None of the sources supporting the edit described East Jerusalem has under "military occupation." Yeah, the annexation violates international law - but the status of the whole city of Jerusalem is divided (opinion-wise) and up for negotiations (reality-wise). This is what the sources say. If you guys are bent on including Jerusalem in the lead, then a little peak at Positions on Jerusalem should serve as a guide. What part of my edit do you specifically oppose? It is all directly from the source, including the footnote. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Official languages

I've read lots of times that Hebrew and Arabic are the official languages of Israel, and we have that cited to the CIA Factbook. But this Haaretz article says (my emphasis) "based on current mandatory law, Arabic and English are also recognized as official languages". Is it possible to find a more definitive source, like a high court ruling or legal text? Zero^talk 13:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer my own question, this paper, this paper, and one other I found, say that Israel removed English from the Order in Council that established English, Arabic and Hebrew as official languages during the Mandate period. So it seems Haaretz is wrong. Zero^talk 14:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem - Israel capital

did the Christian world really aware of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and it's jewish people ? . Why Jerusalem have not any embassy of any country ? . i want to know please. פארוק (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but aware about en:2011 Israeli housing protests . What zydowie blizni mean chanting "Mubarak, Assad, Bibi Netanyahu" [7].

Hi! why you polskie blizni dont have article about the protests? Isreal half a million strong protest.

this protest is from COMMUNIST STUDENT FROM TEL AVIV !!!! they don't represet the all people of israel. and the RT CHANNEL (RUSSIA TODAY) who was interview STAV SHAFIR are russian anti-semitic communist channel . thank you. פארוק (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

after GHDAFI & MUBARAK you will geo AL KAIDA with BIN LADEN. פארוק (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Padding.

How about instead of removing sourced material, why not explain the edits in discussion?

These sorts of statements aren't exactly collaborative: "it doesn't belong in the lede, but you're going to pad it anyway? what a maroon.."

I read the sources. My edit comes straight from the source, almost verbatim. The previous edit was not supported by the sources. This is a very sensitive article and as long as editors refuse to explain their edits in talk they shouldn't be reverting other users edits. So Malik, I suggest you self-revert. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually, you know, read my edit before you came here to belly-ache? Now the lede says what it should have said all along: Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such.

And as far as your edit is concerned, you yourself wrote that it didn't belong in the lede. Stick it in the article if you think it belongs there. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

jerusalem is forever and ever the capital of the jewish people. פארוק (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my edit before totally removing it? Here is your edit:

Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, as East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as being Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation.

Now that is more than "Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such." My edit reflected the sources cited, the edit you reverted to is not supported by the reference behind it. So I suggest you self-revert. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of the reliability of your edit, it's just not supposed to be in the lead of the article. The basic information should be given: The capital of Israel is Jerusalem, but it's not recognized as such internationally. Daniel (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidently you still haven't looked at my edit, Wikifan. This is the diff. Please review it and stop belly-aching. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Whoever is doing it, please do not bold or uppercase comments on a talk page. And there seems to be an accusatory tone abroad: criticise the ideas, not the person. Tony (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Druze or Arabs in the Golan Heights

I think there is a mistake in the following sentence: "In the Golan Heights, Arabs are entitled to citizenship but most them have rejected it in favor of "loyalty to Syria."[23]"

There are Druze in the Golan Heights rather then Arabs. They are not to be confused. The above sentence is not consistent with the paragraph: "Arabs form by far the country's second-largest ethnic group, which includes Muslims and Christians. Other minorities are Druze, Circassians and Samaritans. At the end of 2005, 93% of the Arab population of East Jerusalem had permanent residency and 5% had Israeli citizenship.[22] In the Golan Heights, Arabs are entitled to citizenship but most them have rejected it in favor of "loyalty to Syria."[23] "

Which separates the Arabs from the Druze. Any thoughts? Guy.other (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Guy.other

Well the source says Arabs. The original edit said I revised:

According to the May 2010 population estimate, including 300,000 "non-citizen" Arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, these minorities number 1,579,700

The source never said anything of "non-citizen" or the citizenship/residency differences for Arabs/Druze living in areas annexed by Israel. So I added this source to support the fact that Arabs/Druze are entitled to citizenship. CSM didn't differentiate between Arabs and Druze, so I went with what the source said. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If the source says "arabs" than the source is wrong. the golan hights are inhabitted by Druze, which refuse to become israeli citizents. the only arab village on the golan is Ghajar and the local population there accepted the israeli citizenships.Mr. Kate (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

How to put this... Druze are Arabs, but they have a different culture from most other Arab groups, and are of a faith called Druze (whereas most other Arabs in the area are Muslim or Christian). It is usually best to call them Druze though so people know what you are talking about (and to avoid offending them). I know for a fact Druze is correct in this case for the inhabitants of the Golan. Is there maybe a more accurate source we can find? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Druze as a group are not arabs, but some of the are. it is confusing, i know. some druze see themselves as arabs, and sometime even as a branch of the islam. most of the druze see themeselves as a diffrent ethnic, religious and political group(for example IDF doesn't recruit israli arabs but does recruit israeli druze). here is a source that "proves" the golan is inhabitted by druze-"http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3365151,00.html".Mr. Kate (talk)

jewish majority, no ITS A JEWISH STATE

there are christian states and muslim states, israel is a jewish state. unless we are going to change all christian countries into a christian majority state, and all muslim countries to muslim majority states ect than i believe this mistake should be fixed. just because the palestinians refuse, in their hatred, to recognize israel as a jewish a jewish state. which means that they dont recognize any Jewish presence in palestine, does not mean that we members of the international world, should give in into such antisemitic rhetoric!--129.98.153.186 (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

i completely agree, israel is a jewish state, in the deceleration of independence we declared the establishment of a "jewish atte in the land of israel" not a jewish majority state. we need to change it immediately.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just after where it says "Jewish-majority state" it says "Jewish and democratic state". Did you both get so overwhelmed with anger you weren't able to make it to the end of the sentence? --FormerIP (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite. 129.98.153.186, it's always good to be very specific about the content you are referring to and make sure you remove any unnecessary rhetoric from your comments (see WP:TALK for guidelines). Is this about the line in the lead section that says "Israel is the world's only Jewish-majority state, and is defined as a Jewish and democratic state in its Basic Laws." That covers both aspects doesn't it, demographics and the defined nature of the state as FormerIP says. Couldn't you just switch them around ? I wouldn't imagine anyone would object but I've been wrong many times before. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

sean.holyland if thats the best you can do you should do it, and i thank you for at least finding a compromise. But if israel will be considered a jewish majority state than all muslim and christian and buddhist states should also be put in as "muslim majority" and christian majority ect.. I wanted it to be written a jewish state since thats what it is, there is a deference between a state of jews and a jewish state. a jewish state has meaning, it is run by the hebrew calender, and it nationally celebrates the jewish holidays and mourns the jewish memorial days. israel is a Jewish state, that is not an opinion it is fact. and no matter what the world discusses or what the world transcribes-israel shall remain a Jewish state.--129.98.153.186 (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Better to get religion and race right out of nationhood. It leads nowhere good, unless you like the way parts of Europe went in the first half of the 20th century. Whoever uppercased the heading: that is "shouting"; please don't do that. Tony (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Capital's cities of Israel by the Bible

• Jerusalem - capital of all jewish people
• Shiloh - it was the temporary Capital of israel befor the first temple was built in Jerusalem.

• Tel Dan - capital of north israel kingdom
• Shechem (Nablus) - capital of north israel kingdom
• Beit El

פארוק (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the modern State of Israel. Perhaps your information is better suited to the Land of Israel article. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Information

Although the Arab armies attacked formally only in May, 1948, the local Arabs (known today as the Phalestines) began the war at 29 November 1947, the day the UN declared the Israely country, and started the Indipendence War. Please update the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.121.108 (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Falestinian? i know there is no P in Arabic (I think) and I'm not sure if that is the correct phrasing. What are you suggesting exactly? Article simply summarizes the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, lifting content and sources from that same article. What's the issue? Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Image audit

I've boosted the sizes of a few, slightly, and preferred right- over left-side placement, and top-of-section placement: this optimises for all window-widths in terms of the image–text relationship, minimising text sandwiching.

In my view, there are too many images. Those in "Economy" and "Transport" are underwhelming—are there no better ones? I'd sooner remove them. What has "Ramat Gan" got to do with "Economy"? Needs to be removed or at least referred to in the main text or the caption, I'd say.

"Tourism" needs expansion, and I see there's a daughter article ... two sentences are hardly sufficient. Tony (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Press Freedom/Legal

I'm on a voluntary ORR so I didn't revert this edit even though I believe it should be. I'm not so sure on the rationale of the editor and the edit itself is in the wrong section. The section is about Israel's laws, not press freedom. Two entirely different issues tied together arbitrarily. Right? Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This too. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed un-sourced material

I removed "Over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from Israel during the conflict," as it isn't sourced and isn't true. --72.47.85.22 (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We can source that, that's not a problem. I was left wondering, however, if these people should be referred to as "Palestinians", since they're actually Arab Israelis. I think many sources use the term "Palestinian refugee", however. --Dailycare (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Arab Israel refers to an Arab with Israeli citizenship. There's a reason the sources probably wouldn't call them Arab Israelis. A source does need to be provided for this sort of claim, especially one with high numbers. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The word to use is Palestinian, as in Palestinian refugee, and the sources for this are easily found in 1948 Palestinian exodus. Honestly, this does not even need a source, nobody with even a passing interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would question that line. But I have added a source nonetheless. The official estimate from the UNRWA was 726,000. The Israelis put the number at around 500,000+, though Israeli officials have admitted (at least privately) that the UNRWA estimate is more accurate and that the real number is closer to 800,000. The reasons for their placing their estimate so low can be found in the citation I just added. The British Foreign Office estimated between 600,000 and 760,000. I have made the text attribute the number as given to the UN. If we need to get into the various estimates we can do that, but I think that what is currently in the article will suffice for this article. nableezy - 20:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia needs a source. By pushing for something to not have a source, you are pushing for lack of factualism/verifiability and the rot of Wikipedia as a useful resource. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Weird quotation: can someone get the source and fix?

"Zionism, the urge of the Jewish people to return to Palestine, is almost as ancient as the Jewish diaspora itself. Some Talmudic statements ... Almost a millennium later, the poet and philosopher Yehuda Halevi ... In the 19th century ..."

Doesn't make sense to me; just a bunch of fractured phrases and clauses. It's the Rosenweig, top of "Zionism and the British mandate". Thanks.

BTW, the images are very messy, and prone to sandwich text in narrow screens. Also, some seem forced down to 180px, which was the default until 18 months ago. The default is now 220px (49% larger), but the guidelines were loosened last year to allow for detail-rich images to be boosted in size beyond 220. I've made some 240, and also jammed the syntaxes at the top of their section in edit-mode, since this minimises the damage arising from narrow and wide window-widths. Please give feedback here if it's a problem. Tony (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Biodiversity section: it's tiny, and there's a jumble of pics around there. I wonder whether it's possible to conflate it with "Geography", above? In fact, the pics would be better in a single "Geography and climate" section, that is, three small sections conflated into one decent-sized one. Needs consensus to go that far. Comments? Tony (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Do people agree with this change in the overview? Arab MKs in the Knesset

I added to the overview, after "Israel is defined as a Jewish and democratic state in its Basic Laws and is the world's only Jewish-majority state" the words "with many Arab mks in its Knesset, elected by the significant, roughly 20 percent Arab minority."

I have many reasons for this change, that i will get into shortly. The most obvious is that the article gives an example of how it is a Jewish state (and is the world's only Jewish majority state) but fails to provide an example of how it is a democratic state -- something that my change fixes.

A user named Malik Shabazz undid my change, because "That isn't one of the most important facts about Israel that the reader needs in the first paragraph."

I then wrote on his talk page reasons why i thought it was important: "I think that it is something very important, as it shows that Israel is a very democratic state, accepting of people of all walks of life and views, even those of the same race who currently fight them, and even in the highest levels of its government. Not only that, but the overview is misleading, as it says that Israel is a "Jewish State" which implies that there are no arabs or people of any other race in its government, other than jewish. My addition would rectify this problem, and would also tell people a lot of important info about Israel today and its demographic make up, besides for saying a lot about its society and government. It clears up many misconceptions that people have about the country. So this is very essential, and crucial info that also fixes a misleading statement."

And here is the reason i originally gave in the 'reason for your edit' section -- "thought that the significant Arab minority should be noted in the overview. Proportionality there are more Arabs in israel then the black and asian minorities in the US combined."

Malik wrote back that I should put this on the Israel talk page to see if the edit has consensus, so here it is. You can weigh in on whether you agree with this edit or not, and your reasons one way or another. Thanks Darkkelf99 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)