Talk:Israel

Edit request from A.P.Lovely1, 16 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

I have found some information relating to the previously discussed topic of Israel and Jerusalem.

Whilst certain Israeli's are adamant that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, many large world organisations like the BBC and VISA card company reject Jerusalem as the capital, and regard it as Tel Aviv, as shown here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122764. Also, the Friends of Al Aqsa (http://www.foa.org.uk/), International Institute of Islamic Thought (http://www.iiit.org/), Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (http://www.mpacuk.org/)and the Arab Media Watch (http://arabmediawatch.blogspot.com/) have all disputed the mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Furthermore, the embassies of El Salvador and Costa Rica have been moved to Tel Aviv, and this is a significant point, as embassies are traditionally held in the capital city. Therefore, I request that the capital city of Israel be changed from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv.

Under what standing do NGOs (like the Institute of Islamic Thought) or businesses (like VISA) have, legally, for deciding or declaring the status or location of capitals under international law? The embassies issue has been discussed elsewhere. Where a country chooses to locate their embassy has no legal standing as to the domestic affairs of that country. If the United Kingdom moved their embassy from Washington D.C. to Philadelphia, the action would have no legal standing on the domestic law of the location of the US capital; the United Kingdom is not the US Congress anymore than El Salvador is the Israeli Knesset. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a known issue with this article. Israel insists Jerusalem is its capital to the extent of sometimes appearing unintentionally funny, however the international community doesn't consider Jerusalem to be Israel's capital, or even to be in Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OuroborosCobra's comment doesn't make sense. If the UK decided to move its capital from London to Warsaw then people wouldn't accept it and Wikipedia wouldn't mention that Warsaw was the capital in its wikipedia article. Israel claiming Jerusalem as its capital is just the same. It's not in Israel and the point is that most governments around the world, most multinational companies and most NGOs agree. Tel Aviv is the capital.--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 01:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem was made capital and seat of government by the only state that includes it. That is not a subjective matter, but a cold, hard fact. People don't need to accept it any more than they need to accept the Earth orbiting the sun. Ya'ir Hunter (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Information

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

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

Well, the spelling doesn't really matter since it's a forgein word (however there is no F in Arab as well). What I said is that the war began at 29 November- with 6 Jews killed at the first day of the battle. Parts of the country (especially near Jerusalem) were conquered by the Arabs even before May 1948! I suggest to write that the war began in November, not May. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.121.108 (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Number One: in english فلسطيني is palestinian. Number two there is a phoentical equivalent to the F in the arabic language. Number 3: Its not the palestinians that started the war (they are the ones who got colonized as shown by the large increase in jewish population at the time),there has been low intensity violence in palestine way before 1948. And so the "proper war" started when the arabs invaded, i am interested in your statement though, so if you could provide a source, i would appreciat it. Philoleb (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed un-sourced material

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

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

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

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

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

My problem is the leading with the word "expelled" rather than 'fled" since while there were, indeed, people who were scared out of Israel by certain groups, their number was so small in comparison with those who simply "got out of the way" at the behest of the Arab Higher Committee that the word order is misleading. (The other problem comes when you note that, until the 60's, the word "Palestinian" always meant "Jews who lived in the Mandate of Palestine". I would suggest "Arab refugees" instead) FlaviaR (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple noes. The word "Palestinian" did not ever only mean Jews who lived in the Mandate of Palestine, and the claim that most of the refugges fled due to orders from Arab leaders (the AHC or other groups) has been largely debunked since the opening of the archives. nableezy - 20:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the expelled vs. fled wording, the Arabs who "fled" on their own initiative in anticipation of being "expelled" at bayonet-point became "expelled" when their return was prevented. --Dailycare (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should open a dictionary and see what "expel" means. You're using it incorrectly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

With the disclaimer that I haven't looked into this terribly deeply, perhaps "fled or were expelled" would be a good compromise. I'm sure there were a mixture of folks who were forced out at bayonet point, and some who chose to leave in anticipation..... NickCT (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there consensus for this change in the overview? Arab MKs in the Knesset

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, Malik always strives his absolute best to make sure that any article he does a lot of work on is kept on the level, at least from what I have seen. Anyway, I'm biased, but I will say that I do think it would be good to include these facts. I've always said that the stuff MK Zaobi is allowed to freely say is another example of how democratic it is. There's also the matter of rights of Israeli Arabs compared to Arabs in the rest of the Middle East. Of course, it would need to be well-sourced from RSs and put in a way as NPOV as possible. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that "Israel defines itself as Jewish and democratic" (or was it the other way around?) belongs in the lead, as it's clearly one of the major points concerning Israel. I'm not sure whether the Arab MKs are a key point, though, or the Jewish majority. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Karakal battalion image

The above mentioned image was firstly removed by me about a week ago or so. The image was part of about 4-5 images in the military section, all appeared one above the other, intruding into the sections below the military section and creating untidy appearance. Therefore I removed all of the images aside for the upper one (the F-16s image). We can all agree that having more than 2 images at the same side of the section is excessive and better avoid. One of the images was of Karkal battalion, which is one of two unisex battalions in the Israeli army. The caption below the image told that this battalion serves in "full combat" capacity, which is factually wrong. The battalion serves only in the southern front of Israel and wasn't involved in major conflicts that Israel had in her northern borders (unlike battalions which serve in full combat capacity). More important, the battalion is dealing with routine security only. Though reference was added to the caption, it didn't support it. Moreover, as the reference was given in citation template and I was advised by the technical support board that there are already too many of them in this article, significantly effecting the speed in which one can download it or make edits in it, I find it just to remove this image as well. I wrote part of the reasons in the edit summaries. Then I added one image below the one of the F-16s, presenting Israeli paratroopers in training. The Image was removed by Avya1, without any reason given. I was thinking that the image didn't look well to her or that it thought that one image is enough, so I didn't revert her. About day or two after she remove the image she added again the image of Karkal battalion in training, I removed it-this time without writing anything in the edit summary -so she revert my edit and wrote that she revert because I didn't justify my action. So just for the good will and understanding, I sum it all for you and for her. One image is enough for the military section, the image of Karakal is relatively new here and replaced other image that was in this section before. So to avoid edit wars I suggest only one image in this section, the present one. Also, there is no place to add image in the left side of the section because it's too long and it wouldn't look good-and there is no reason to cut the section short for having another image.--Gilisa (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 November 2011

Searching for the word "Swine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine redirects the page to Israel. This appears to be vandalism, please revert the redirect to point towards "Pig".

BringFire (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for bringing the vandalism to our attention. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox edit request

Should these parameters be filled: GDP_PPP_rank, GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank, GDP_nominal_rank and GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank? If so, these are the values: 50th, 28th, 41st, 27th. --92.37.196.167 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Please feel free to register an account. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add suffixes to numbers: 50th, 28th, 41st, 27th. --92.37.204.129 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Legality

Should there be a section about the legality of Israel?Philoleb (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh? The legality of Israel? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the legality of Israel or at least the didsplacement of thousands of Palestinians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philoleb (talk • contribs) 06:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying israel is illegal but significant amount of parties/groups says so, arab news chanels refer to israel as occupied to territoriesPhiloleb (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You noticed, of course, that the article already says 950,000 (broken by time frame, 200,000 and 750,000, a couple of sentences apart) fled or were expelled from the area in 1947–48? Fat&Happy (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL :) No i clearly did not notice. But the point is still there. maybe a section about objection to legality/legitimity would be appropriate, because it exists, as shown by how arab news outlets refer to Israel.Philoleb (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

POV (and factually inaccurate)

The intro claims that "Israel is....a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage" This is clearly not accurate. They do not let the Palestinians vote, yet do not recognize them as independent. If calling them an apartheid state would be POV, then surely calling them a democracy is as well. Claiming they have universal sufferage is really going way too far considering the lack of voting rights for so many of the people living under the jurisdiction of Israel. This need to be at least changed to "Israel claims itself to be...."; if not taken out entirely. 97.91.179.137 (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Arab Israelis do vote. Palestine is not recognized as part of Israel by the international community (which speaks specifically to the topic of jurisdiction), nor does the international community consider them to be Israeli citizens. Non-citizens generally do not get the power to vote. For example, I cannot vote in Canadian elections. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

-Israel does not recognize Palestine as independent. The claim of universal sufferage needs to change. You can't vote in Canada but are not subject to their law either. Palestinians can't vote but are subject to Israeli law. Your anology is not a good one. One of two things needs to happen for Israel to have universal sufferage. 1. They let everybody, including the Palestinians vote. Or 2. They recognize Palestine as independent from Israel. 97.91.179.137 (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your statement of Israeli recognition is flawed and incomplete. Israel does not recognize the Palestinian territories as part of Israel. They have not annexed them as they did the Golan Heights, for example. Therefore, Israeli "recognition" of citizenship for the Palestinians is the same as that of the international community, i.e. they are not citizens of Israel. Like it or not, it isn't an "either/or" situation in the way you want it to be. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tell that to Israel. Because they seem to believe quite strongly that all of Jerusalem is part of Israel. The article needs to be changed.97.91.179.137 (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest it is changed to "Israel, as defined by the green line, is....a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage". That would be true. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's true within the annexed areas of Jerusalem as well. Palestinians/Arabs/all residents can apply for and are granted citizenship, and as citizens they can vote. I doubt any country in the world is held to a standard of universal suffrage only being true when extended to non-citizens. If, for example, I went to Canada and demanded to vote while not applying for citizenship we would not change the Canada article to say they did not have universal suffrage. If the Palestinians in Jerusalem were categorically refused citizenship, you would have a case, but that is not wht is going on in the city. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not quite as simple as that as cases like Mubarak Awad show, but I think that's beside the point. I think the important point relevant to issue that was raised by the IP is be careful about how the term "Israel" is used in statements. For example, areas that are often referred to as having been annexed by Israel aren't relevant to a sentence in Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice which takes the form "Israel is X" where X=a representative democracy or whatever. That's a statement about Israel and only Israel. From the perspective of Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice Israel doesn't include anything outside of the green line i.e. Wikipedia can't use the term "Israel" to refer to Israel(as defined by the green line)+East Jerusalem+Golan Heights. So, to say things like "Israel is X" as a unattributed statement of fact using Wikipedia's voice we always need to be careful to either a) be vague and not define what "Israel" means in the sentence or b) ensure that places that can't be referred to as being in Israel using Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice aren't carelessly treated as if they are a part of Israel in statements that talk about attributes of Israel. Given the mandatory nature of the NPOV policy, I'm stating the obvious. But it's surprising how often places across the green line are referred to as being part of Israel using Wikipedia's voice. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If only things within the green line can be referred to as Israel within Wikipedia's voice, then Israel has universal suffrage, full stop. I don't think that's in question. The IP is claiming that Palestinians do not have the right to vote within areas that Israel considers to be Israel, but are outside of what the international community considers to be Israel, namely Jerusalem. If Wikipedia's voice does not allow these areas to be considered part of Israel, then the question of the citizenship and voting rights of those within becomes a moot one for Wikipedia in terms of the question of universal suffrage. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The obvious change is "Israel claims to be..." The article needs to be changed 97.91.179.137 (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not a refutation of any arguments presented. We're aware of your position already. Do you have evidence of a policy of categorical denial of citizenship, and the right to vote coming with it, within the territory considered part of Israel by either the international community or those additional areas annexed by Israel? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Sean, the Awad article states that he was offered Israeli citizenship, and personally chose to refuse it. I realize that there are other important parts to his story but, in terms of the question of universal suffrage, that is the part that matters. He was offered the chance to become a citizen and thus have the right to vote, and he declined. The events that occurred after that may be of note from the perspective of other rights, but suffrage is not one of them. At the time of his expulsion from Israel he was a US citizen and not seeking to become an Israeli citizen. He was not at any time denied citizenship or a right to vote based on being Palestinian; in fact he was not denied the right at all. He chose not to accept that right when offered it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"If only things within the green line can be referred to as Israel within Wikipedia's voice, then Israel has universal suffrage, full stop."...exactly my point. This we agree on. Israel, as defined by the green line, has universal suffrage. The oPt, which includes East Jerusalem, is not part of Israel as defined by the green line and the oPt has nothing to do with statements about whether or not Israel, the subject of this article, has universal suffrage etc. Things are simple when we constrain statements about Israel to being statements only about Israel as defined by the green line, they get complicated and people complain when we ignore the green line. Awad was and is a Palestinian. He was denied the right to citizenship in a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. That is what he was denied. But, as I said, that is beside the point. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Things are not really complicated when we remember universal suffrage applies to citizens, so it doesn't really matter how you define Israel in this context. All adult Israeli citizens are allowed to vote = Israel has universal suffrage. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that works too. And just to be clear, per my 'a) be vague and not define what "Israel" means in the sentence' above, Israel has universal suffrage is perfectly fine by me. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm being more than generous in my recomendation. I could have easily demanded that it be changed to "Israel claimes to be....but...." Like I said if they recognized Palestine then your argument about them not being citizens would make more sense. But they dont recognize that country as an independent being. Shown most promanently in Jerusalem were Israel has officially declared annexation but it is also true with regard to Gaza and te West Bank as well. Bottom line is that Israels status as a democracy is at best controversal. And the wiki article needes to say that. Just flatly declaring them a democracy is incorrect. The article needs to be changed 97.91.179.137 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You said that already. If you don't have anything new to add, it's time to move on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'll keep showing up and demand changes to the article whether you feel its appropriate or not, thanks though. Especially since my argument remains unchallenged. Your side tried to claim that Palestinians don't live under the jurisdiction of Israel. This was proven wrong with the mention of East Jerusalem. The article needs to be changed97.91.179.137 (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But you need to be specific about how the article should be changed, preferably citing reliable sources to support your suggestions. Areas occupied by Israel aren't in Israel. The "annexations" aren't recognized apart from by Israel and may not even be annexations. Israeli citizens can vote in Israeli elections. Either way, a statement like "Israel is....a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage" isn't wrong is it ? It's not the whole story but it's not wrong. Nothing will happen unless you are specific and cite sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I was already specific about how it should change. The claim about universal sufferage should be taken out completely. And the sentance declaring them to be a democracy needs to be changed to include the words, "Israel claims to be..." 97.91.179.137 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself, and you cannot "demand" changes here. The situation has been explained to you more than once. A country where all its citizens who reside on its territory have the right to vote and non-citizens within its borders do not, that's universal suffrage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition, contrary to your claims, your arguments have been challenged. While you claim East Jerusalem as a prime example, it was specifically refuted as an example. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kilmax (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The start of the section under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_the_British_mandate seems to be a bit odd. I don't think it's vandalism, but the link there was supposed to be there isn't.

Also, why can't I edit it directly? I thought that, as a registered user, I was allowed to edit the article responsibly. Having to start a topic in Discussion just to correct these minor errors is a bit of a pain. Kilmax (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a stray part of an alt-tag for one of the images on the page. I've removed it.

You can't edit this particular article because of WP:ACFU‎. --FormerIP (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

Кажеться Вы забыли указать самую грозную часть населения Израиля - четыре тысячи черкесов.Абрек-Аскер — Preceding unsigned comment added by Абрек-Аскер (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

errors section Conflicts and Peace Treaties

Pmurnion (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC) The article section 'Conflicts and Peace Treaties' is quite misleading. Specifically the Intifada is casually mentioned in part of a paragraph which begins with a justification of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The Intifada was clearly critically different from all earlier conflicts involving Israel. It was the first in which Israel was not 'defending' itself from a state attacker. The Intifada brought international focus on the status of the occupation as opposed to the territorial security of Israel. That was an enormous change which is true irrespective of ones opinions on the rights or wrongs of the intifada or the Israeli occupation. The failure to reflect this in the article is a fatal flaw. This flaw should always have been obvious, but now, in the aftermath of the second Iraq war and (current events in) Afghanistan, it should be clear that conflicts that involve non-states are often much more important in the modern world than inter-state conflicts. Failure to deal with this renders the article misleading and is also a general problem for wikipedia aricles on the middle east and conflict in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmurnion (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrative Divisions

There is inconsistency here regarding the population of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The number given for Judea and Samaria is for Jewish settlers and not Palestinians while the number given for the Gaza Strip is for Palestinians (since Jewish settlers were pulled out). This inconsistency makes it look like the Gaza Strip has a larger population than Judea and Samaria, which is not the case. Death by fugue (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Font Issue

Could the Hebrew language font issue please be corrected. {{Hebrew|... should be changed to {{lang|he|... to get rid of an unreadable and overlarge font. I would do it myself, but of course I am not allowed to edit this page! Thank you. (Nathanielba (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

Why? The font used by the Hebrew template is better as it shows nikud properly and without having to strain your eyes. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No climate chart

Yes, Hello!

There is no climate chart for Israel (as for eg. Malta).

Don't make me watch Israeli weather reports for a year!

Shalom.

Gottservant (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)