Talk:Israel

Mossad le-Aliya Bet

Although the literal translation of "Aliya Bet" is the meaningless "immigration B" (or "immigration 2") the actual meaning was "illegal immigration". This is well known and easily cited. The purpose of the "Bet" was to distinguish it from legal immigration. Zero^talk 07:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Mossad LeAliyah Bet "was facilitating illegal immigration in violation of governmental British restrictions". However, writing ("Institution for Illegal Immigration") near its name implies that this is the translation of its name, which is incorrect. "lit." near the arguably meaningless literal translation makes sure we do not mislead the readers. We could write (which facilitated illegal immigration), but the nature of the institution is explained in the following sentence. I suggest to either restore the literal translation or remove the clarification entirely, it is already available in the wikilinked article.“WarKosign” 07:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that what was there will only confuse readers. Literally "Bet" is the second letter of the alphabet, but its meaning in this context is something like "alternative". I don't mind omitting it, given that there is a wikilink to where a longer explanation is (hopefully) available. The following sentences are a bit of a whitewash but I'm not on that case at the moment. Zero^talk 09:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

One theory is that Aliya Bet was initiated by the revisionists who were generally excluded from the legal certificates. They had a whole parallel Zionist body including the Zionist movement Bet and then Aliya Bet. It got absorbed into the mainstream when the certificates dried up.Telaviv1 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Longest military occupation - session 3

This section is a continuation of "Longest military occupation - session 2". see also:

According to the following quote, the longest modern military occupation is in Kashmir: "If we consider the postwar legal regime that established the international laws that regulate and administer occupation, Kashmir is the first site of contemporary military occupation, yet its history remains comparatively less known than that of Palestine or Iraq, even though the number of Indian troops posted in Kashmir approaches 700,000 more than twice the US. forces in Iraq at the height of the military occupation there". Hence the article sentence: "Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times" is incorrect. Ykantor (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, Ykantor, but can you bold the part of the sentence that says the occupation of Kashmir is the longest military occupation in modern times? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

-@GregKaye, Oncenawhile, WarKosign, Jeppiz, Flinders Petrie, Paul Barlow, and Zero0000: , @Yuvn86, Gouncbeatduke, and Malik Shabazz: : I would like to have your opinion. Thanks. Ykantor (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand the bold portion of the quote above as "Kashmir is the earliest site of military occupation that is still in force today", which must mean that it began earlier than any other occupation, which must mean that it's the longest. “WarKosign” 17:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment the cited references for the "longest military occupation" statement present:

"See for example:
* Hajjar, Lisa (2005). Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza. University of California Press. p. 96. ISBN 0520241940. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is the longest military occupation in modern times.
* Anderson, Perry (July–August 2001). "Editorial: Scurrying Towards Bethlehem". New Left Review. 10. ...longest official military occupation of modern history—currently entering its thirty-fifth year
* Makdisi, Saree (2010). Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393338447. ...longest-lasting military occupation of the modern age
* Kretzmer, David (Spring 2012). "The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel" (PDF). International Review of the Red Cross. 94 (885). doi:10.1017/S1816383112000446. This is probably the longest occupation in modern international relations, and it holds a central place in all literature on the law of belligerent occupation since the early 1970s
* Alexandrowicz, Ra'anan (24 January 2012), The Justice of Occupation, The New York Times, Israel is the only modern state that has held territories under military occupation for over four decades
* Weill, Sharon (2014). The Role of National Courts in Applying International Humanitarian Law. Oxford University Press. p. 22. ISBN 9780199685424. Although the basic philosophy behind the law of military occupation is that it is a temporary situation modem occupations have well demonstrated that rien ne dure comme le provisoire A significant number of post-1945 occupations have lasted more than two decades such as the occupations of Namibia by South Africa and of East Timor by Indonesia as well as the ongoing occupations of Northern Cyprus by Turkey and of Western Sahara by Morocco. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is the longest in all occupation's history has already entered its fifth decade."

This is not an issue that I have greatly followed but I had gathered that the issue was clear. GregKaye 16:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The theory that Kashmir is under military occupation is WP:Fringe. Several POV pushers have tried to include it in the Kashmir article, but have (thankfully) been unsuccessful to date. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct. This is why: Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir). Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the longest-this, biggest-that, style of writing, but the extraordinary length of this occupation is one of its most notably features so it absolutely must be mentioned. Not just the length of it, but the extraordinary nature of that length. It would be easy to add additional excellent references that it is the longest. Zero^talk 23:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article should impart factual description of its subject. It should not approach the subject with a polemical attack. The BDS movement disapproves not merely of the "occupation," (itself a charged term despite its adoption by foreign diplomats) but of the existence of Israel as a Jewish State altogether. (This point of view is also implicit in the Palestinian Authority's refusal to agree to recognize Israel as a "Jewish State" during last year's framework negotiations with Israel mediated by John Kerry and the Obama administration.) Inasmuch as the word "occupation" has been adopted by the BDS movement some years ago now as a code-phrase for attacks on the integrity, security, and sovereignty of the State of Israel, I personally am motivated to again bring the question the prominence of its use in a Wikipedia article about Israel to this page. Would the BDS movement prefer the article to be renamed "The Fascist Occupying State of Israel?" That would be highly improper regardless of the number of Wikipedia Editors or Administrators who might like to see that! In short, it is inappropriate to demonize the subject of any Wikipedia article. The Israeli authorities, indeed, might prefer that Wikipedia simply excise any article entitled "Israel," preferring to separate its fortunes from a Wikipedia that is so implacably opposed to its existence as a Jewish State. The idea that Israel is "occupying" territory that is part and parcel of the historic Land of Israel, and indeed that was contemplated in the San Remo agreement as part of a modern Jewish State, is highly questionable, prima facie. Israel conquered the West Bank, a.k.a., Judea and Samaria, in 1967 at its peril. To the victors go the spoils. As far as voting rights for Arabs there are concerned, the establishment of areas under Palestinian Arab authority as contemplated by the Oslo accords has provided a measure of self-determination which could be further expanded for those indigenous Moslems. The Arab-Israeli conflict is highly unique. Attempting to frame it in terms of, e.g., colonialism, or, e.g., terms analogous to South African Apartheid or other struggles for self-determination is to perpetuate a serious miscarriage of justice. Hence, "I would like to see the phrase Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times.[note 3][28]" removed, per se, from this article and placed in a separate article that covers the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian question.Jabeles (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you find this fact inconvenient. I note that your post implies you have extreme right-wing tendencies: (1) siege mentality (implying that "the world is against us"), (2) irredentist statements like "part and parcel of the historic Land of Israel" and "To the victors go the spoils", and (3) characterising Palestinians as "Moslems" (which is as facile as suggesting all Israelis are Jews). Genuinely well-balanced supporters of Israel do not try to hide inconvenient facts - they embrace them and work to make Israel better. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Attacking my point-of-view ("extreme," "mentality," "irredentist," "Moslems") is not a legitimate form of discourse. Further your phrase "Genuinely well-balanced supporters" does not address the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is not to support one or another POV but rather to provided information. The term "occupation" is politically charged and must be taken as advancing a political agenda. It should only be used with careful qualification. As it stands this Wikipedia article is biased.Jabeles (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This sentence is also a wp:pov since it implies that it is Israel's fault, without mentioning the Israeli generous peace proposal at year 2000 (p.m Barak) and 2008 (p.m. Olmert ) and the Mahmud Abbas refusal to negotiate. The main problem is the right of return of the Palestinian refugees. The public in Israel will never accept it, as the meaning is the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Should not the Jews have rights for their own little country? Since the Palestinians has rights for their own country as well, I am personally for an immediate and unilateral retreat of Israel from the West bank, while keeping what is needed to avoid smuggling heavy rockets into the Palestinian state. The situation is rather similar to the Egyptian peace proposal of 1971. The Egyptians caused the 1967 war, including public speeches that Israel will be destroyed this time. They lost the war and then in 1971 they proposed (sort of cold) peace, provided Israel would immediately give away her playing cards (the territories ) before starting negotiations (indirect only).! I propose to remove this sentence for both reasons: because the occupation of Kashmir started at 1947, and because this sentence is a wp:pov. Ykantor (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence most certainly does not imply fault. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned, that Kashmir is occupied is fringe with only the involved parties in the dispute viewing it as such. You can also find sources that say Tibet or Hawaii is occupied but it doesn't mean it is true. There are many territorial disputes but they don't necessarily involve occupied territory. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean that Tibet is not occupied? so the U.S senate and congress voted for a fringe view ? " On 28 October 1991 both the Senate and the House of Representatives legislated perhaps the most important legal pronouncement on Tibet. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal year 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138 (H..1415) declared Tibet, including those areas: incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai, is an occupied country under the established principles of international law; (2) Tibets true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile as recognized by the Tibetan people, and finally calls for Tibetan peoples right to self-determination " Norbu2012p275 Ykantor (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It is technically "annexed". We have discussed this distinction previously. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't see that is the US position (meaning the goverment's) nor have I seen any state view it as occupied (if there are it is still vast consensus it is not) though others does view it as such. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir is not recognized as occupied in any international fora, certainly not with anything approaching the consensus on Palestine. It is of course true that there are a huge number of Indian troops there, and there is widespread separatist sentiment. Tibet is not occupied either, there is no country in the world that recognizes it as occupied. There were and remain border disputes, and problems with autonomy and repression, but that is not the same as occupation technically. International law can be crazy and inconsistent, but that's the way it is. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

- "Tibet is not occupied either, there is no country in the world that recognizes it as occupied". Correct, and the reason is simple- no country dares to encounter China. If hypothetically , China would have occupied the West bank, It would have been the same- no country would have dares to encounter China and recognize it as an occupied territory. The International laws are not really applied to the big powers. But if you look at the definition of "occupied" in a dictionary, Tibet is 100% occupied. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we just not mention the longest occupation line since it is not npov and is not necessarily even true. The US is technically occupying Native American land, Tibet and Kashmir are both occupied, as well as similar occupations elsewhere. This line will just inflame tensions further for this article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The length of the occupation of the Palestinian territories is very significant (48 years now) so it belongs here. Giving examples of other territories you think is occupied too when they are not seen as that is not either a reason to not mention this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not going to accept with equanimity the pejorative/polemic tone of the subject statement (regarding longest military occupation). Neither should any Wikipedia Editor or Administrator with a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. To wit, the statement clearly is meant to calumnify Israel, the only Jewish State in the middle east. Clearly, the implication is that the occupation is a bad thing because it deprives certain individuals of self-determination and imposes inconveniences or hardships upon them! But the question is, who is responsible for the undesired state-of-affairs? That is the key point, and it is implicit. The clear and extremely biased insinuation is that the responsibility falls upon the occupying power, i.e., upon the State of Israel. But is this so? That isn't addressed in these talk pages. If the main page describing the State of Israel implicitly criticizes Israel savagely without justification, that is not a neutral point of view. The main page, to satisfy neutrality concerns, needs to touch upon the question of whose fault it is that this occupation has lasted since 1967 (48 years), and moreover acknowledge de minimus that there is honest disagreement among well-intentioned individuals as to (indeed) which side may be responsible. FURTHERMORE, the citation of scholarly and journalistic works claiming to justify a one-sided point of view (regarding the "occupation" being solely the responsibility of Israel) is fundamentally flawed since OBVIOUSLY one could find competing journalistic or scholarly works, or both, that would take an opposing point-of-view. So please dispense with that silliness.Jabeles (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

-@Oncenawhile: : yours:"The sentence most certainly does not imply fault." The occupying force is seen as the "bad guy" and rightly so. But:

1. In this case,Israel, the occupying force, captured the west bank from Jordan after an Jordanian attack. Moreover, even after this attack started, Israel told Jordan that Israel was not interested in a war with Jordan and if this attack would be stopped, Israel won't fight against Jordan. The Jordanian king did not bulge and continued his attack.
2. Israel proposed a peace agreement to the Palestinians at year 2000, a proposal that the American president considered as a generous offer, but the Palestinians refused. Another generous agreement was offered at 2008 and the Palestinians refused again.

In my opinion those facts should be mentioned together with the "long occupation" sentence, in order to avoid the current POV situation. Ykantor (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Both narratives in 1 and 2 above represent pro-Israel propagandistic summaries. Pro-Palestinian propagandistic summaries of the same questions are well known, so I am not going to repeat them here. The middle ground scholarly position is highly complex on both points, as it attempts to retain the facts but remove the hyperbole from both narratives. We are not going to solve this in half a sentence here. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are facts only. Will you please show where there is a propaganda? Ykantor (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, the propaganda statements are: (1) "after an Jordanian attack" (Egypt and Jordan has a mutual defence pact, and Israel attacked first), (2) "The Jordanian king did not bulge and continued his attack" the message was received by Hussein after the Israeli attack on Egypt, and after Hussein's army has started their retaliation; he could not have unwound his mutual defence treaty on the basis of that message, (3) "the American president considered as a generous offer" - see the debate at 2000_Camp_David_Summit#Responsibility_for_failure. I don't want to debate who is right or wrong here - I am just making the point that what you wrote down were memes formulated by Israeli PR which should not be taken at face value. We are not going to resolve these here, so let's move on. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one attempting to engage in PR memes. The fact there was a mutual defense pact between Egypt and Jordan doesn't change the fact Jordan attacked Israel. Maybe they had a reason, but they initiated hostilities between themselves and Israel. And saying that the American president considered the Israeli offer generous is an undisputed fact. There's perhaps a debate if it was a generous offer or not, but not about the fact that this is what the American president said multiple times. Do move on if you want to, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, the above suggests you don't understand how propaganda works. Most propaganda is based on facts which are themselves correct, but these facts are propagated without a reasonable level of context, thereby giving a misleading impression of the overall picture. A modus operandi that you are very familiar with. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the issue, here and globally, is that Israel annexed the West Bank from Jordan as a result of the Six-Day War (after an occupation in 1948, which, ironically, many nations recognized as legal). The terms of the current situation rest on whether or not it is truly an "occupation." If the "occupation" of the The West Bank can be considered a legal annexation after war and not an occupation, why can the Israeli annexation after war not also be considered a legal annexation? Territories are annexed as a result of wars. That is a statement of fact. Whether it is termed occupation, however, can be POV. Goalie1998 (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

After all the verbiage here, we still have the undeniable fact that a large number of highly respectable sources state that this is the longest modern occupation. That makes it available for addition according to the rules, and nobody has provided a rule-based argument for its omission. Nor any logically valid argument, in my opinion. So add it already and think of something else to argue about. Zero^talk 10:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, as per List of military occupations, the occupation of Namibia and German South West Africa was longer (1915-1994). That is certainly still modern times. Goalie1998 (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

For more details, see Namibia#South African rule. "South Africa occupied the colony in 1915" and "... but it was not until 1988 that South Africa agreed to end its occupation". It makes this occupation 73 years long, compared with 47 here.

@Zero0000: In case of a contradiction between reliable sources, per WP:NPOV we report both opinions. Undobtedly many people called the situation on the disputed territories "longest occupation", but here we see another event that was also called occupation and certainly was longer, therefore we can write something like "it was referred to as the longest occupation in the modern times, however Namibia was under South African occupation between 1915 and 1988". “WarKosign” 11:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, it seems that the word "longest" is unnecessary to begin with. Wouldn't it be more factually accurate to state that Israel has been occupying the West bank since 1967? Goalie1998 (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

- The West bank is indeed occupied by Israel, but this sentence is a wp:pov as I wrote here, in my post of 13:28, 20 June 2015.

- Concerning "a large number of highly respectable sources state that this", this large number indicates no more than that the Arab Israeli conflict is popular among researchers. It does not mean that the situation in the west bank is worse than in western Sahara, Tibet etc. Those conflicts' involved population suffer because they are not sufficiently attractive for the researchers.

- @Oncenawhile: : As said, my claims of 13:28, 20 June 2015 are facts only and should not be called propaganda:

---- The fact that Jordan was a member of allied countries against Israel, does not change the situation: Jordan was the first to attack Israel. Also, "Jordan ignored Israel's appeals to stay out of the war - King Hussein later admitted that he had been misled by Egyptian propaganda claims to be winning a stunning victory"

---- "the American president considered as a generous offer"- this is a fact. Independently, for the Palestinians it was not sufficiently generous proposal. In fact, according to the Palestinian leaders, any peace proposal should include the right of return, but for Israel it means the end of Israel as a Jewish state. In my opinion the only solution is immediate and unilateral withdraw of Israel without an agreement, while holding what is needed to block possible import of heavy rockets. Unfortunately, as happened after Israel withdrew from Gaza, the result may be shooting of light rockets into Israel. In that scenario, will Israel re-occupy it ? Ykantor (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Beside engaging in soapboxing, many editors here are engaging in original research. Our aim is to summarize what the sources say, not to invent a narrative to defend our country against a perceived slight. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would hardly call using other wikipedia sources as original research. It is not disputed that South-West Africa was occupied militarily from 1915-1994. Simply because sources use the word "longest" does not make them correct. And unless you (royal you, not any editor specifically) dispute that, the occupation of the West Bank is not the longest. It is simple math. Goalie1998 (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Other wikipedia articles are not RS, but their sources normally are, and I found them. “WarKosign” 14:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign, Shame on you for bringing such rubbish here. Namibia was a League of Nations mandated territory starting in 1920, which was a legal status under international law. It was not occupied then, just as Palestine was occupied by Britain from 1917 to 1923 but not from 1923 to 1948. Even into the 1960s, the International Court of Justice treated South Africa's presence there as legal. So it isn't even close to an example. Zero^talk 14:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you look at the source referenced above, http://www.sahistory.org.za/places/namibia, South-West Africa was under military occupation from 1915 to 1994. Goalie1998 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I am not debating here that Israel has been occupying the West Bank since 1967. What I am positing, however, is that based on my source (which uses actual years, not just the phrase "longest military occupation"), and other wikipedia articles (which I know are not really RS, but other articles referencing the "longest military occupation" use them as well, which I will attempt to correct based on the outcome of this), South-West Africa was under military occupation from 1915 to 1994. Therefore, it is still a longer occupation (79 years vs 48). I suggest we change the sentence to read "Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest current military occupation." Or Israel has been occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967." Both options are factually correct, and they both retain the fact that, yes, it is a long occupation. Goalie1998 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but either you don't know what "occupation" means or you aren't reading correctly. A country can't occupy another and hold it as a League of Nations mandate at the same time. It is a contradiction. It is true that Namibia was occupied in 1915, and it is true (or at least reasonable) that an occupation ceased there in 1994. But that doesn't mean it was occupied from 1915 to 1994. From 1920 until the mid-1960s (by the International Court of Justice) it was not occupied. Zero^talk 18:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Zero is right. The reason we keep coming back to this is that the term "occupied" is used loosely in common speak, thereby causing confusion. But we follow the highest quality sources, and the situation is very clear. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I am just interpreting the sources differently. As I am clearly in the minority on this one, even though I don't see an issue with removing the word "longest" and adding something more along the lines of "since 1967," I will no longer dispute it. There is no point. Goalie1998 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Cold War in Southern Africa: White Power, Black Liberation: "As the regional military and political hegemon, South Africa was of key importance in the events of 1988. It had occupied South-West africa/Namibia since 1915 and long hoped to incorporate the territoriy into South Africa itself. Under increasing international pressure from the internationa community from the early 1970s, however, Pretoria had abandoned attempts at incorporation and instead accepted that Namibia must be led to independence and black majority rule."
• Crucible of Fire: The Church Confronts Apartheid: Essays by Leading South African Christians: "NAMIBIA - The country which South Africa's military has occupied since 1915. In december 1988, a peace treaty was signed that called for the removal os South African troops from this country."

“WarKosign” 19:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This is colloquial not technical usage. For a technical discussion, see:

• "The nature of South Africa's Legal Title", in: John Dugard (1 June 1973). The South West Africa/Namibia Dispute: Documents and Scholarly Writings on the Controversy Between South Africa and the United Nations. University of California Press. pp. 75–. ISBN 978-0-520-02614-8.

I find personally find this world history interesting, and am happy to discuss this for as long as you wish. But frankly this is all WP:OR, unless you can find an WP:RS specifically naming the longest military occupation in modern times to be a situation other than I/P.

Instead of fighting reality, I suggest you accept it for what it is and figure out how to help. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Deciding that one use is technical and another is colloquial is WP:OR. Even if you can find sources that support your claim of two different meanings of the word, unless they specifically mention Israel and Namibia - it would be WP:SYNTH. You can't ignore reliable sources only because they do not fit your POV. We have contradiction between sources, so per WP:NPOV we report both versions. “WarKosign” 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. We identify the highest quality sources focused on the specific question at hand. Your sources use the word "occupied" in passing, and it is unclear whether they are intending to use the word in its technical sense. They are not worthy of consideration for this specific question - there are many books on the legal nature of South Africa's time in Namibia, and any judgement should be based on those. Either way, as I said, "unless you can find an WP:RS specifically naming the longest military occupation in modern times to be a situation other than I/P", then this is all just academic. But please, continue. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The question shouldn't be whether it's the longest occupation or not, but whether mentioning that factoid on this page would be undue. I argue it would. Notice for example that on the Turkey page, they don't say even once that Turkey is currently occupying Northern Cyprus, and that occupation is only about 15% shorter than Israel's occupation of the West Bank. It's not like this occupation is 5x longer than the next runner up, or even twice as long. There are many other articles where this factoid can go without being UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting - since the fact has been established as incontrovertible, let's try another route to get rid of it, perhaps a tenuous WP:OTHERSTUFF argument?

Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has been its no.1 geopolitical issue for almost 50 years. Its unprecedented duration is of the highest notability. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't true, so I'm not sure who you were addressing your first sentence to. Your second sentence on the other hand consists entirely of your personal opinion. This factoid is sometimes mentioned when talking about Israeli occupation, which is sometimes mentioned when talking about Israel. Calling it "unprecedented" is ridiculous since we have already established it's only about 15% longer than Turkey's occupation of Northern Cyprus or Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara, not to mention that historically occupations of 100s of years are not unheard of. It's amply precedented. This is a top level country page, not one focused solely or mainly on the occupation or even Israel's geopolitical issues. Try again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Israel is occupying a population of 4.5m people, equivalent to 56% of Israel's own 8m, of which a further 1.7m (20%) identify with the occupied people. Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus have populations of 0.5m and 0.3m respectively, equivalent to about 1.5% and 0.4% respectively of Morocco's and Turkey's populations. This is a much much bigger issue for Israel than it is for either Morocco or Turkey. Hence comparing the leads of these articles is a red herring, even if WP:OTHERSTUFF didn't tell you that already. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

- @Oncenawhile: Yours: "Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has been its no.1 geopolitical issue for almost 50 years". It is true that this issue is highly popular, but the real issue is not the occupation but the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinians saying clearly that a final agreement must include the right of return for the refugees, which is another name for the end of Israel as a Jewish state. This is a sort of absurd theater where the occupying state proposed (at years 2000 and 2008) to end the occupation but the occupied people do not accept such a final agreement unless the occupying state is sort of committing suicide i.e ceasing to be a Jewish state. Ykantor (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Others would say that the "real issue" is the settlements and irredentism. Combining this with your point, we can conclude that the "real issue" is the right wing on both sides.

Either way, the issue that major international governments have been working to resolve, is the occupation. The question of "what is the real issue" is another way of saying "why has the occupation not ended yet". Which brings us back to the occupation. You're dreaming if you think a reasonable consensus here would ever conclude that the occupation was not a lead-level topic for Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

First line

I want to remove the Hebrew and Arabic script from the first line of the lead, because we have those in the infobox which is just to the right. It's redundant and it just clutters up the first line. Most of our readers probably can't even read Hebrew or Arabic.Kurzon (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In the few articles about states with native language not based on latin script I checked, the native name appears both in the lead paragraph and in the infobox.“WarKosign” 11:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's stupid and I'll happily fix those articles as well if my fellow editors will allow it.Kurzon (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You can try changing China, Russia, Japan, Iran, UAE or about any other country's page and see if the editors watching these pages won't mind you removing their country's name. I suggest you raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography first. “WarKosign” 11:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read MOS:FORLANG, which suggests you're both wrong. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS:FORLANG#Clutter Kurzon (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think WarKosign's suggestion is spot on. Try changing one of those prominent articles (Russia, China) first, and see how that goes. Switzerland might also be a good example, as a country with more than one official language. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with OP. To objectors, please read WP:LEADCLUTTER. An argument may be made for including the Hebrew script, but two languages is too much. JDiala (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Two languages plus multiple IPAs is way too much. Most readers can't even read these things.Kurzon (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Israel has two official languages, so no, two languages in not too much. There's a reason I brought Switzerland up as an example. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Clutter" is defined by how much space all this information takes, not on how many languages the country has.Kurzon (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

My opponent's arguments boil down to "most other articles do it this way". Yes, I like consistency too, do you have a better argument? Kurzon (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

if most articles are written that way, than the MOS is either out of date, or doesn't properly document Wikipedia practice. I don't really need a better one than that, but if you want additional arguments: Israel has two official, non-English script languages. It is useful for readers to know the official name and writing of the country's name in those languages. The Switzerland example is illustrative of this concept: Switzerland has 4 official languages, and the country's name is given in ALL FOUR, plus IPA for ALL FOUR, in the first line. Mind you, that article is rated as a "Good Article", which indicates that at a minimum, it complies with the MOS. I've read WP:LEADCLUTTER, and it is instructive to look at the example it uses for how leads should be written: it gives two IPA pronunciations for the name of a single individual , then a third one in a different language, and then an audio rendition of the name , and then two alternate spellings of the name. Compared to that, having two languages for a country of 8 million people seems quite uncluttered. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

More than two thirds of the first line is unintelligible to most readers, who do not speak Arabic or Hebrew or can read IPA.Kurzon (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There are English transliterations for both the Hebrew and Arabic. IPAs are a feature of nearly every Wikipedia article. Again, look at the Switzerland article. If that one is a "good article", I don't see how you arguments here have merit. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A native name is an important part of a state's identity. Users not interested in the native name(s) can easily skip them. I agree that it could be placed less prominently within the article, but since you are trying to change a long-standing consensus affecting tens of popular articles, you should discuss it at a much larger forum than just one of these articles. “WarKosign” 17:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Other articles do it; therefore, so should we" is not an argument. Notice how cluttered the lead for Switzerland is. That is unacceptable and not proper (per policy). The Republic of India has a myriad of official and nationally recognized languages all of which are important to its identity, yet there is no more than a single transliteration. Another example would be Zimbabwe; sixteen official languages, none of which are included. Now, personally, I don't think it's problematic to include the Hebrew so long as it's not very cluttered. Regarding the argument that name is an "important part of a state's identity", well, one should keep in mind that the (self-proclaimed) identity of Israel is the sole Jewish state and homeland, with Hebrew, the historical language of the Jewish people, being the de facto official language. Arabic is therefore not necessary, since Arabs are a minority. Generally speaking, the minority languages is not included. Furthermore Brad, your interpretation of WP:LEADCLUTTER is erroneous. The point is not that there is some ideal amount of "acceptable" clutter, but that generally speaking, when possible, clutter should be minimized by removing extraneous information. JDiala (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JDiala. It's one thing to include Yisrael (Israel) once, in Hebrew; it's something else entirely to include Medinat Yisrael (State of Israel) in both Hebrew and Arabic. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Hebrew is more important for Israel than Arabic, and if only one of the two official languages is to be presented - it should be Hebrew. I remember some people succeeding to add Arabic spelling of Benjamin Netanyahu's name to the lead despite my objections, but its gone now.“WarKosign” 14:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Hebrew, Arabic, and IPAs are relevant and should be included, but since there is so much of it, and since most readers won't understand them, they should be shifted to some other part of the article, such as the infobox or a "Names" section.Kurzon (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Do we have consensus? JDiala (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The only part of the opening sentence that I would question would be the inclusion after the first word of: "(/ˈɪzreɪəl/ or /ˈɪzriːəl/)". Israel for goodness sake. How hard is that? I think that the inclusion of the languages gives a nice flavour of cultural identity. Hebrew is also unique as a reformatted reinvented or at least resomethinged language and if there ever was a partially English speaking country that deserved reference in another script, this, I think, would be it. Israel is also openly multilingual. See the road signs. See: he:ישראל. The Hebrew version of the page presents the name in English. This is the culture and it would not be encyclopedic if we failed to present this. Arabic is an official language and also the most widely spoken language in the area for long periods of history and should also be included. It takes up little space. GregKaye 17:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Arabic and Hebrew names should be included too - IN THE INFOBOX.Kurzon (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As do I, but either national languages are to be taken out of the lead or they should remain. What is it about the national languages that makes this culturally relevant content a problem while the arguably pointless "(/ˈɪzreɪəl/ or /ˈɪzriːəl/)" text remains? An example of a famously neutral country is Switzerland. Please do not make "Israel" to be different. GregKaye 06:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

These IPA spellings are not as pointless as you think. I've heard Israel being pronounced both as is-rah-el and and is-real by native English speakers, which is exactly what these IPA spellings say. Whether they should be in the lead or somewhere else is a different matter. “WarKosign” 07:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How about as a footnote?Kurzon (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a wikipedia wide issue, and not near resolution to Kurzon's standards, how about a RfC? Goalie1998 (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

An RfC sounds like a good idea, but it should be done at a larger scope than a single article, perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. “WarKosign” 14:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I really do not see how the p&g of WP:LEADCLUTTER as per the example of Ghengis Khan (with its two and a half lines of text inclusive of three citations and a section of vertically aligned text) applies.

The sequence in the text of the Israel article is that we read "Israel (/ˈɪzreɪəl/ or /ˈɪzriːəl/), officially the State of Israel"; then there is a bracket; then there is the text at issue which contains a very significant changes of formating styles and which, if anything, is consistent in its variation; then there is a close bracket; then, after less than one line of text (at least on display on my screen) we get back to a more expected presentation of text in Latin script. Once finding the beginning of the bracketed section, it is relatively easy to find the end.

Another option would be to remove sections of text such as:

• "Medīnat Yisrā'el" and "Dawlat Isrāʼīl"

or

• "IPA: [mediˈnat jisʁaˈʔel] ;" and " IPA: [dawlat ʔisraːˈʔiːl]".

In total the Arabic related content has about 80% of the length of the Hebrew related content

GregKaye 05:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Religion in the Infobox

Before I discuss the change that I am proposing, let me introduce myself. I am Guy Macon, editor for nine years and DRN volunteer mediator. Recently I have been working on correcting problems that occur on multiple pages. You can look at my edit history to see the sort of things I typically work on.

A while back I posted an RfC (you can see it here) concerning pages that have "atheism" in the religion entry of the infobox. Of course atheism is not a religion, for the same reason that bald is not a hair color, off is not a TV channel, barefoot is not a shoe, silence is not a sound, never is not a date, clear is not a color, and not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

As a result of the Request for Comments, I removed the religion parameter from the infobox on over 600 articles. This is the last one that needs to be changed. Note that the closing administrator made it clear in his closing comments that the RfC applies to all articles, not just articles about individuals.

I saved this one for last for two reasons, first, this page is an obvious vandalism target, and someone working through a list fixing problems like I am doing can look a lot like an editor who has never edited a page before and is here to edit disruptively. Second, the information and the sources in this particular infobox seem like something the reader should know -- I know that it surprised me to find out that Judaism is not the official religion of Israel. It gives me hope that maybe, just maybe someday the world will grow up and stop fighting over religion. But I digress.

So we have a clear community consensus that Wikipedia is no longer going to put atheism in the religion entry of the infobox in any article, but instead of simply deleting it in this case I would like one of the editors who has been working on improving this page to move the information into the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The RfC concluded that there is no justification to write in the infobox that a person or another entity is not associated with a religion, and "religion=none" should be removed everywhere. In case of Israel, it's not a simple "religion=none", but "none officially" and 3 long citation over 4000 bytes in length since non-officially Israel is strongly associated with Judaism, and is an important place for Christianity and Islam as well. There is a whole article dedicated to Religion in Israel, so I think that with all due respect to the RfC it should be discussed here before being applied blindly.

I think it was bad procedure to run such an important (and welcome) RfC at template:Infobox person, defined as related to infobox person, only to change its result at the last moment to include nearly all the templates on wikipedia. While I personally support the result, more people should have had a chance to participate. “WarKosign” 03:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We are discussing it here, as specified in WP:BRD. The closing admin did say that [A] it applies to all articles, and [B] anyone is free to post another RfC concerning just countries or even just Israel if they think that it should not apply to all articles (more specific RfCs trump more general RfCs). He also said that the arguments would be the same, which is true. There are good arguments for not having any variation of "none" or "atheism" in any infobox religion entry. "None" is not a religion, and in no other infobox entry do we specify "none" -- no "spouse = none", no "children = none", no "degree = none", no "birth date = none" (applicable to the pages of certain fictional characters, gods, etc.).

As for importance, we also have articles about Religion in Afghanistan and Religion in China, but despite this the editors of China and Afghanistan accepted the clear consensus that "it is clear that they [secularism and atheism] are not religions and it is both confusing and technically incorrect to label them as such" and allowed the entry to be removed.

Keep in mind that nobody is suggesting removing the information or the citations, just moving them to a prominent place in the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your (and the RfC's) reasoning that religion=none should be removed everywhere. You did not reply to my main point - that Israel is not a simple case of "religion=none", but rather "religion=none officially", which in my understanding means that there is an unofficial state religion, which means it's not covered perfectly by the RfC. “WarKosign” 07:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

One of the points that have been made repeatedly (and supported by overwhelming consensus) in various infobox discussions is that the more subtle, nuanced, and complicated something is, the less suitable for inclusion in an infobox. This one is subtle, nuanced, and complicated indeed and, in my opinion, deserves an entire sentence or paragraph, and possibly an entire section. Not a two-word summary that really doesn't convey the actual situation unless you check the citations.

That being said, if the sources support an unofficial religion, then "Religion = Judaism (unofficial)" would be acceptable, and would avoid the problem that there is no religion called "none official" and thus "none official" should not follow "Religion =" in an infobox entry. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources do support an unofficial, but recognized national religion. There is no separation of religion and state government - the religious parties are active in government, and write laws openly based on religion. Even non-Jews in Israel recognize that Israel is the Jewish State. Is "Religion = Judaism (unofficial)" accepted by the wikipedia community as a whole? If so, I suggest we use that. However, if not, I also suggest we remove the religion=none. Goalie1998 (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We need to find good sources saying that Israel has an unofficial state religion. Many sources like this or this discuss separation between the religion and the state and thus implicitly say that today they are not seaprate. This one for example says it explicitly, but perhaps there are better sources.

Note that there is a big dispute whether the label Jewish State refers to Judaism or to Jewish ethnicity. In my opinion it must be the latter since Law of Return criteria differs from Halakha, but many people think otherwise. “WarKosign” 12:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I will leave those questions to you folks; I am just someone who is removing the religion parameter on hundreds of Wikipedia pages as required by the recent RfC on the topic. So can we move the information as it is now into the body of the article so I can move on and continue working on the 1,800 pages with "a the" errors ("Yoichi Hiruma is a the member of a the Deimon Devil Bats")? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Would people be opposed to changing it to "Judaism (unofficial)," leaving the current citations, instead of removing it completely? Goalie1998 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion doesn't matter as much as that of those who have been working on improving the page, but for what it is worth, no objections from me. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm beginning to agree that it's pointless to try and have such a complicated concept explained in 2-3 words in the infobox. "Judaism (unofficially)" or "None officially" is meaningless without the context, and the context can only be provided in the prose of the article itself. At the moment the situation (no official religion, but no separation between the religion and the state either) is not mentioned at all in this article. One possibility is having infobox contain "Religion: complicated", but I don't think many people would accept it. Status quo (Israel) is dedicated to this subject, I think a mention and a link should be added under Israel#Politics. “WarKosign” 07:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Currently the "demographics" section has got a POV tag - the infobox should not change until the POV issue is sorted out in that section. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• If you look at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations there is already a clear consensus for removing the parameter, and according to WP:CONLOCAL, consensus on this talk page cannot override the community consensus from the RfC. Unless the consensus at the RfC changes soon (unlikely), the infobox entry will be removed from this article. Your only choice is whether to move it into the body of the article or just let it be deleted without being moved into the body. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Start an actual RFC based on the actual issue first. Your narrow -- and, ironically, uttery dogmatic -- application of a not-widely held RFC in a different area as if it were a ruling handed down by God isn't going to fly. There is no "requirement", no matter how much you like to use the term. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that we won't have an actual consensus until the RfC is closed after 30 days and an uninvolved administrator evaluates the consensus and posts a determination in the closing comments, you should be aware that if at that time you refuse to accept the consensus you will be warned, and then blocked from editing Wikipedia (not by me -- that will come from an administrator). See WP:OWNERSHIP. The RfC is still open, so you might want to make your best argument there and see if your argument is compelling enough to turn the developing consensus around.

To the other editors who maintain this page; unless the consensus at the RfC changes soon (unlikely), the infobox entry will be removed from this article, possibly after Carlton is blocked. Your only choice is whether to move it into the body of the article or just let it be deleted without being moved into the body.

If I wanted to be a jerk about it, I could invoke the rule that everything in the infobox has to be covered in the body and delete it on that basis alone, but my goal here is not to start a fight, but simply to implement the community consensus. I have a lot of respect for the editors who look over this page despite a bunch of disruptive vandals wanting to mess with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Both RfCs are not applicable here since they refer to "religion: none" which is not the case here. The state has an official and legal association with a religion, I linked above to some sources that prove this. While I tend to agree that it's better to explain this complex relation between the religion and the state in the body of the article, we should complete a civil discussion first and make sure that this is the best way to represent verifiable and unbiased information. There is no need to delete the whole infobox to make a WP:POINT, nor to threaten people who disagree with you.“WarKosign” 05:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The first RfC has been determined not to apply, so discussing it is a waste of time. The entry with the most support so far in the second Rfc clearly states "In infoboxes on articles about non-religious (as opposed to anti-religious) nations, religion should not be listed in the infobox, and the religion parameter should be removed." nobody thinks Israel is an anti-religious nation. If Israel is a religious nation, then no variation of "none" is allowed in the religion entry of the infobox because it would be factually incorrect. If Israel is a non-religious nation, then the RfC applies and the parameter must be removed. If you want to retain the "religion =" parameter, pick an actual religion. Nobody is threatening anyone. I am merely explaining how RfCs work and what happens to editors who refuse to follow the consensus as defined in the administrator's closing comments of the RfC. Would you prefer to end up blocked without anyone warning you about the sort of behavior that will get you blocked? Again, if you really think you have a valid argument, the RfC is still open, and you have every opportunity to post your argument on the RfC page and see if the Wikipedia community agrees with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Looks like I need to explain you how RfCs work. A community is asked a question, and if it is a specific question then the answer can be applied imediately. If it is a policy question (like in our case), then in each case it's a judgement call whether or not the policy applies. Anybody can voice an opinion, and nobody ever gets blocked for voicing an opinion in a civil manner.

This is not a case of WP:CONLOCAL - we are not discussing whether we should ignore a community consensus that clearly applies to this article, but whether or not this community consensus applies to this article at all. Both RfCs are applicable if and only if Israel's religion is "none", which in my opinion is not the case. You're saying that Israel is a non-religious nation, I disagree and have sources that prove it. Nonetheless, in my opinion it is better to remove "religion=none officially" from the infobox, because it can be explained better in the body of the article. “WarKosign” 15:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign and Goalie1998: Do you want to participate in the RFC? If it is a special/important issue, you might want to raise it there. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Discuss-Dubious: It looks quite obvious that the RfC will pass, so I won't bother supporting it. It takes care of non-religious nations, so it's not applicable to Israel. “WarKosign” 19:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

De facto religion is not meaningful to the argument. Only de jure faith is. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Discuss-Dubious: If you have access to jstor, try reading Law and Religion in Israel, Izhak Englard, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter, 1987), pp. 185-208. If not, here's a quote from its conclusion: "The centrality and intensity of the conflicts about law, state and religion in Israel are grounded in the very idea of establishing a Jewish state. ... The noncomitant emergence of factual and legal symbols concerning the nature of the Jewish state constitutes a decisive factor both in the configuration of the system and in the course of the conflicts. ... In view of the fact that the topic of law and religion goes to the very foundations of Israel's statehood, one can hardly expect in the near future any lessening in the conflicts' acuteness or a decline in their frequency." Basically it says that the situation is more complicated than a simple binary "Israel does/doesn't have an official religion"“WarKosign” 20:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment I think that as long as there is good reason to present the "None official" statement in the Religion entry then this presents greatly notable content.

Guy Macon In regard to atheism I thought it was inappropriate to comment that "bald is not a hair color, off is not a TV channel, barefoot is not a shoe, silence is not a sound, never is not a date, clear is not a color, ..." Head shaving is an option in hair styling; off is a setting; going barefoot is a potential radical choice dependant on conditions; silence, a state in which no sound is heard, can also be of great note; A fact that something has been reported not to have happened will in some cases, be similarly notable; clear is an appearance.

Your final mention that "not collecting stamps is not a hobby" seems to me to offer nothing but argumentum ad absurdum. Religious choice is an issue that effects a great number of people at a potentially deep psychological level. A choice as to whether or not to adopt a stamp collecting as a hobby/investment based activity is not something likely to have anything like a similar level of personal affect. GregKaye 07:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So you are arguing that atheism is a religion? If so, the overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community is that it is not. We have multiple RfCs an discussions that clearly show that the consensus of the Wikipedia community is that "religion = none" and "religion = atheist" (and close synonyms like "none (atheist)", "state atheism" "irreligious", "NA", and "none official") should be removed from the religion field of all infoboxes on all articles.

You (Greg) appear to have not participated in the discussion at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join the discussion there. If your arguments are sound, you may end up swaying the consensus your way. That's what happened during the previous RfC about individuals; the final result went against my initial choice and I ended up removing the entry on 600 articles that I had previously (based on the consensus at that time) changed to "religion = None". --Guy Macon (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon If a government makes a decision for the country to have no official religion then this has relevance to views on the religion of the country. If a government was to do something such as to actively promote atheism or if the country has a culture that otherwise was to actively promote atheism then this has relevance to religion. Bald is not a hair colour and the not having an official religion is not a ritualistic practice within a religion. However, it is a stance relevant to religious practice in a country. GregKaye 14:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I am going to try once more and then give up on you. After your response implying that bald is a hair color, off is a TV channel, and barefoot is a shoe, I asked you if you arguing that atheism is a religion. It is a simple question: is atheism a religion? I also asked you if you were going to join the RfC discussion. Are you or aren't you? You can, of course, choose not to answer, but I am equally free to choose not to have a discussion with you as long as you exhibit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Finally, I would strongly advise you against editing the article against the consensus in the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WarKosign in that this is not case of a country having no religion, but of one not having a legally defined official religion. What you have to remember, is that the law here is so intertwined with Judaism, that if you were to separate the two - religion and law - this country would no longer be the same. There are many aspects of daily life that are subject to the rabbinic courts here, and as such under Jewish Law, not Israeli Law. I still think this page requires Judaism to be in the infobox as the religion. Goalie1998 (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Just as a procedural note, the RfC only forbids variations of "none" and "atheist"; "Judaism" would be allowed. I have no opinion on whether it is a good choice. I will leave that to those of you who are interested in this topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The RfC doesn't seem to be addressing articles like this, and this issue is important, appears in many RS and as Guy notes is apparently not common knowledge, so I think readers will benefit from it being in a prominent place like the infobox. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the RfC specifically to address articles like this. I don't see any way I could possibly have made that more clear when I wrote the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken it was held on a page relating to personal pages, not country pages? That is not the forum for making decisions on this kind of page. How could it be? You can't extrapolate from people to countries. That's ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong RfC. You want to look at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Of course it isn't final until it closes after 30 days and an admin writes up a closing statement, but you can see the way it is going. When it closes (unless the consensus changes, which is unlikely) I will remove the religion parameter from this page and then we will see who wants to be blocked from editing Wikipedia for reverting against consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: I suppose that saying that Israel's religion is Judaism (unofficial) may be considered POV, but it is well supported by sources. Goalie1998 should have linked to sources, but failing to link does not make a statement unsourced.

@Goalie1998: I do not think we had a consensus to actually make this change - while I consider it correct, I think having this statement in the infobox serves no purpose, it's better to have it in a section under Israel#Politics. “WarKosign” 18:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's put in the article without citing a source, it's unsourced. I believe the balance of the sources will tell you that Israel has no official religion, not that Judaism is it's "unofficial" religion (what does that even mean?). If there's such a thing as an unofficial religion every European country would have Christianity in the infobox since they draw many of their laws from what they think that religion says, often invoking god and whatnot. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought we had enough of a consensus (lack of disagreement to previous requests to change it as such), and also thought I left the sources in. Goalie1998 (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a draft of the section I intent to add under politics, after Legal System:

Religion

Main article: Status quo (Israel)

Israel has no official religion , however the definition of the state as Jewish creates a strong connection and well as a conflict between state law and religious law. Political interaction of different parties keeps the balance between state and religion largely as it existed during the British mandate.

End draft

Given the content of the paragraph and it's sources, I think it would be more correct for the infobox to say religion: Judaism (unofficial), however it would be more useful for the infobox to omit the religion parameter entirely and explain the complex situation in the body of the article, as the paragraph above (after comments and corrections here) “WarKosign” 07:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless the religion parameter on the infobox is changed to name an actual religion in the next few weeks, the RfC will close ant the religion parameter will be removed from this article, as it has already been removed from 600 other articles that did not name an actual religion in the infobox. This is not optional, and you don't have a choice on this. Someone here could post an RfC at Template talk:Infobox country asking whether this page is an exception, but the consensus will almost certainly be that it is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are so sure of it, why do you bother following me around pasting this assertion ? In case you haven't noticed, I support removal of religion field from Israel's infobox, so I really don't know what you are trying to achieve. “WarKosign” 17:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing will be lost by removing the religion parameter. The "none official" is absurd and non-informative because it opens a whole bunch of questions and is unclear and I do not think that this is the purpose of an infobox. So yes remove it. Benjil (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Since nobody objected, I implemented the change. “WarKosign” 07:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I did read this entire thing before adding "religion= Judaism(unofficially)". What is the objection? It concurrs with the article and the discussion.Scientus (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC Lead sentence clutter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The first line of the lead of the Israel article notes the English, Arabic, and Hebrew transliterations of the name along with their IPAs. Consequently, the first line is heavily cluttered. About three quarters of the line is text that most of our readership will not be able to understand. Most of our readers do not speak Arabic or Hebrew or understand IPA. I submitted a motion to clear the first line of this text, perhaps moving the material to some other section of the article. I noticed that the infobox in the top-right of the article already has the Hebrew and Arabic translations of "State of Israel", so I see no need for them to be in the first sentence of the lead.

It was pointed out to me that this is a problem that appears across many articles concerning countries with multiple official languages, such as Switzerland. Since the issue is widespread, I would like some external comments. These articles all seem to be in violation of WP:LEADCLUTTER.Kurzon (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• The current site-wide consensus and de facto status quo is that country articles feature official and common names of the country in that country's official languages, in addition to Latin romanisations. However, in many cases a country has multiple official languages, and often the case there is talk page consensus on those articles to move the information to an infobox or language template. Take China, for example, which has many official languages (Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian, Uyghur and Zhuang) - the lead paragraph only shows the name in Chinese, and the rest of the languages are placed in a template on the right hand side, below the country infobox. Ultimately, a solution for lead paragraph clutter should be decided by community consensus on that particular article's talk page; I personally would be opposed to forming a Wikipedia-wide "rule" or "guideline" which firmly dictates in stone what editors can and cannot do, per WP:KUDZU. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• I oppose removal of the native name, for the reasons stated by Benlisquare. "Most of the readers don't understand Hebrew or Arabic" is an invalid reason to delete material. Per the MoS, IPA should be provided when pronunciation is non-obvious, which is the case here. “WarKosign” 15:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• I oppose removal of the native name, for the mentioned reasons. Ykantor (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I really do not see how the p&g of WP:LEADCLUTTER as per the example of Ghengis Khan (with its two and a half lines of text inclusive of three citations and a section of vertically aligned text) applies. The sequence in the text of the Israel article is that we read "Israel (/ˈɪzreɪəl/ or /ˈɪzriːəl/), officially the State of Israel"; then there is a bracket; then there is the text at issue which contains a very significant changes of formating styles and which, if anything, is consistent in its variation; then there is a close bracket; then, after less than one line of text (at least on display on my screen) we get back to a more expected presentation of text in Latin script. Once finding the beginning of the bracketed section, it is relatively easy to find the end. Kurzon by extension of the rationale that you have presented we could also remove the first three pictures from the article as they all present otherwise unexplained symbols and scripts. GregKaye 06:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

My main argument is that the Hebrew and Arabic translations are redundant when we have them in the infobox.Kurzon (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of the text per GregKaye, it doesn't look like it's violating LEADCLUTTER. Moreover, this kind of text is common and appears in almost every single country article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some consistency, please?

When I google "Capital of Israel" I get a box from Wikipedia stating that it's Jerusalem. When I google "Capital of Palestine" I get two little boxes from Wikipedia that say Ramallah and East Jerusalem.

I propose that the information for Israel's capital be changed to "Western Jerusalem", or "Jerusalem (proclaimed)", or something of the sort. It's simply not factually correct to say that Jerusalem as a whole is Israel's capital, it's not recognized as such. 80.6.70.42 (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like your complaint is with Google, not Wikipedia. The "infobox" at the top right of this article says that Jerusalem is the disputed capital of Israel. The article's first paragraph describes Jerusalem as Israel's "designated capital and the most populous individual city under the country's governmental administration" but the next sentence says "Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed."

By comparison, our article about the State of Palestine says in its infobox that its proclaimed capital is "Jerusalem (East)" and the first paragraph describes Jerusalem as Palestine's "designated capital". The two articles aren't equivalent, but neither is the situation in Israel and Palestine. I think we've done a pretty good job of staying neutral. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Both Ramallah (originally far into the original UN designated area for an Arab state) and East Jerusalem (in the UN designated area for an international city) are both to the East of the Green Line. West Jerusalem (also in the UN designated area for an international city) is to the West of the Green Line. All claims to Jerusalem are questionable but Zionist claim to East Jerusalem seems to me to be the least justified of all. template presentation of Jerusalem as being the Largest city in Israel, even with the "this is disputed" footnote remains, to my mind, a travesty of truth and a product of pov pushing Wikipedians. International governments do not accept the West Bank as being in Israel and the UN has declared "Jerusalem Law" as null and void. The article remains tainted with spin and bias. GregKaye 18:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't see why the 1947 UN plan should have any relevance since it was rejected by the Arabs and never implemented and is null and void. None of the parties is asking for its application today. Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel today, it is just a fact, not a claim and your personal opinion does not really count. East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967, is part of the State of Israel de facto (and de jure in Israeli law), and this annexation is disputed. These are the facts and we should stick to them. Benjil (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"(and de jure in Israeli law)"

That's what I'm talking about. Most Arabs don't even think Israel exists, but we don't indulge their personal opinions. Why would we, as an intellectual body, care whether the party that has annexed Jerusalem thinks it's justified. It is NOT de jure according to international law and this should be reflected in the Wikipedia article, not some petty PC POV pushing. If Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital... then it's not recognized as Israel's capital. This is the fact that we should stick to, not some primitive brutish "de facto" view. 80.6.70.42 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Notes

References

Infobox: Language

Question on the language in the infobox... There has been a distinction made between Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew, but not between Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic. Modern Hebrew is not a different language than Biblical Hebrew, just an updated version - if you can speak/read/write one, you can speak/read/write the other with some minor stylistic differences. Biblical Hebrew is not spoken now. Is that not the same difference as Classical vs Modern Standard Arabic? Classical Arabic is what is used in the Quran, while Modern Standard Arabic is what is spoken now. While there is no named difference between the two variants, they are in fact variants. I just noticed there was a few edits regarding this and wanted some clarification. Goalie1998 (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

First official language of Israel is Modern Hebrew, colloquially referred to as simply Hebrew. Technically Modern Hebrew is considered a distinct form of Hebrew that was developed in 19th century. Unless a distinction is needed, Modern Hebrew is referred to as simply Hebrew, and this is what I think we should show in the infobox. It should link to the correct article.

It seems that it's the same for Arabic - while colloquially the language spoken by the Arab minority in Israel is called Arabic, second official language in Israel is Modern Standard Arabic or Literary Arabic, so we should show Arabic in the infobox and link to Modern Standard Arabic. “WarKosign” 10:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No Universal Sufferage

A large portion of the population of Israel are not citizens and cannot vote, which violates the definition of universal sufferage. Also apparently my opinions are "misconceptions" which apparently must be fixed. Scientus (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The only non-citizens in Israel who cannot vote are foreign workers, and the "permanent residents", mostly Arab residents of East-Jerusalem, who can become citizens if they wish and more and more are doing it. This is not a "large portion" of the population of Israel. But of course I guess you are speaking about the Palestinian population in the "disputed" territories. Since these territories are not part of Israel (and they can vote to their own autonomous Palestinian Authority when it deigns organizing elections, they are not part of "the population of Israel". If and when Israel decides to annex the territories, we will speak about it. Benjil (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of universal suffrage defines it as "the extension of the right to vote to adult citizens". As you acknowledge in your statement, Scientus, "a large portion of the population of Israel are not citizens and cannot vote". That seems entirely consistent with the definition of universal suffrage. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The US also has a similar situation in Washington DC, where citizens do not have federal representation. "If and when Israel decides to annex the territories" The wall has already been built.Scientus (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The future (or lack thereof) of a Palestinian state is irrelevant. As it stands now, all Israeli citizens have the right to vote, so there is universal suffrage. Goalie1998 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsense for two reasons. First, universal suffrage means all citizens can vote. Second, the overwhelming majority living in Israel are Israeli citizens.Jeppiz (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No, *you* are nonsense. Israel clearly does not recognize any Palestinian state (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/us-vatican-palestinians-idUSKBN0P618120150626 -statements *today*), and thus to them there no logical conclusion but them having annexed it (no the mention the existence of a wall), and if these people are not citizens of Israel then they general are not citizens of any country, which doesn't make any sense at all. No matter what bizarre definitions of citizenship Israel has with its Right of Return, the Israel is not a country of its people and thus does not have Universal Suffrage.Scientus (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Israel recognizes PNA as the representative of the people in the disputed territories. Your personal conclusion is irrelevant. “WarKosign” 09:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If you believe Israel has annexed the West Bank, you might want to go ahead and attempt to edit this and the other articles on the subject to reflect that fact. It is a little bit of a double standard to suggest that non-Israelis living in the West Bank must have the right to vote in a country that the international community claims they aren't part of. The West Bank isn't legally Israel, but the ones living there must have the right to vote in Israel? Goalie1998 (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Israel recognizes PNA as the representative of the people in the disputed territories." *disputed* implies that Israel *has* annexed it, and having two classes of people is *an* apartheid, not democracy.Scientus (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Look at Palestinian territories. It says "occupied" and not "annexed" everywhere. Since you know better, perhaps you can present your evidence on their talk page, and see if they agree with you. “WarKosign” 18:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Demographics

Is it necessary or useful to the article have a picture of a generic child (I am aware it is Bar Rafaeli, and that she is Israeli) in the Demographics section? Maybe remove it, or replace it with something that more appropriately depicts the demographics of Israel? Goalie1998 (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again...“WarKosign” 14:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in that discussion, but after a quick read through it appears that consensus at the time was to remove it? Goalie1998 (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus was to replace it with a picture of soldiers around Peres and Netanyahu, don't know why it didn't happen.

I'll make the change? Goalie1998 (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Goalie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.70.42 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

POV Reference to Jerusalem

The statement that "Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed" is misleading and I believe biased. It suggests that Jerusalem is Israeli territory, but that some dispute this. The reality is that few countries recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. A more accurate statement would be "Israel annexed occupied Jerusalem, an act which is not recognized internationally".122.59.167.152 (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem is Israeli territory. Quit trolling. 58.168.196.22 (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

58.168.196.22 RE: "Jerusalem is Israeli territory" can you please cite that? GregKaye 16:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem will remain in Israel no matter how many times you'll try to question this simple fact. Jerusalem is in Israel because it is controlled by Israel, administered by Israel, populated by Israeli citizens and permanent residents, and the only way you have to enter Jerusalem is by crossing the border into Israel. Legality of this situation is disputed internationally, and both facts are described in the lead as well as in the article. “WarKosign” 18:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that statement implies Jerusalem would be in Israel. To the contrary, it says Jerusalem is not considered Israeli, which is in line with what the best sources say on this. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The statement just describes the situation: Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem (the de facto situation on the ground) is disputed (not recognized de jure by most countries). This is as neutral as it can get. Benjil (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. --JBL (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't imply that Jerusalem is entirely in Israeli territory, if that's what you're thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.70.42 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Occupied territories

These lines arent exactly accurate:

Israel has applied civilian law to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, incorporating them into its sovereign territory and granting their inhabitants permanent residency status and the choice to apply for citizenship. In contrast, the West Bank has remained under military occupation, and Palestinians in this area cannot become citizens. The Gaza Strip is independent of Israel with no Israeli military or civilian presence, but Israel continues to maintain control of its airspace and waters.

They imply, through using in contrast and using incorporating into its sovereign territory, that the Golan and East Jerusalem are not occupied. Yes, Israeli civil law has been applied to those two territories, but no that does not mean they are no longer held under military occupation. Id like to correct that. nableezy - 21:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It implies nothing but what is written. You should stop projecting your own agenda on the text. It is very clear and neutral. Benjil (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

For clarification, we can add "occupied" just before "Golan".

Pluto2012 (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? Sorry, but this is relatively simple to follow, and if you cant do so without saying I am projecting an agenda then I really dont know what to do for you. But to the point, when you write in contrast, the West Bank has remained under military occupation you are making a comparison between the West Bank and what had previously been mentioned (EJ and the Golan) and saying that the difference is that one is still under military occupation and the others are not. That is what is written, and that is incorrect. Im going to change that. nableezy - 21:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not under "military occupation", it is part of the Israeli territory. That the annexion is not recognized is an important issue, but you cannot on the other hand change the reality on the ground. There are no soldiers patrolling the streets of Jerusalem or even "East-Jerusalem", there is no difference between this part of the city and the rest or any other city on this respect. So no. Benjil (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there IDF barracks at East-Jerusalem ? So, it is under "military occupation". But I din't see why it would be important here. According to the Security Council Resolution, East-Jerusalem is an occupied territory. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not what military occupation means. So yes. There are countless sources on this subject, and they make abundantly clear that the international community considers East Jerusalem occupied territory. Occupied Palestinian territory, not "part of the Israeli territory". nableezy - 19:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There are IDF barracks in all Israel, where exactly should they be, on Mars ? By the way, which barracks in Jerusalem ? And yes that is what military occupation means: *military* occupation. Anyway Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not take side in a conflict. The article does note that most of the international community does not recognize the annexion of East-Jerusalem, it does not have to support (or not support) it. Benjil (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but again no that is not what military occupation means. It means that Israel exercises effective military control of territory that is outside of its sovereign territory. And neutral on Wikipedia means fairly and proportionally reflecting what reliable sources say on the issue, and besides you would have the article take the side that EJ and the Golan are not occupied by Israel but instead a part of it. Which, by the way, is a minority position. nableezy - 21:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Definition of MILITARY OCCUPATION

control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/military%20occupation

Now this does not apply to East Jerusalem nor the Golan that are not under no military government. The issue of the majority or minority view of the international community has nothing to do with the facts on the ground. You are trying to push your POV. Benjil (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No, and I can just as easily reply saying you are trying to push a POV that the "facts on the ground" overrule the status under international law. Again, that is not what the term military occupation under international law means. See for example the ICRC: As explained by President Maurer in his article, the ICRC as well as the international community in general, regards east Jerusalem as no less ‘occupied’ than any of the other areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Having boots on the ground and martial law is not the determinant of whether a territory is held under belligerent occupation or not. The point is that Israel exercises effective military control over a territory that it is not within its sovereign territory. East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip are widely considered occupied territory despite Israel not having its soldiers enforcing martial law in those territories. NPOV means including all views in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources. nableezy - 05:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not know that Wikipedia as supposed to rule about international law. Yes the facts on the ground are more important than whatever some people in a committee decides because reality is not decided by a vote. You spoke of "military occupation" and I showed you that, contrary to what you claim, "having boots on the ground and martial law" is indeed determinant of whether there is a "military occupation". Nobody debates the fact that area B and C of the West Bank are under military occupation. Not Jerusalem and the Golan and of course not Gaza that is under no occupation but that of the Hamas. NPOV means giving all the relevant viewpoints as viewpoints, not adopting one because it is "the majority". Benjil (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You did not show me anything, you gave me a dictionary definition of a topic so complex that there are countless reference works discussing it. I gave you an actual source, specifically about East Jerusalem. Whether or not Israel "debates the fact" is irrelevant, what we do is show what the sources say, and they say that EJ is held under occupation, as is the Golan. Im not arguing this point with a random person on the internet, I brought a source, I can bring several more. You brought a personal opinion masquerading as definitive proof. nableezy - 08:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You dropped "military" in the middle of the discussion. Which was the whole point. Nobody is contesting the fact that these territories are considered as occupied by most countries. The article says it. So what exactly is your issue ? If you do not want to argue with " random person" (no more than you by the way, who do you think you are ?) do not come here. Benjil (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two types of occupation in international law, occupying terra nullius and belligerent occupation. My point on not arguing with a random person on the internet is that I dont care what you feel or think about a topic, all that matters is the sources you bring. And you havent brought any, youve just said no. Im not going to pay much more attention to that. East Jerusalem is considered occupied, and saying that it is not by contrasting with the West Bank and claiming it was incorporated into Israel's territory is pushing a minority POV as fact. Ive already corrected that issue, so unless you have something besides personal opinion to offer the discussion I think Im done here for now. nableezy - 17:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You have not brought any source but a document about the ICRC whose opinion is absolutely irrelevant. I am also understanding that you seem to voluntary ignore the first issue that we were discussing inc you were proven wrong: that Jerusalem is under military occupation. This was easy to check since this is an objective condition, and it appears that Jerusalem and the Golan are not under any military occupation. Now the second issue is: should Wikipedia take side in a conflict ? You suggest that it should go with the "majority opinion", I think it should be neutral. We are not dealing with a scientific matter where we have published papers in peer reviewed journals but purely political issues where this is no "truth", just interests and points of view. So once again, reach a consensus here before you make any change. Benjil (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The ICRC is irrelevant? Interesting. Here: UN, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (im going to include a quote from that one): since 1967, the UN including the Security Council, has repeatedly stated that east Jerusalem is occupied territory subject to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. It is indisputable that the international community considers East Jerusalem occupied territory. That is a significant view that must be reflected in the article per NPOV. Your belief that anything that does not toe the official Israeli line is irrelevant is actually irrelevant. nableezy - 02:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If you use straw man arguments and are generally of bad faith, I will indeed stop the discussion. Just read what I already wrote, there is nothing more to add. Maybe some other people can also write what they think. Benjil (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There was no straw man, I quoted your argument. You dont like how that quote reads back it may be wise to reconsider making the argument to begin with. I see you still have brought no sources, or even responded to the ones I have provided. nableezy - 20:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If somebody steals your car, he has the control of it. If he parks this at his home, you cannot go and takes this back. You need the support of the police. But it is still your car and he is still a thief, even if he is unarmed. It is possible that the thief claims it is his car. It is the case on the ground : it is in his garage. But tt doesn't change anything on the legitimy of your ownership.

It is false to claim that the annexion of East-Jerusalem is not recognized by ~"all the nations". This annexion is recognized by absolutely nobody. The Security Council, whose resolution have a binding value, stated that East-Jerusalem was an occupied territory. (Note they didn't state a Palestinian occupied terrotory.) It means that whatever Israel claims or could say, whatever the situation on the ground, East-Jerusalem is not part of Israel. It is an occupied territory. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Not all nations call Jerusalem occupied. Goalie1998 (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying that Jerusalem is not part of Israel is like saying that the stolen car is not in the thief's garage: it is a false statement. Perhaps it is illegal and it shouldn't remain so, but at the moment Jerusalem is a part of Israel. Of course disputed legality must be noted.

Note that car theft analogy implies that Israel stole Jerusalem from state of Palestine who is its rightful owner, which is incorrect. Israel did not take Jerusalem from SoP and controlled it long before the state was declared. International consensus does not accept either side's claim on Jerusalem and its final status is to be determined by negotiations. “WarKosign” 09:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign, that's a very unconvincing argument. Was Japan part of the United States from 1945 to 1952? Zero^talk 10:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Was Japan administered by USA and populated exclusively by USA citizens or permanent residents ? Was it normally refered to as part of USA ? If the answer is no, then no - Japan was not part of the US. Since the answer about Jerusalem is yes - yes, it is part of Israel for any purpose except international law. “WarKosign” 11:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that editors avoid original research and analogies and instead stick to on-point reliable sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources about what ? What is the discussion ? That the international community in majority thinks that at least East-Jerusalem is "occupied" (meaning not part of Israel's recognized territory) ? Everybody agrees about it. The discussion was started when Nableezy insisted that Jerusalem and the Golan were under "military occupation", which is not the case, factually. So what are we arguing about in fact ? Saying that Jerusalem is part of the Israeli territory ? Well the solution is easy: it is de facto, de jure by Israeli law, and not according to most countries. Do we need something else ? Benjil (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No Benjil, de jure, East-Jerusalem is an occupied territory because the Security Council Resolutions have a de jure international value higher than any local Law. But it is de facto occupied, controlled and administered by Israel, indeed.

See eg here : United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 Pluto2012 (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Since I am no expert on international law, it would be preferable for someone who is to answer here. I seem to remember than only resolutions under chapter 7 are binding, the others have just a declaratory value or something like that, I studied these things over 20 years ago. Anyway, my wording was not clear, so let's me rephrase: Jerusalem is de facto an Israeli territory and de jure according to Israeli law only, while most other countries do not recognize that fact. Since this is what the article already says, what exactly is the discussion about ?Benjil (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Luckily we dont need you to be an expert in international law, because we have sources that are. You do not understand what the term military occupation means, and I dont see the point in restating it. It does not mean troops patrolling the streets. My problem was with the article stating that the West Bank is under occupation and in contrast East Jerusalem and the Golan are not. I already corrected that issue, so I dont see a point in arguing about this, especially when the argument is filled with fallacious opinions backed by no sources. We use reliable sources here on Wikipedia, not arguments developed from thin air (eg is it administered by Israel and populated by its citizens and permanent residents) or false premises (it is not under military occupation because there are no soldiers enforcing martial law). The sources are clear on this issue, and thats what counts here. nableezy - 19:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is one source that states that Israel executes de-facto control over Jerusalem. I couldn't find many sources that bother to state this simple and obvious fact, I suppose it's because there are no sources insane enough to claim otherwise. Scholars are typically concerned with supporting or rejecting legality of this reality. “WarKosign” 20:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that Israel has control over Jerusalem. Occupied kind of implies that Israel controls it. I dont see what the point of saying that Israel has control over it, that isnt in dispute. But if you read your source youll quickly see that the control it has over East Jerusalem is called by a certain name. And, you guessed it, that name is occupation. Youll also see that it says "effective control" is the legal measure of occupation. Saying East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel does not in any way dispute that Israel controls East Jerusalem, in fact it acknowledges that control. nableezy - 22:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

- "Quod approbo non reprobo". One can not approve and reject at the same time. It was claimed here that although china conquered Tibet, it is not under military occupation because it was annexed to China. By the same token, Israel annexed the Golan Heights, hence it is not under military occupation. Either both Tibet and the Golan Heights are under military occupation, or none of them. The article should be consistent. Ykantor (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:OSE, so Im going to completely disregard any comparison to another Wikipedia article. As far has the Golan or EJ been annexed, that depends on who you ask, as both laws specifically do not include the word annex. Regardless of whether or not Israel claims both those as being a part of their territory, theirs is not the only voice on the matter, and the international community in rare displays of near unanimity have consistently said that neither the Golan or EJ are Israeli territory and both remain under military occupation and subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention. nableezy - 22:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ykantor. As described at Military occupation:

• "Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.[2][5][6][7]"

I have always understood the GH and EJ to have been annexed. Whilst these annexations are legally disputed internationally, that is also the case for many other annexations around the world (e.g. Tibet). What matters is whether in practice they are now annexed - i.e. control is intended to be permanent, is primarily civilian in nature, and citizenship is conferred upon the population. The only one of these three I am aware of not being in place is citizenship in EJ, but I have been led to understand that this is available to Palestinian residents of EJ should they wish to take it up (e.g. [1])

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Although.... The article Has_Israel_Annexed_East_Jerusalem? suggests that there is room for interpretation here. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And in any way, the cases of EJ and GH are different.

The state of war between Syria and Israel never ended, which makes the occupation to be legal. But I don't see how it could be stated it is not a military one, given the state of war...

Sharon Korman in The right of conquest: the acquisition of territory by force in international law and practice, Oxford University Press, 1996. pg. 265 writes : "The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognized by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, on a self-defence basis. Israel, on this view, would be entitled to exact as a condition of withdrawal from the territory the imposition of security measures of an indefinite character--such as perpetual demilitarization, or the emplacement of a United Nations force--which would ensure, or tend to ensure, that the territory would not be used against it for aggression on future occasions. But the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory which it occupies, or to act beyond the strict bounds laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention, has been universally rejected by the international community--no less by the United States than by any other state."

Pluto2012 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think people are focusing on the word military in military occupation and assuming it means something that it does not. Here is a good overview. The army need not be enforcing martial law over a territory for it to continue to be held under belligerent occupation (and yes that term is equivalent to military occupation). This should be clear from the view of the UN, the ICRC, etc. that Gaza continues to be occupied by Israel. The essential condition be that a state exercise effective military control over territory that outside of its sovereign territory.

But again, this is all ignoring the thing that we are supposed to be paying attention to, reliable sources. I do not understand why people think that their own arguments on these topics matter, mine certainly dont. What matters is what the sources say, and they say that the international community does not consider either EJ or the Golan Heights to be a part of Israel and that instead they continue to be held under occupation. That is what the article should say, and last I checked it does say that as I corrected the false comparison to the West Bank that existed when I opened this section. nableezy - 22:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)