Talk:Israel

Apartheid is not mentioned once on this page

that should be changed because currently this page is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.231.141 (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion for improving the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it really Kosher to just move all criticism of Israel to a separate page? I think there should be some attempt made to mention the stuff from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Israel on this page, and also to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem stated as capital

I know this has been the subject of some dispute in the past (where did that discussion go?), but wouldn't it be more NPOV to state Jerusalem as proclaimed capital on both this page and the page for the State of Palestine? No country in the world (apart from the US) officially recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Isreal and the reference is the CIA world fact book, which is reputable, but arguably biased in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.181.207 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The article currently lists Jerusalem because that is what Israel considers the capital, and the infobox has a note linking to a description of the controversy surrounding Jerusalem's status. I think that's about as NPOV as you can get. Knight of Truth (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be beneficial to include that Tel Aviv is the "unofficial" capital of Israel, while Jerusalem is the "official, but disputed" capital. Silvertrail (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial according to whom? More specifically, who considers it Israel's unofficial capital, or capital at all? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Lots of people, including Israel agencies, Tel Avivians, other countries, etc. There's no reason to list an "official" capital that is highly disputed without listing the nation's unofficial capital for reference as well. Silvertrail (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.prima-hotels-israel.com/prima-hotels/tel-aviv-hotels

http://goisrael.about.com/od/JerusalemandTelAviv/Jerusalem-And-Tel-Aviv.htm

http://israel21c.org/news/tel-aviv-among-top-party-cities/

http://www.chiff.com/travel/guides/israel.htm

http://www.go-telaviv.com/tel-aviv-israel.html

This question is raised with some regularity, and the consensus is that the footnote disclaimer in the infobox is sufficient. Please read the Talk page archives instead of re-litigating this matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What footnote do you speak of? I see no mention of Tel Aviv as the unofficial capital of Israel anywhere on the page. Silvertrail (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the footnote next to the word Jerusalem in the infobox. Tel Aviv is not the unofficial capital of Israel, whatever that means, so why would this article say that? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

When I click that superscript I am redirected to the References section, not a specific source that mentions Tel Aviv, many people, organizations, and countries believe Tel Aviv is the unofficial capital of the State of Israel, that is why this article should state that, or at least mention it. Especially since the official capital is a disputed one. Just my two cents. Silvertrail (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What is a state's "unofficial capital"? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is a capital that is not federally recognized but is socially and culturally recognized as a capital more or less. Silvertrail (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we add New York City to the US's infobox? Rio to Brazil? Unofficial capitals do not belong in the infobox. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

They should be included in countries that have disputed official capitals, such as the unique case of Israel which claims Jerusalem as its capital but countries and people throughout the world do not recognize it as such. Last time I heard, countries and people all around the world all agreed on Washington D.C. as the official capital of the United States and Brasilia in regards to Brazil. Way to bring in completely unrelated countries and compare them to Israel's unique situation as an argument. Silvertrail (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe a country recognizes another state's city as its capital when it places its embassy in that city. Many (most, I think) of the countries that do have diplomatic relations with Israel have placed their embassies in Tel Aviv, so I would say Silvertrail's comment makes sense. Here is a quote from the wiki page for Tel Aviv: "As the United Nations and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Tel Aviv is home to most foreign embassies." -- Jadhachem (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The footnote is to placate those in the world - including the anti-Israel and Jew haters on Wikipedia - who believe that only the Jews do not have the right to designate the capital city of their own country. They're wrong, of course, though try and correct them the entry and they will start in with the Wikipedia version of an anti-Israel stone throwing or riot. Z554 (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No one said anything about Israeli's not having the right to designate a capital city, just because a country has a right to designate a capital does not mean it cannot be disputed, because the people who were there before the establishment of Israel also claim Jerusalem as their capital as well. My concern is not with the footnote, it is with including Tel Aviv listed as the Unofficial capital because of Israel's unique situation in regards to their stated official capital. Silvertrail (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why does that warrant something in the infobox? Tel Aviv does not function as Israel's capital. The infobox shouldn't contain unofficial things. It's one thing to have a footnote about the controversy, it is something completely different to then add completely unofficial stuff. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the harm in adding it in? It would only improve the article by also linking to an unofficial capital city that serves as a cultural hub for the Israeli people. Silvertrail (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The harm in adding it is that it is misleading. It is not official and does not act as Israel's capital. The footnote we have is one thing, as it educates regarding real legal controversy. Tel Aviv is not such a case. New York serves as a cultural hub in the United States. We would not add it to the infobox in the US article. Cultural hub does not a capital make. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise? It seems that user:Knight of Truth, user:Malik Sabbazz and user:OuroborosCobra, are beaurocrats who require sticking to hard criteria - well-defined in advance - before adding anything to an infobox whose universal form is used for that many countries, whereas User:Silvertrail is an adhocrat - who is more flexible in filling Wikipedia with unique unofficial information when the case seems to be unique in User:Silvertrail's opinion. So, my suggested compromise, is that we do indicate the unofficial capital of Israel (with sources); provided that we find any other precedent, even one would be sufficient, in which an article in Wikipedia - about a country currently recognized by the world - indicates an "unofficial" capital of that country about which the article is. Without such a precedent, User:Silvertrail's position may seem to be an ad-hoc suggestion - that can't be backed by good criteria well-defined in advance, whereas - once one does find such a precedent in Wikipedia's articles about countries currently recognized by the world - then the opposite position (held by the other editors here) may seem to be unjustified. Is that a fair compromise? HOOTmag (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Without seeing the other country article in question, I can't just agree to the compromise. I understand your reasoning here and it may be a sound compromise, but I don't want to run into a case where we are talking about a small country and therefore possibly a rarely visited article that is not being properly maintained. I also don't want to get caught into special cases, like South Africa, with its three official capitals, or Nauru, which doesn't have any official capital but can be described as having a de facto one as it has a city with the functions of a capital, like the seat of legislature. Tel Aviv does not serve as a de facto capital and does not execute the legal functions of a capital. Jerusalem does. Nauru also has this in absence of anything else, Israel is not that case. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think SA or Nauru have anything to do with my compromise, because their articles indicate no "unofficial" capital. Nauru's article does not indicate an "unofficial" capital but rather a "de facto" capital. Nobody here claims that Tel Aviv is a "de facto" capital, and it's really not, because it's not the seat of legislature, nor anything close to that. I'm specifically talking about what user:Silvertrail has suggested: "unofficial capital" - whatever this expression means. Even one precedent - in Wikipedia's articles about countries currently recognized by the world - may be sufficient for using this expression for Tel Aviv as well, because user:Silvertrail has already presented the sources for such a nickname for Tel Aviv - outside Wikipedia. HOOTmag (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Israel and it's "official" capital are a unique case, please stop comparing it to other countries that are in no way related, that does not help your case. Adding a note stating the unofficial capital below the official capital will only benefit this article by giving readers more insight into Israel and it's culture/people, it would not be misleading, because many people, groups, organizations that I listed above understand and promote Tel Aviv as the unofficial capital and cultural hub of Israel. Silvertrail (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your admitting that Israel is a "unique case", just proves what I have claimed:

• "User:Silvertrail is an adhocrat - who is more flexible in filling Wikipedia with unique unofficial information when the case seems to be unique in User:Silvertrail's opinion".

As compared to the other editors here, about whom I have claimed:

• "user:Knight of Truth, user:Malik Sabbazz and user:OuroborosCobra are beaurocrats who require sticking to hard criteria - well-defined in advance - before adding anything to an infobox whose universal form is used for that many countries".

That dispute, between the adhocrats and the beaurocrats, has made me suggest the compromise above. HOOTmag (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific about your compromise HOOTmag, I'm not sure I understand it? Silvertrail (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me quote it, and tell me what exactly you don't understand:

• "my suggested compromise, is that we do indicate the unofficial capital of Israel (with sources); provided that we find any other precedent, even one would be sufficient, in which an article in Wikipedia - about a country currently recognized by the world - indicates an "unofficial" capital of that country about which the article is. Without such a precedent, User:Silvertrail's position may seem to be an ad-hoc suggestion - that can't be backed by good criteria well-defined in advance, whereas - once one does find such a precedent in Wikipedia's articles about countries currently recognized by the world - then the opposite position (held by the other editors here) may seem to be unjustified".

What's not clear? Do you know what the word "precedent" means? HOOTmag (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, why must there be a precedent? Can you specify another country that has the same unique situation as Israel? Prior Palestine, argued Palestinian capital of Palestine, Israel created in Palestine, disputed Capital. I can only think of countries back during the age of imperialism personally, England in Ireland/Scotland, England in India, French Algeria, etc. Silvertrail (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There must be a precedent, because - without it - we will never be able to form a compromise, between you - as an adhocrat who thinks Israel is a unique case, and the other editors - as beaurocrats who don't think any country should be regarded as unique or be treated separately from the other countries; You know, beaurocrats tend to require sticking to hard criteria - well-defined in advance.

As for your claim that Israel is in a "unique situation", eg "Israel was created in prior Palestine" (and likewise): If the other editors here agree that "Israel was created in prior Palestine" (and likewise), and also agree that this fact makes Israel a "unique case" - more than the uniqueness of "Jordan that was created in prior Palestine" (and likewise) - or more than the uniqueness of "Prior Palestine that was created in Prior Judea" (and likewise), and also agree that all of these political arguments are relevant to whether any "unofficial capital" should be indicated in an infobox whose official form is universally used for many other countries, then the dispute between all of you could be solved immediately. However, I suspect beaurocrats (like the other editors) don't agree with the unique way you (and others) see the whole matter, and that's why I suggested a compromise. HOOTmag (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Jordan does not claim the Palestinian Capital of Jerusalem as the capital of their state like Israel does with Palestine, Jordan was created separate from Palestine, not within it, it was within the mandate of the land that the British seized during the world war, that does not mean it was a part of Palestine. And sure, Palestine was created in prior Judea in history, but Judea was created in prior Canaan, and Canaan was in the prior New Kingdom of Egypt. Silvertrail (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks like you don't get my point (unless I don't get yours). I mentioned Jordan and cetera, not in order to open a historical discussion about what the exact limits of the prior and current countries are, or who was here before, or who took another people's land, which is a matter of political and historical dispute between Palestinians and Jews. I just wanted to point out, that if the other editors here agreed about the political and historical way you see the whole matter, and with its relevance to whether any "unofficial capital" should be indicated in an infobox whose official form is universally used for many other countries, then the dispute between all of you could be solved immediately. However, since I don't think it's going to be solved soon, I suggested a compromise. HOOTmag (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The "unique case" of Israel justifies our footnote in the infobox. It in no way justifies jumping the extra step of listing something that is not functionally the Israeli capital in any sense of the word at all. A cultural center does not a capital make. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

However, if user:Silvertrail - who has apparently good (yet a little bit commercially-promotional) external sources for Tel Aviv being an unofficial capital, finds a precedent inside Wikipedia - for indicating any "unofficial" capital in an infobox whose official form is universally used for many other countries, then I don't find any reason why we should avoid adopting user:Silvertrail's position in favor of indicating Tel Aviv as well. HOOTmag (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I can source that New York City is the unofficial capital of the US. It does not matter. It's inclusion in the infobox has not been justified. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand your position, so you don't have to repeat it. I agree with you that if user:Silvertrial has external sources only, then that won't be sufficient. However, what if user:Silvertrial has more than just external sources? e.g. a precedent inside Wikipedia, which indicates an "unofficial" capital - in that infobox - for another country currently recognized by the world? Please note that your reasoning here - does not explain why we should not add Tel Aviv (and New York) as well - if Wikipedia has already any other precedent. Please note also that my compromise tries to take into account both positions: yours and user:Silvertrail's. You don't have to accept user:Silvertrail's position: you are just requested to recognize my suggestion as a fair compromise between two opposite positions - one of which you reject due to the reasons you have already presented here. HOOTmag (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism in Anthem Song

Around the 28th second of the Israeli anthem, there are some offensive words that appear over the black screen. This should be changed asap. Wormpy (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for pointing that out. Evidently it's been like that since 2008, or that's what File:Hatikvah instrumental.ogg says.

I've removed the audio file until a new recording can be uploaded. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reported the problem and asked for assistance at the Commons help desk.[1] If anybody is familiar with ogg files and is able to help, please reply there. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been fixed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 April 2013

Well you have a major mistake, you are writing that about 20% of the population in israel arab arab.(70% jews). you are comparing apples to oranges. jew is a religion. arab is a decent. most of the jews in israel are of arab decent. you should be writing 20% moslims, instead of arab. 76.91.245.107 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This is as is it in the source and I think it is commonly understood that Jewish is an ethnic as well as a religious designation, so that it can include, for example, Jewish people who are atheists. Plus, many Arab Israelis are Christian, so we can't convert "Arab" to "Muslim". Sorry, I don't think your suggested change can be made. Formerip (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Another major mistake: at another section it says and I quote "Since 1964 Arab countries, concerned over Israeli plans to divert waters of the Jordan River over into the coastal plain,[99] had been trying to divert the headwaters to deprive Israel of water resources, provoking tensions between Israel on the one hand, and Syria and Lebanon on the other." so far - correct. Now it goes on: " On the other hand, water resources were confiscated for the benefit of the Israeli settlements in the Ghor." --- That't a major mistake since there were no Israeli settlements in the Ghor in 1964, as the Jordan Valley (the Ghor in Arabic), together with the rest of the west bank, was captured only in 1967. This seems to be an attempt to justify pre-67 aggression against Israel by its Arab neighbors, by a mix of chronology.

Now it goes on: "Palestinian irrigation pumps on the Jordan River were destroyed or confiscated after the 1967 war and Palestinians are not allowed to use water from the Jordan River system. Furthermore, the authorities did not allow any new irrigation wells to be drilled by Palestinian farmers, while it provided fresh water and allowed drilling wells for irrigation purposes at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[100] Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to recognize Israel, and called for its destruction.[12][101][102] By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between Israeli and Arab forces.[103]"

As evident in this bit, this mix of chronology goes on. it should have been something like: "Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to recognize Israel, and called for its destruction.[12][101][102] By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between Israeli and Arab forces.[103]" And ONLY THEN "after the 1967 war, Palestinian irrigation pumps on the Jordan River were destroyed or confiscated and Palestinians are not allowed to use water from the Jordan River system. Furthermore, the authorities did not allow any new irrigation wells to be drilled by Palestinian farmers, while it provided fresh water and allowed drilling wells for irrigation purposes at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[100]" Since this is the later part, chronologically speaking.. But it is still way one sided. To explain what happened right after 67' is quite easy - all residents were required to connect to the national water grid and pay for their water. Water in Israel are considered property of Mekorot, or the national grid. So this bit is correct, only presented in a one-sided fashion, since Palestinians could use as much water as they liked, provided they payed for the water. The settlers pay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.139.161 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not clear from your comments on what changes you are actually asking to be made here. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone obviously edited the article with a malicious intent. Maybe these frustrated "OpIsrael" guys?

Read the following bit: "Since 1964 Arab countries, concerned over Israeli plans to divert waters of the Jordan River over into the coastal plain,[99] had been trying to divert the headwaters to deprive Israel of water resources, provoking tensions between Israel on the one hand, and Syria and Lebanon on the other. On the other hand, water resources were confiscated for the benefit of the Israeli settlements in the Ghor. Palestinian irrigation pumps on the Jordan River were destroyed or confiscated after the 1967 war and Palestinians are not allowed to use water from the Jordan River system. Furthermore, the authorities did not allow any new irrigation wells to be drilled by Palestinian farmers, while it provided fresh water and allowed drilling wells for irrigation purposes at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[100] Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to recognize Israel, and called for its destruction.[12][101][102] By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between Israeli and Arab forces.[103]"

So, what's wrong with this part?.. obviously, the phrase "On the other hand, water resources were confiscated for the benefit of the Israeli settlements in the Ghor" is a recent addition which is not chronologically in its proper place, as the Ghor (Jordan Valley) was only taken in 67'. There were no "Israeli settlements in the Ghor" in 1964.

The next phrase is one sided and misleading as well. But you could say it is marginally correct, since water in Israel are scarce and considered property of the national water company, they must be purchased. So yes, the Jordan is channeled into a pipe and large amounts of water are desalinated. This is why the residents were not allowed to take water from the Jordan or drill wells for private use. Water which are drilled dry out the equifer. They were requested to pay for the water just like anyone else in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.139.161 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The information comes from the United Nations source[2] that is cited. I think you are misreading it because the "On the other hand" makes it ambiguous and making an invalid assumption to conclude that it is wrong. It doesn't say that there were Israeli settlements in the Ghor in 1964. It is talking about what has happened since the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as you can see from the source. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"Ethnic groups (2013[2]) 75.3% Jewish "

pffft. Jewish is a religion, not an ethnic group. i can become Jewish if i put in some effort, but i can't change my ethnicity. please stop buying into wishful nonsense, wikipedia, you're better than that.· Lygophile has spoken 03:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What happens when a Jew says that he has become an atheist? Is he still a Jew?Trahelliven (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not only when he becomes an atheist, but also when he, or she, for that matter, adopts another religion. In the latter case, s/he becomes a sinner, but Judaism is soft on sinners, all they have to do is repent. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Israel also identifies most of the rest of the Population as the blanket term Arab instead of as Palestinian because they do not believe Palestinians are an ethnic group, they rather call them something else, yet they want everyone to believe that every Jew in Israel belongs to the ethnic group Jewish. If we are led to believe that ethnic groups can be religions then Palestinian Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Druze are all different ethnic groups even though they all predominately descend from the same core population. Silvertrail (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

no. if you stop being Jewish, you stop being a Jew. what's the mystery here?· Lygophile has spoken 14:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a flexible concept, and Jews fit the definition as do sub-groups such as Sephardi Jews or Ethiopian Jews. The assumption that religion and ethnicity are separate is specific to Christian culture where that is generally the case but it is perfectly possible for religion and ethnicity to be aligned as in Coptic Christians or Celts. The Jew/ Arab distinction in statistics dates back to the British mandate when everyone was regarded as Palestinian. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A Sephardi Jew and a Ethiopian Jew have as much in common as an Irish Catholic and a Georgian Catholic, shall we call all Catholics an ethnicity and grant them a Christian state in the holy land, they already have the Vatican you say? What about Orthodox Christians, do they deserve a homeland in the holy land? Christians throughout the Levant are remarkably similar, bonded by culture, language, and beliefs, and could also be considered a separate ethnicity in the context that Jews are. Muslims throughout the Near East and World are also bonded by language and culture, are they any different than the Jews? Silvertrail (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

a Celt that adopts another religion is still a Celt by ethnicity (although, i actually don't think there is a Celtic ethnicity...Gaulic maybe, but Celts came in many forms). a Vandal that adopts Celtic beliefs is still a Vandal by ethnicity.· Lygophile has spoken 14:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so maybe Israel runs a lousy census. But what's the suggestion with regard to the article? Formerip (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

well, that references to "Jewish" as an ethnicity be removed, either entirely or replaced by a more appropriate demographic categorisation as used in other articles. i don't see an "ethnic groups" chapter in the right hand side template in other articles, so it should probably just go.· Lygophile has spoken 14:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Some Moslems believe there should be an Islamic state, it is not for you or me to decide on that issue. There is an Armenian Church, a Bulgarian church, an Ethiopian church and a Greek Orthodox church. Most Arab states define themselves as Islamic in their constitutions although some, such as Egypt, have a sizeable Christian minority. Its normal in the Middle East for religion and nationalism to coincide and Israel fits the regional pattern. I would shift all the ethnicity data out of the lede and into the relevant section and simply say that ethnic groups are as defined by the Israeli statistics office. I forgot the Anglican church! Heirs to the throne only marry Anglicans, so its out of bounds for Jews and Moslems. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would personally be in favor of getting rid of the "Jewish" a religious/cultural label "Arab" a cultural/linguistic labels in the section and replacing them with actual ethnicities rather, such as Mizrahi Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Palestinian Christians, Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Druze. This would improve the article by showing readers what is actually meant. Silvertrail (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

IMO that would be fine if someone was able to provide that data. Formerip (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The statistics office differentiates people by their country of origin and their parents country of origin. In general one can provide thgose figures, however growing inter-marriage means that a large percentage of Israelis are both/neither Ashkenazi and Sephardi. Acutally I think it would be a good idea to do this, though it requires a bit more research. They have figures in Demographics of Israel but I think they're suspect: too neat a distinction between ashkenazi and spehardis. http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st02_25&CYear=2010 http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/shnatone_new.htm?CYear=2010&Vol=61&CSubject=2 for the general list. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

there's another issue: Most French Jews are sephardi and many US Jews are, but the figures will imply they are Ashkenazi. Jews form Bulgaria,Turkey and Kazakhstan are hard to place and Indian and Ethiopians don't fit in the Ashkenazi -Sepahrdi model. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So from what I see on there we can state 20.6% (non-jewish) Palestinian Israeli in Israel.

Made up of 82.6% Palestinian Sunni Muslim (with a very small minority of Shia), 9% Palestinian Druze, and 9% Palestinian Christian (mostly Eastern Orthodox and Catholic denominations).

Regarding Jewish Divisions we can state 75.4% (jewish) Israeli in Israel (Including Jewish Israeli settlements in Palestinian Territories),

Made up of 50.2% Mizrahi & Sephardi, 47.5% Ashkenazi, and 3.5% Ethiopian & Indian Jews.

And "Others" comprising remaining 4%. Silvertrail (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is also that Israel counts the settler population in the occupied territories as "Israel", so the numbers are inaccurate as the numbers are not only for Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we note that they include the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian Territories then so readers know that inaccuracy? *I just added that in* Silvertrail (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say a solution taking account of that is not possible, but the difference would be more than trivial (something like, maybe, 8% of the total population?), so it isn't really properly accounted for just by noting it.

On the other hand, the figures that are there now presumably suffer from the same issue anyway. Formerip (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This problematic issue must be corrected. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have the resources to fix that, but in the mean time I think the demographics should be changed from "Jewish/Arab" to the ethnicities I listed above. Silvertrail (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why make things so complicated? Israel Central Bureau of Statistics divides ethnically its population in three groups: Jewish, Arab and others. What sub-ethnic Ashkenazi/Mizrahi groups have to do with this? And yes, Jews are an ethnic group rather than a religious one (even the Bible talks about a "people"). There are many atheistic Jews (orthodox Jews don't deny that). And the settler population is already clarified in "Demographics" section and the infobox. Quote: Includes all permanent residents in Israel, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Also includes Israeli citizens living in the West Bank. Excludes non-Israeli population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

why? the reason is simple: because you're dead wrong about it being ethnic group. ethnicity by definition is that part of your social identity that is innate and not subject to change, but only to genetic inheritence. most modern Jews are the offspring of religious converts, not the original Semetic people. just like any other religion· Lygophile has spoken 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

How would you describe the offspring an Arab man and a Jewish woman after they all become Jehovah's Witnesses? Trahelliven (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

a Jahova's Witness, duh! but that's a religion. their ethnicity i can not guess from the information you provided.· Lygophile has spoken 22:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity is genetic? Since when? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

it means nothing if not that. first thing mentioned in the article is Ancestry, after all. if "ethnicity" should be defined some other way, it kinda stops having any meaning. i mean, none of the other entries ("appearance, cuisine, dressing style, heritage, history, language or dialect, religion, symbols, traditions"), are anything i ever associated with ethnicity (other than some being partially perhaps a result of it). that's either culture, or "subculture" (and mostly just the individual); not ethnicity. but i see now this involves quite a semantic can of worms· Lygophile has spoken 22:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, then you need to convince people to make changes to the meaning of the word according to your worldview. As long as the rest of us define it as a social category, you don't have a point here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not really that helpful to the discussion to worry about it, anyway. We can only report figures that are available, whatever we believe in our own minds they refer to. Formerip (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

so then why don't you just use "culture" if that's what you mean? and aar, if you mean to define it by the extremely large set of attributes i listed above, but excluding "ancestry", it should just be removed from the article at all, because such an arbitrary grouping is ridiculous, and not appropriate for statistical, demographic data. what's funny is, i don't see the same thing in any other nation's article. so for what reason is it added here, other than some stupid propoganda?· Lygophile has spoken 20:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't see it, means there's something wrong with your eyes. You are getting into forum-rants. Future post like this will be reverted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The Israel Central Bureau of Statistics doesn't even use the term "ethnicity", only "nationality" instead (different term from "citizenship" in Israel), and "religion". The latest census, from April 14th, says this on their website, translation from Hebrew: "The Jewish population is 75.3%, the Arab population is 20.7%, and the "others" - non-Arab Christians, people of other religions and people not classified by religion, are 4.0%." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuvn86 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I still think we should be more specific rather than vague in this article, using descriptors like this would be better than what is currently used,

20.6% (non-jewish) Palestinian Israelis in Israel (Including Palestinian, Druze, and Bedouin).

Made up of 82.6% Palestinian Sunni Muslim (with a very small minority of Shia), 9% Palestinian Druze, and 9% Palestinian Christian (mostly Eastern Orthodox and Catholic denominations).

75.4% (Jewish) Israeli in Israel (Including Jewish Israeli settlements in Palestinian Territories),

Made up of 50.2% Mizrahi & Sephardi, 47.5% Ashkenazi, and 3.5% Ethiopian & Indian Jews.

And "Others" comprising remaining 4%. Silvertrail (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"The population of Israel is 75% Jewish, 19% Muslim, 3% no religon......"

"The population of Israel is 77% Jewish, 20% Arab......"

These two sets of statistics are not inconsistent. 3% of the population may have abandonned religon altogether. Being Jewish dependa on the context in which the term is used. Trahelliven (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just above they went over on how "Jewish" and "Arab" are nationality labels in the Israeli census, not ethnic, if we are talking about ethnic groups in Israel they are Palestinian (Muslim, Christian, Druze, Bedouin) and various European/Near Eastern/Asian/African Jews, including Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardic, and Ethiopian/Indian Jews. Silvertrail (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Since when are ethnicity and religion mutually exclusive? See ethnic religion and ethnoreligious group. I wonder if Sikhs experience denial as an ethnicity like we do, or is this exclusive to Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.99.78.149 (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Most Jews are genetically related because they are Israelites. Those are ethnic Jews. Ethnic Jews are Jews such as Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi. Jews that are not ethnic are groups that converted to Judaism such as [[Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews), Indian Jews, and Black Hebrew Israelites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.219.201.131 (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2013

Hi, after this paragraph:

"Palestinians prevented from using water from the Jordan River system or drilling new irrigation wells, Israel provided fresh water and allowed wells for irrigation at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." i would like to add the following reference:

Barah1964 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement is already supported by the United Nations source so I'm not sure it's necessary. The source may not qualify as a reliable source for that kind of information either. Also please see Wikipedia:Coi#Citing_yourself, which may be relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, the ISBN you gave doesn't appear to be valid - it doesn't appear in any of the online searches I tried.  Not done. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's ISBN 9781908099006. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 May 2013

I wish to add more to the "Independence and first years" section. The inclusion of this extra information provides background information to the formation of the Askenazi and Mizrahi ethnic identities. It also nuances the issue of immigration and stops are immigrants coming to Israel during the late 1940's and early 1950's from looking the same. Below are the potential added sections. They are placed between two examples of already existing place to provide context.

Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations by majority vote on 11 May 1949.[85] In the early years of the state, the Labor Zionist movement led by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion dominated Israeli politics.[86][87] These years were marked by an influx of Holocaust survivors and Jews from Arab lands, many of whom faced persecution and expulsion from their original countries.[88] Consequently, the population of Israel rose from 800,000 to two million between 1948 and 1958

Immigration to Israel during the late 1940's and early 1950's was aided by the Israeli Immigration Department and the non-government sponsored Organization for Illegal Immigration, called Mossad le-aliyah bet. Both groups facilitated regular immigration logistics like arranging transportation, but the latter also engaged in clandestine operations in countries, particularly in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, where the lives of Jews were believed to be in danger and exit from those places was difficult. The Organization for Illegal Immigration continued to take part in immigration efforts until its disbanding in 1953.

During this period, food, clothes and furniture had to be rationed in what became known as the Austerity Period. Between 1948–1970, approximately 1,151,029 Jewish refugees relocated to Israel.[90] Some arrived as refugees with no possessions and were housed in temporary camps known as ma'abarot; by 1952, over 200,000 immigrants were living in these tent cities.

The immigrants came to Israel for differing reasons. Some believed in the Zionist ideology, while others moved to escape persecution. There were others that did it for the promise of a better life in Israel and a sizable number that were expelled from their homelands, like Iraq. The refugees were often treated differently according to where they were from. Jews of European descent were considered to critical to the strengthening and peopling of Israel, so they were generally allowed to enter Israel first and thus were given abandoned Arab houses to live in. On the other hand, Jews from Middle Eastern and North African countries were viewed by many Ashkenazi Jews as lazy, poor, culturally and religiously backward, and a threat to established communal life in Israel and remained in transit camps for longer periods of time. During the 1950's, the standard of living gap between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews widened so much that tensions developed between the two groups. This tension first moved to hostility during the Wadi Salib Uprising in 1959; other instances of domestic turmoil would occur over the following decades.

Dmb504 (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Introductory sentence unclear

What does it mean, Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinian Arabs? Any academic reference for such statement? (If not, I propose to change it to ..invaded the new country on the next day.) Franp9am (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Did the Arabs invade Israel, or did they send troops to the area of the designated Arab state? --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My question was, if there exists a serious academic reference to the "in support of the Palestinian Arabs" claim. Franp9am (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Answering your question, Arab states invaded both the area of the designated Arab state and the area of the designated Jewish State (Galilee, several kibbutz in the Negev, etc). Also the answer to Franp9am is very clear: No source says it was "in support of Palestinian Arabs".--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Quigley states (p. 77-8) that the Arab forces didn't mount any serious ground attack into the areas envisioned by the General Assembly for the "Jewish state". He also states the Arab forces were invited into Palestine by the Arab Higher Committee to maintain law and order. We could re-word the sentence to e.g. "At the invitation of the Arab Higher Committee, neighbouring Arab states sent forces into Palestine". --Dailycare (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No euphemism. They didn't "sent peace corps" at "invitation" of someone. Arab states attacked, bombed and invaded by force Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Kfar Darom, Nirim, Yad Mordechai, Degania, Nitzanim, Negba, Ramat Rachel and many other places. It was a war to exterminate the Jewish state.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I know and what the books I have read state (can give references, but I don't think that there is much controversy about this). If nobody objects, I will reformulate it somehow in a few days and see what happens. However, if you find some good and simple formulation, IranitGreenberg, would be happy (I'm not an expert in this field). Franp9am (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what Quigley writes - they were invited and didn't seriously assault the areas the UN had suggested for the Jewish state. --Dailycare (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you mean prof. John Quigley, he is not a historian. Moreover, this statement clearly contradicts the rest of this article, see also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. Introduction is definitely not a place for controversial information that has no support in the rest of the article. Franp9am (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dailycare, why don't you look a map? Kfar Darom, Nirim, Yad Mordechai, Degania, Nitzanim, Negba and Ramat Rachel were inside the territory assigned by the UN to the Jewish state. And if Arab armies hadn't been stopped by Israel, they would've destroyed Tel Aviv, Haifa (their main objectives) and the entire Jewish state and population.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually Ramat Rachel was in the Corpus_separatum_(Jerusalem). Zero^talk 09:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Game over.

On May 1948, Arab expeditionnary forces (around 20,000 in total) invaded Palestine. Their aims have not been clearly defined by historians, certainly due to the fact that their archives are not open.

At the beginning they didn't want to intervene and had no ressources for this. They thought the ALA would win alone but the vents of April and beginning of May proved the contrary. After Deir Yassin and the Palestinian Arab debacle, they were called by Palestian local leaders to intervene, particularly around Jerusalem. In the official announcement of the reasons of their intervention, they said they intervened to protect the indegenous population of Palestine and it is true that the situation was extremelly chaotic (already 300,000 Refugees, collapse of the economy, terrorism, battles, massacres ; ...)

Regarding the intentions of the Israelis... Before 15 May, they had taken Jaffa and Acre and the whole Western coast of Galilee. All were located in the territories allocated to the Arab States. They had also launched Operation Nachshon in Arab territories to open the road to Jerusalem (corpus separatum). It should be taken care to talk about "invasion" in all these circumstances of give a picture with one agressor and one defender. (We are not here to judge but to report.)

What is clear is that :

• Transjordan, didn't aim to attack Israel (he was forbidden to do so by the British) and he expect to annex as much as the Arab State as possible.
• Irak was allied to Transjordan (as an Hachemite Kingdom)
• Syria wanted both to prevent this annexation of the Arab State by Transjordan and to attack Jewish State
• Lebanon betrayed his allies a few days before the invasion
• Egypt wanted to prevent the ambition of Jordan, to attack Israel and maybe to annex the strategic Negev.
• All hated the Mufti and wanted to get rid of him.

From this, it is easy to find a short sentences to explain what happened on 15 May 1948 : "The next day of the termination of the Mandate, Arab armies invaded Palestine and fought the Israeli forces." Pluto2012 (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Arabs invaded (maybe except Transjordan) also territories designated for the Jewish state is beyond any doubt of the majority of the historians; however, I'm ok with the sentence you propose, for the introduction it should be ok. Franp9am (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right but to be accurate we should say that Iraq tried to invade territories allocated to the Jewish State but failed and that the success of Egypt and Syria were mitigated. Lebanon attacked a kibbutz but never tried to invade ; same for Transjordan. We are far from the traditionnal account that 5 Arab Sate invaded Israel in order to destroy the newly born State. Anywyay, I think that few historians deny that from the point of view of Yishuv, it was a survival war. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say, and neither did Quigley, that the Arab forces wouldn't have attacked targets in the area envisioned for the Jewish state at all. I said, and so did Quigley, that they didn't mount any major attack on such targets. Of course, as far as the Arab forces were concerned, there was no Jewish state to begin with since they didn't agree to the partition. In fact, most Arab states are still of the opinion there is no Jewish state, but that's another matter. --Dailycare (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this Dailycare's edit. In my opinion, this is far from a neutral desctiption. First, almost all invasions have some "formal invitation", for example, when the Russions invaded Czechoslovakia (my country) in 1968, there was also an "invitation" from some local communists, but nobody relativizes the word invasion on the corresponding wiki article. The invitation of the Arab armies should be mentioned somewhere in the article about the 1948 war, but this doesn't mean that the introduction to "israel" should contain this weasel words "entered", unless you provide a clear reference that this is how most historians view it. (Definitely, it should not be based on authors such as Quigley!) Franp9am (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that there is a source for "invaded", I'm ok with it. I have to point out, however, that in the Czech case the Zionists would be in the role of the Soviets, not the Czechs ;) --Dailycare (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 May 2013

May i suggest adding Foreign relations of Israel to the "See Also" section? It's not particularly good article but it seems more balanced than my original thought of separate 'Israel-[insert country]' articles. Maybe it would make more sense to skip the blurbs and just Index country specific articles. I prefer this idea. The reason I say this is because the blurbs on the 'Foreign relations of Israel' cherry pick parts of the the main pages in a biased way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.101.38 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Can U add these few line ?

I wished to add a few lines to the Article, but I found it protected... Can some friend Editor add these lines to the Section Etymology ... last para:

Many believe that the making of Israel is in accord with the prophecies contained in old Scriptures. To quote two only: “Thus saith thy Lord: Behold I will take the whole house of Israel from among the nations, whither they went ; and I will gather them from all those around them, and bring them to the land of Israel, and make them a nation in my land even on the mountains of Israel.”(Ezekiel 37:21-24) In very similar words the prophecy occurs in the Quran 17:105 “…and when the time of the Promise of the Later Days comes, We shall bring you together out of the various peoples.” (Quran 17:105) --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No thanks. Zero^talk 09:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK brother, I can think of bigger reason. Be well. --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Education

Hi,

The law of compulsory education has been amended recently to the age of 16, but I'm afraid I'm neither able to edit this article nor find any internet sources... I'm not precisely internet-savvy, I'm afraid! However I was told by social services that if I desire I have the right to drop out of High School at the age of 16. I was surprised initially when one of my parents told me this, but apparently it's a very recent thing, similar to how it's now a citizen is allowed to gain a driver's license when they're 16 and three quarters, down from 17, and when I asked a social service person (personnel? employee?), they indeed confirmed it. If you know where to look, can you find a source? I was unable to find anything in English. I could scan a Hebrew newspaper though? 109.65.64.150 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)