From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Israel is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008.




Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Butler2007p82" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Visweswaran2013p7" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "" is not used in the content (see the help page).


I think Yad Vashem should be on there. Not sure if I saw shrine of the book. Might be worth adding a section on water use too.

Blanking of section "Israel's Standing with the United Nations and International Community" by user:Ykantor[edit]

Hi user:Ykantor, you removed the entire section which was referenced and placed appropriately in the Politics section of the Israel article. This section is necessary and directs readers to the extensive section in Wikipedia covering the UN violations by the state of Isreal of which the reader is in fact READING about.

Your objection to this section was given as "douse such a paragraph exists in other Country's articles?" this is an unacademic and unobjective stance to take and it is based on your farcical argument of "other country's" not having this. For your information, if other countries were to perform a series of UN resolutions violations (like israel has and continues to do so) this WOULD in fact definately be documented in their wikipedia page. This is a significant aspect of the state of Isreal, that it has persistently violated the UN resolutions since its inception. It is a small section that directs the reader to the full article. It is not biased and it is fully sourced. Sakimonk talk 18:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You created a new section. Your edit was reverted (challenged). Per WP:BRD, you do not re-instate your edit without gaining a consensus on the talk page, something which you failed to do. I agree with Ykantor that this section, at least the way it was written, is unbalanced and does not belong in a wikipedia article. WarKosign 21:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
-@Sakimonk:I repeat: Sorry, but you are not aware of Wikipedia rules. Will you please have a look at wp:bb :"Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted. The early advocate of trial and error followed by observation to gain knowledge, Francis Bacon, said, "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity."[1] Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war....If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes" So, please WP:Assume good faith on my part, undoing your edit, and discuss it in the talk page. thanks Ykantor (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

These are pov cherry-picked details of conflicts and relations that can go in their own related articles.--JudgeJason (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm afraid both "sides" focus on the wrong aspect. WarKosign and Ykantor are perfectly right concerning WP:BRD. But WP:BRD cannot be invoked to WP:OWN a page without any further arguments. Neither of the users have presented any. Nor has Sakimonk presented any arguments for the inclusion. I would encourage all users to present the relevant arguments, instead of reverting and calling out others for reverting. Jeppiz (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously nobody OWNs the article and BRD cannot be used as pretext for not letting an editor to add material that meets wikipedia policies.
I believe that this addition does not match this criteria. Telaviv1 reverted it with the comment "Blatant POV + poorly written and contains misleading information.", Makeandtoss decided to reinstante the edit without any discussion contrary to WP:BRD, so I undid it. Maybe I would've used different words than Telaviv1 but I agree with the gist of it, and apparently so do several other editors. WP:ONUS is on the editor making the bold edit to convince others that the addition is worthy. WarKosign 20:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jeppiz, Ykantor and WarKosign; I believe a section discussing Israel's place in the international community is very apt and very much needed as there have been a historically significant series of United Nations resolutions and Amnesty International reports issued regarding this nation state. Moreover, this is a very current issue wrt to the Gaza siege of 2014 with AI's very detailed investigation. I think totally ignoring this is disingenuous and doesn't create an informative article. Perhaps there may be NPOV issues with what I've personally written but wikipedia isn't about one person's viewpoint! You are ALLL more than welcome to balance it out, and please do! If you're able to find anything "positive" coming from the UN or other international bodies that is. Deleting it and removing it under the pretext of saying it isn't balanced isn't the right thing to do. Secondly, saying that there are OTHER articles on wikipedia that satisfy this need is a farcical argument. An anology would be Richard Nixon, say we have his biographical article that is nicely fleshed out and so on... then we have another seperate article discussing the watergate scandal... and nothing on this on the Nixon article itself... This would be a very poor article indeed and unfair on the reader. Isn't it fair on the reader to actually have a section on the Nixon article briefly discussing this and POINTING OUT THE READER to further reading (as I have done with Israel and the UN)? As I've said please include my edit but you're more than welcome to correct for WP:NPOV. Sakimonk talk 00:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've incorperated the bare essential points from the previous text without violating WP:NPOV. These are necesary edits but need to be fleshed out. Sakimonk talk 00:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Could you please explain how in your opinion the edit doesn't violate WP:NPOV ? It represents a single point of view (that Israel committed war crimes and regularly violates international law) without giving any room to opposing opinions (that Israel keeps the international law more than any other country in similar situation and that most of the criticism directed at it is a result of political maneuvers). WarKosign 07:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright I'm going to get the viewpoints of other editors on this matter so please bear with me. Sakimonk talk 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am raising this this diff as a matter for urgent input regarding the Israel article.

  • As an aspect of the nation of Israel I believe that the significant number of UN resolutions (they've issued 232 resolutions with respect to Israel since 2003, representing 40% of all resolutions issued by the UN over the period) should be at least briefly mentioned under the politics subheading however this is being opposed as violating WP:NPOV. This isn't a matter of NPOV this is simply a matter of fact and it is unfair on the reader to not at least mention this and provide the See also tag which directs the reader to the actual articles that deal with this issue. Some readers on wikipedia might only visit the Israel page looking for what NGOs or the UN have done regarding the actions of the state which we all see in the news. By constantly suppressing this information I believe opponents to this edit are violating the guidelines of wikipedia because they're literally concealing information regarding a subject which is fully sourced simply because they don't like what the facts are. I've said multiple times that they can add whatever they want to it to "balance" it out but blanking the text and removing the edit it is a shockingly poor attitude to take. Sakimonk talk 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sakimonk talk 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

POV should always be blanked. (Personal attack removed) Misdemenor (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the issue. Nobody said that Israel-UN relations should not be mentioned. The text that you tried to push several times did not attempt to describe the situation in a neutral manner, instead it made of point of making it obviously clear that all the resolutions were justified and that Israel was guilty of terrible crimes against humanity. The reality is not as simple is that, there is an article dedicated to the subject.

Also, please do not remove comments of other editors from the talk page only because they happen to disagree with you. WarKosign 07:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol, I'm not removing it because he "disagrees" with me, the guy has just been bugging me and following my edits but he has calmed down now. He isn't actually involved in this discussion at all. Anyway, since you say that I am going to incorperate it in the most neutral way I can imagine. Sakimonk talk 22:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement "Israel has a track record of United Nations violations", sourced to an original research compilation of UN resolutions against Israel is hardly NPOV. At most you can state that there have been xxx number of resolutions against Israel, alongside a balancing sentence that says Israel and its supporters view this as proof of the systemic bias in the UN against Israel. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Here come the Suns, here's my view on the situation 1. as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle I'm entitled to make the edit as per the talk (which you weren't involved in) 2.The The Security Council report - this is not WP:OR as this is an officially published document 3. The phrase "track record" is may not be in line with WP:NPOV So I've listed them as you've said. I also included a balanced statement. Thank you for your much needed input! Sakimonk talk 16:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you misunderstand WP:BRD. The idea is that once an edit has been reverted, one does not attempt to re-instate it unless there seems to be a consensus on the talk page. BRD and 1RR do not "entitle" you to push the same edit with slight variations over and over again, it is called edit-warring. WarKosign 11:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment as an uninvolved editor (who has been brought by Sakimonk's other edits), I certainly don't think that an entire section on a country's article should be devoted to essentially UN resolutions/violations irrespective of RS/NPOV.--Peaceworld 13:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, why is it that North Korea has an entire section devoted to Human rights and it is clearly stated "North Korea has been sanctioned under United Nations Security Council resolutions 1695 of July 2006, 1718 of October 2006, 1874 of June 2009, and 2087 of January 2013." yet is has LESS violations and LESS than israel does? This NEEDS to be mentioned on this page. It is a very significant thing that this country has been repremanded several hundered times by the UN / Gen. Ass. has been accused several times by multiple NGOs of war crimes and it needs to be mentioned. Sakimonk talk 23:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
And it's clearly stated what exactly it has been sanctioned for. I'm sure that if there were sources providing any other opinion on these sanctions (for example that North Korea didn't perform the nuclear/chemical tests, or that the tests didn't violate any treaties, or that the UN resolutions were results of politics and excessive obsession with NK), they would've been represented in that article as well.
Again, nobody disputes that the UN resolutions may be mentioned in this article along with the link to the more detailed article. The issue is making sure this mention is not WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. The content you are pushing is extremely one-sided and draws its own conclusion from partial facts. WarKosign 14:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I concur with WarKosign preceding me. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sakimonk and I disagree with WarKosign for the following reasons: To WarKosign - How on earth can you say that "...if there were sources providing any other opinion on these sanctions (for example that North Korea didn't perform the nuclear/chemical tests, or that the tests didn't violate any treaties, or that the UN resolutions were results of politics and excessive obsession with NK), they would've been represented in that article as well?" Yet you do not apply the same logic to Sakimonk additions to the article. In that case, could I not ALSO say that "...if there were sources providing any other opinion on these sanctions" (or violations) ON ISRAEL, "they would've been represented [by Sakimonk] in that article as well." In this regard, your logic is completely flawed, as you apply "NPOV" rules on North Korea, but not on Israel. PS - there are some cases whereby it is NOT POSSIBLE to provide a NPOV on certain topics, because there AFE NO other facts that can support an alternative view to allow inclusion of an alternative view and appear neutral!!! Regarding North Korea, by saying "...if there were sources providing any other opinion on these sanctions... they would've been represented" you are only proving my point that sometimes there ARE NO alternative point of views that exist and therefore a NPOV simply CANNOT be presented. Israel is a perfect example of this. Just as a random, unrelated exaple, if I were writing an article on a certain rapist who raped numerous women, would I be repremanded by Wikipedia editors for not being neutral if I did not include facts that didn't exist, to try and make the rapists victims look partially responsible for the crimes? What if they were ALL innocent victims and there was no evidence of seduction, consenting adults, or false accusations, would I then be biased by writing about the rapists convictions without including non-existant facts that partially diminished his guilt? Alternatively, should nobody write about the rapists crimes, because nobody can find evidence that some of his victims also commited crimes, or that some of the charges were dropped (when they weren't). This is almost what you expect of Sakimonk except it is not a rape, or a person, but a nation / government in question. I am horrified by the level of bias shown by Wikipedia editors in this regard.-- (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The point is, other facts exists aplenty, just have a look at Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations#Alleged bias and disproportionate attention on Israel and Criticism of the United Nations#Attention given to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I expect an editor not to ignore readily available material that happens to contradict the content they want to insert. Doing so is called cherry-picking and it's against WP's WP:NPOV policy. WarKosign 20:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your first link which states:
"These decisions, adopted with the support of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) countries, often criticize Israel for its "occupation of Palestinian land and its oppression of Palestinians." A number of observers have described this criticism as excessive. For example, according to the UN Association of the UK, General Assembly resolutions in the period 1990–2003 show bias against Israel, condemnation of violence against Palestinians, but only occasional discussion of violence against Israelis.[5] In addition, the UNHRC was criticized in 2007 for failing to condemn other alleged human rights abusers besides Israel."
There is no contradiction to speak of. Who is the "UN Association of the UK" and who do they represent (how many people, how many countries, etc.) This is precisely the type of propaganda that gets accepted onto Wikipedia as fact with regard to Middle East affairs in order to create an illusion of large amounts of international support for Israel, when a minority of countries actually support Israel. According to their website they are: "... a charitable company limited by guarantee (no.1146016). UNA-UK is not part of the UN." - Another tax free, pro-Israel front / lobby group?? (notice the question marks). "In addition, the UNHRC was criticized in 2007 for failing to condemn other alleged human rights abusers besides Israel." Criticized by whom? This is a classic example of exaggerating claims of the amount of bias against Israel by the international community. Even if the head of the UN says that Israel is being criticized too harshly, he does not represent the UN member states, or even a significant part of them. Most of the UN member states agree that Israel HAS acted too harshly against the Palestinians and violated international laws numerous, numerous times. That is all that matters as far as opinion goes - what the majority of people think and what the majority of countries in the UN think. If the UN thinks that Israel has violated international law, then they should be held to account for that, whether or not a minority disagree with that fact.
There is no contradiction to speak of, the UN is a democratic organization and the article is about Israel, not Palestine and other countries. If the article is about Israel, not other countries, and if an editor inserts a section on human rights violations by Israel, or UN violations by Israel and not those of any other countries there is nothing wrong with that, as the article is about Israel and not other countries. Other countries have their own Wikipedia pages where their own violations can be mentioned. This is NOT an article on the Arab Israeli conflict, or on the UN, it is an article of every aspect of the present and the history of ISRAEL.
Lastly, if Israel is being very harshly criticized compared to other countries, that does not necessary mean the criticism is biased. If Israel engages in more violations than other countries, then it deserves more criticism than other countries.-- (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
PS - Regarding your second link:

There are large parts that are not true and here is just one example of a contradiction of that article - from Wikipedia itself: (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to make it simple:
  1. UN passed multiple resolutions against Israel.
  2. UN has been criticized for dealing obsessively with Israel and passing unjustified resolutions.
Saying 1 without 2 misrepresents the reality. It's up to the reader to decide whether the resolutions were justified and Israel deserves the negative attention or the UN was abused for political reasons, but we need to present both views on the situation. WarKosign 05:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve the article[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, Wikipedia can't take sides. Israel has full control over Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights, Wikipedia is not being neutral when it claims that Israel is occupying those places. Israel won control over those places after winning battles. Most countries expanded throughout history by winning battles! None of those expansions are considered occupation. As such, it should be noted in the article that Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights are part of Israel, but are claimed by others.--Avner Kushner (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

First, you misunderstand WP:NPOV. It requires that we "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources".
Do you have reliable sources that support your opinion? In fact, do you have reliable sources that indicate your view is anything but a WP:FRINGE viewpoint? Does Israel even claim the West Bank is "part of Israel"? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There are many sources, and I can provide a few if you want. Hon. Prime Minister Netanyahu time and again said that Land of Israel has been the homeland of Jews for over 3,000 years, and that is why Israel is building settlements in West Bank. And for Golan Heights, as seen in many sources (I can provide the sources if you want), several ministers of Israel said throughout the years that Golan Heights is a war trophy of Israel and Assad should give up hope of taking it back. Israel even officially annexed it.--Avner Kushner (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You want "reliable sources" about the fact that Israel won these territories during a war or that most countries expanded by winning battles ? You are expanding the rules to the limits of absurdity. Maybe that's your goal. Benjil (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that the article should say that all of Jerusalem as well as West Bank and Golan Heights are controlled by and therefore are part of Israel, but some homeless people claim these places for themselves, and some argue that these places are "occupied" by Israel.--Avner Kushner (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
West Bank is quite different because Israel neither controls nor claims all of it. I agree regarding Golan and East Jerusalem - it's a simple objective fact easily supported by sources that de-facto they are part of Israel. The disagreement whether this state of affairs is legal and should remain so is a matter of POV, and both POVs should be represented.

There are many sources that say that Israel will soon annex West Bank as majority in Israeli Government and in Israel advocate for it:[1][2] etc--Avner Kushner (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no majority and no will to annex the West Bank in the current Knesset and your sources do not say otherwise. This is not something that will happen "soon". Benjil (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion relates largely to the unilateral views of members of the Israeli political system. The only long term plan that had wide international support was the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Following that we have the 1949 Armistice Agreements but these only go as far as to relate to the needed "armistice". An agreement of this form is only meant as a temporary fix to be used while genuine negotiations continue. Neutrality demands that we do not present Israel in ways that go beyond the facts. It is only when agreement is reached between opposing sides that neutrality will no longer be an issue. GregKaye 09:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I am shocked by the comments of the user: Avner Kushner above. He says: "I agree regarding Golan and East Jerusalem - it's a simple objective fact easily supported by sources that de-facto they are part of Israel. The disagreement whether this state of affairs is legal and should remain so is a matter of POV, and both POVs should be represented."

You are WRONG! The disagreement whether this state of affairs is legal and should remain so is NOT a matter of POV (Point of View). This "state of affairs" is NOT legal in terms of international law and is NOT legal according to the United Nations - of which Israel is a member state to the UN. It is known as an illegal occupation.

You have a very poor understanding of international law - UN obligations that Israel, as a member country, is obliged to abide by. You even go as far as saying (before the quote above) that: "Israel won control over those places after winning battles. Most countries expanded throughout history by winning battles! None of those expansions are considered occupation. As such, it should be noted in the article that Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights are part of Israel, but are claimed by others." This is truly an unbelievably incorrect statement! You seem to think that THAT is international law, i.e. Israel is justified in being a law unto itself!!! Those other countries "expansions" WERE considered occupations when they first happened (eg. when the allied forces occupied Germany in WW2.) - the only question with regard to "other nations" was whether their occupations were legitimate (especially with regard to what the UN considered legitimate). If they were legitimate occupations, then YES, those countries were thereafter considered legitimate expansion territory, and NOT - or at least NO LONGER - considered occupation. Israel has fulfilled none of that which is why it's occupations are still considered occupations of other people's countries (illegal occupations as per the UN). You say: "Most countries expanded throughout history by winning battles!" That is true, but that does not make all modern battles legitimate. That was before the UN was established as an international peace keeping organization by hundreds of member countries, including Israel, which as a member refuses to abide by the rules of the organization it has chosen to belong to. That was BEFORE there were modern laws that prevented countries from occupying / colonizing other independent countries, simply because they had the military power to do so. You seem to be living in the 1600's, or maybe even the times of the Romans. -- (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that is wishful thinking, but there is, just for one example, the small matter of China invading India. Now Israel was invaded by Jordan and now has gained that territory which Jordan renounced. Seems the only sovereign state is Israel....(cough cough cough Odesa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

...and has the one of the highest life expectancies... Grammar error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Declaring sovereignty on the basis of armistice?[edit]

I am unsure of the use of the word "sovereign" in the section at Israel#Geography which has a second paragraph that currently begins.

  • "The sovereign territory of Israel (according to the demarcation lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements and excluding all territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War) is approximately 20,770 square kilometers (8,019 sq mi) in area,.."

I recently added the "(according to the demarcation lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements and ...)" text here.

However, in the context that the international community has previously made the unanimous decision not to even place embassies in West Jerusalem and that it is only the U.S. has belatedly chosen to move its embassy, I get the impression that "sovereignty" (at least as a decided fact) is internationally disputed.

It would be more neutral to present "The territory of Israel ..." than "The sovereign territory of Israel ...". Readers should be left to make up their own minds.

GregKaye 10:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is correct, and your addition is redundant, since the sentence already excludes anything captured during the 1967 war, so your comment about West Jerusalem is irrelevant. Israel is recognized as a sovereign state by pretty everyone who isn't an annihilationist; the country's borders may be in dispute, but the sovereignty of the pre-1967 state is a fact. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
--jpgordon The many nations that agreed to the formation of a Jewish sovereign state (who even gave support to the 1947 partition plan) are certainly not "annihilationist" and this despite their very clear political stance in their refusal to place embassies in Jerusalem. Please do not attempt to bring WP:DRAMA to the page. Given Israel's military domination over the Palestinian's and its possession of powerful weaponry, where is the threat of "annihilation"?.
The question here is not about Israel being a sovereign state but about the extent of sovereign territory.
I have proposed no addition to the page.
The UN has agreed to and the supported the existence of a Jewish sovereign state and this was ratified in the presented 1947 plan. What has not been agreed with any degree of finality is any extent of sovereign territory beyond that. Certainly issues are made complicated by the initially intended "Corpus separatum" of Jerusalem and certainly territories are up for debate but that's exactly what it is, a debate. It is not Wikipedia's place to declare in its own voice which territories are sovereign. We have to stick with neutral wording. It is more than sufficient to say:
  • "The territory of Israel (according to the demarcation lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements and excluding all territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War) is approximately 20,770 square kilometers (8,019 sq mi) in area,.."
A neutral presentation of "The territory of Israel" better presents all views on the situation. GregKaye 05:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
See Sovereignty#Different approaches. All 4 approaches clearly apply to 1949 lines. 3 of the 4 also apply to Golan and East Jerusalem, but due to NPOV let's not call them part of sovereign territory. It would be more correct to say "Internationally recognized sovereign territory of Israel (according to the demarcation lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements and excluding all territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War) is 20,770 square kilometers (8,019 sq mi). The total area under Israeli law, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, is 22,072 square kilometers (8,522 sq mi)". WarKosign 07:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not see that "international legal sovereignty – formal recognition by other sovereign states" applies when other states refuse to place their embassies even in West Jerusalem. This is yet another unnecessary POV push. It is more than sufficient simply to put "territory". GregKaye 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NPoV doesn't mean if we see 3 criteria out of 4 fit a definition we have to nuance our analysis of this. WP:NPoV means that if WP:RS disagree between themselves on an analysis, we have to report all of them with their due:weight.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

3,5 millions more jewish in a census by spain[edit]

3,5 millions more jewish in a census by spain. In a french website Atlantico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Word "and"[edit]

Hello, could you please check the use of the word "and" on: "At the other extreme, more mountainous regions can be windy, cold, and sometimes snowy and areas and, at elevation of..."? It doesn't sound good to me and I don't know if there is need for a correction, Thanks. --UAwiki (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree it was bad. I hope my edit improved it, anyone is welcome to improve it further. WarKosign 12:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't edit it because my native language is not English and I was not sure :) --UAwiki (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Atheists and non religious[edit]

I think the Religion paragraph should be improved with data about atheism and not religious people in Israel. Take a look here: An astonishing 65% claimed to not religious or atheists. (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

According to all studies about the religiosity of Israeli Jews, there are fairly religious relative to western standards and the number of atheists is around 20% (see the article). The source you bring is confusing because in Israel "religious" means "ultra-orthodox or religious-zionist", not believing in God. 35% is about the rate of ultra-orthodox and religious-zionist or traditionalist-religious according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, so I think there is no need to add this data. Benjil (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"The world's longest military occupation in modern times"?[edit]

Indonesia has been occupying West Papua since 1963. China has been occupying Tibet since 1951. The claim that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times is false. It gives readers the wrong idea that Israel is a brutal occupier when in fact the Palestinians living in these areas have de facto independence. I request to remove this sentence from the article. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thisissparta12345: We've been over it several times. There are many sources that prove that some ongoing military occupations began before 1967, so one can draw a completely reasonable conclusion that alleged occupation of West Bank and Gaza is not the longest in modern times. Unfortunately drawing this conclusion constitutes original research which is something we are not allowed to do. There are sources that claim that occupation of West Bank and Gaza is longest. If you are able to find reliable sources that contradict the claim we can remove it or at least change it to being presented as one opinion among several. WarKosign 09:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Not only does saying West Papua and Tibet are still under military occupation constitute original research, it is also wrong. We have discussed Tibet above, and for West Papua, see Act of Free Choice. Tibetans are Chinese citizens today and West Papuans are Indonesian citizens. We can dispute the legality of the annexations, but they are both de facto annexed territories. To understand why this sentence exists in this article, one needs to understand the difference between annexation (whether de facto or de jure) and military occupation.
Who is occupying who? The whole application of the term occupation here is wrong. You have two competing national groups here making overlapping claims on the land, the stronger one by the Jews, and the weaker and newer one buy the muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Oncenawhile (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
annexation and occupation are not mutually exclusive terms. Or are you suggesting that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are not occupied? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The occupation of West Jerusalem has been ongoing since 1948. --Dailycare (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Since East-Jerusalem has been annexed de facto, by your own logic it should not be here. And the claim that the Gaza strip is still under Israeli occupation is not a consensus and is highly biased. The Gaza strip is "de facto" independant. Benjil (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no "occupation of West Jerusalem". West Jerusalem is recognized by most of the international community as part of Israel. East Jerusalem is the disputed area, which, as opposed to the West Bank, was annexed by Israel and therefore should not be mentioned as one of the territories under Israeli military occupation. The Arabs of East Jerusalem were given the choice to become Israeli Citizens, and most of them did. So at least eliminate East Jerusalem from the occupied territories list. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, east Jerusalem is still considered to be part of the West Bank and a future capital for the Palestinian state. Israel does not contain east Jerusalem, at least not officially. --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No, West Jerusalem is not recognized as part of Israel by even one single state. It's non-recognition as Israeli predates the occupation of East Jerusalem. We've been through this many times already. As to East Jerusalem, it's explicitly mentioned as occupied Palestinian territory in countless resolutions, so no, there is no way it will be considered as anything but occupied until Israel withdraws its forces from it. --Dailycare (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Both East and Western Jerusalem, aside from being illegally occupied since the Roman times, was given to the Jews in San Remo in 1920

the real question is, does any of these groups have the right to give up the Sovereign claim of the Jewish People over ALL the land, which has been illegally occupied for about 2100 years. Probably not. All the land is Jewish and only the democratic representative of the Jewish people, which is probably the Israeli Knesset, can give up any of the sovereign claims.

when israel was establish category[edit]

in the category i noticed that it saying israel was established on 1948 but the true is that she was establish on 1 may 1949 there was independent war in the middle and she was only declared in 1948 please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

May 14 1948 is the date the state was established. This year Israel celebrated 67 years of independence which also fits the date. If you want to change it, you need to provide some very reliable sources that support your position. WarKosign 19:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
no you wrong may 14 1948 is the day israel was declared indonesia also celebrating this year 70 although she was establish on 1949 the celebrating always going by declaration and not by establishment here you go "Yom Ha'atzmaut (Hebrew: יום העצמאות‎ Yōm hā-ʿAṣmāʾūṯ lit. "Independence Day") is the national day of Israel, commemorating the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948. " it even saying it going by the declaration and not by establishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It appears that as far as these categories are concerned, establishment doesn’t require all the legalities or formalities to be complete. The USA is in the 1776 cat, when it had just declared independence, but the Revolution wasn‘t over until 1783, and the constitution came several years later. Canada is in the 1867 cat, but only became fully independent in 1931, and until 1982 had no constitution (which has yet to be fully ratified). This doesn’t seem unreasonable to me; I think most readers would be thinking of the widely commemorated dates, rather than those of the formal inauguration or recognition of the states.—Odysseus1479 05:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
ok you right but you forgot the part that usa revolution and canada their declaration defined the exact borders they would be even after the war israel declaration was based on the un partition plan and her borders after the independence war do not fit to her borders when it was declare i would agree with you for 100% if her borders after the war would fit to her borders on her declaration but it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Continuing with the same examples, neither the USA nor Canada started with its present boundaries; their original territories were both comparatively small regions of eastern North America. Both countries expanded several-fold by a mixture of conquest, purchase, and mutually-agreed absorption of other nations and territories. Canada didn’t reach its present extent until 1949, and IIANM the USA not until 1898. And anyway I don‘t think territorial changes per se really bear on the meaning of establishment.—Odysseus1479 07:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise one could say Israel wasn't established until 1981 or even 2000. WarKosign 07:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
ok but you forgot the part that usa/canada would had the exact same borders today even without the wars they had in the middle israel would had the partition plan borders until today without the independent war huge different not to mention that usa and canada also did not need recognition like israel israel would still had the same borders on the partition plan without recognition from the un therefor it is more fair to claim israel was establish in 1949 than 1948.
"usa/canada would had the exact same borders today even without the wars they had in the middle"? Y'wot? No they wouldn't. They have both expanded massively. See Territorial evolution of Canada and Territorial evolution of the United States. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Israel was not declared within the borders proposed by the UN partition plan, they intentionally left the borders vague in the declaration. WarKosign 10:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
the different is that this were wars when usa/canada started israel independent war was a war which the arab states started and if they were not started it the borders would remain the same as they mention on the partition plan if the independent war was war which israel started to expend her borders i would be fully agree with you and i also mentioned they did not had recognition like israel i also want to mention for the other one that the declaration did mention the borders in the partition plan "On the border issue, the original draft had declared that the borders would be that decided by the UN partition plan" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"the original draft", not the final declaration. Anyway, whatever your opinion is - here we go by sources, and by far most of the sources say that Israel was established in 1948. If you want to change it, you need to find very reliable sources that say otherwise. WarKosign 11:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ok here you go Israel at the Polls: The Knesset Élections of 1977 page 93 "Paradoxically, at all of the elections held since the establishment of the state, a small proportion of Arab (especially Druze) voters have supported Herut candidates" and this is known that arabs start to support this party only since her second election now you can fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not think you understand what is considered a reliable source. "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Even assuming that the book that you quoted was peer reviewed, and that the author is an expert on Israel's history during the years of its establishment, drawing a conclusion as you did from this quote constitutes original research. To support your statement one ideally needs a reliable source that says explicitly "Israel was established on 10 March 1949 after 1948 Arab–Israeli War (or The War of Independence)". Even then it is a matter of WP:WEIGHT, this opinion must be prominent enough to be represented along the common view that it was established in 1948. At the moment it seems to me that it falls under WP:FRINGE, that is it's an opinion held so few that it shouldn't even be mentioned. This kind of things are determined by consensus, so if there are many editors who will agree with you on this talk page - sure, we'll change it. WarKosign 11:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

International humanitarian efforts[edit]

I'm surprised that this subject is broached on the main Wikipedia page for a country when this does not seem to be the case for any of other countries I looked at both in Europe and the Middle East. Does this section lend an editorial slant to the article? It does seem like a notable topic, but perhaps has been given disproportionate coverage to show a more positive view of Israel. Jonathan Williams (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

My edit has has now been reverted without discussion by User:‎WarKosign. Jonathan Williams (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. It is fine that you made a bold edit, but it as fine for anyone to revert the edit if it is not seen as constructive. Now the onus is on you to convince other editors that it actually improves the article.
More to the point, it seems to me that the intent of your edit was to ensure that Israel is not shown too positively, even when it does something positive. WarKosign 22:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
Whether or not the removal of the opening sentence is due to WP:IDL is debatable, but at any rate, I don't see an issue with the revert of it because said sentence pretty much summarizes the following paragraph. That sentence might benefit from a source, however, because it's just skirting the line of WP:SYN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Erpert: Actually, the sentence is sourced. The source already referenced in the paragraph says "Through various governmental organizations like MASHAV, Israel's Agency for International Development Cooperation, and non-governmental organizations, Israel has a long-standing tradition of coordinating relief to alleviate disease, hunger, and poverty." WarKosign 10:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason for removing the statement. At the very least, the onus is on those wanting to remove a sourced statement to make a strong case for its removal. The least that can be said is that no such case has been made. Can I also point out, generally, that saying "It's WP:UNDUE", "It's WP:POV" etc. is not making a case, it's just namedropping a policy. Making a case would necessitate a compelling case for why it would be undue or POV. Jeppiz (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Israel has a history of providing emergency aid and humanitarian response teams to disasters across the world.

That sentence is factually correct and shouldn't be removed. That it also has a long policy of impoverishing its immediate neighbours (Sara Roy's monographs on Israel's strategic dedevelopment in Gaza since the 1970s underline the policy, for example) has nothing to do with this section, which is about emergency aid to disasters 'across the world'.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, is the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs' website for such exceptional claims a reliable source for such information? It's self-published and certainly isn't independent. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Right, that source should be replaced by a third-party source. Zerotalk 04:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:SELFSOURCE can be used, as long as "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". I do not think that this applies. Israel's participation in international rescue operations is well-covered by media, for example IsraAid provides references to several recent operations. I will try finding an independent source, the trouble is to find one that covers the whole history and not a specific effort.
Meanwhile I came upon "The Bystander's Duty to Rescue in Jewish Law" so I'm considering adding material from this or similar sources to explain religious motivation that is partially behind Israel's rescue operations. WarKosign 06:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't unless you can find sources where the people organising the rescue efforts say specifically that they are doing it to adhere to Jewish religious law. Even then, I'd be cautious if I were you. What is the implication here? That Israeli humanitarian efforts are made because they care about some law in Judaism rather than because they really care about helping? Do non-Jewish Israelis help too? Are they motivated by religious rules as well? —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I beg to disagree, I would say that this is content is indeed self-serving and an exceptional claim. If Israel's participation in international rescue operations is well-covered by media then there should be independent, third party supporting the content. However, if there isn't a source that covers the whole history rather than specific efforts than what is mentioned within these sources should only be included within the section. In absence of secondary sources sources I think the content should be removed. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if the claim is exceptional, but it is certainly self-serving. Even if it wasn't, the general principle that third-party sources are preferred should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. The most exceptional thing I see here is the inclusion of the section at all. Do the main articles on any other countries have such a section? To @WarKosign:, it would be a very clear SYNTH violation to include an essay on halacha that doesn't even mention Israeli international humanitarianism. Zerotalk 13:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I added this source: "... few countries are as fast as Israel in mobilizing entire delegations to rush to the other side of the world. It has been proved time and again in recent years, after the earthquake in Haiti, the typhoon in the Philippines and the quake/tsunami/nuclear disaster in Japan. For a country of Israel’s size and resources, without conveniently located aircraft carriers and overseas bases, it is quite an impressive achievement." WarKosign 16:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
So lets use the word tradition then, not the word history.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think tradition is too strong a word. Something that happened (especially repeatedly) is certainly history. Tradition is defined as "A long-established custom or belief that has been passed on from one generation to another". So far the only source using this term is MFA and it can be considered self-indulging. I'd be more comfortable with using the word here if there is a neutral source for it. WarKosign 15:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the point in the {{Self-published inline}} tags scattered in the section ? Yes, the data comes from a self-published source, but is there any reason to suspect it's unreliable ? The complaint about the opening sentence was that it's self-indulging, but it doesn't seem to be the case with these tags. WarKosign 17:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You've just answered your own question. The majority of the section is self-published making its verifiability questionable therefore the sources are not adequate for the content to be included in the article. The discussion may've originally been about the opening sentence but this has now been extended to the sources.
Therefore, (as Zero has pointed out) these self-serving claims from Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website need to be replaced with reliable, third-party sources. We need to see The Guardian, The Telegraph, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post etc. All the information within this section needs to be directly from these sources only, NOT
If all this content is accurate, then there's no reason why a major nation such as Israel wouldn't have significant media or literary coverage for it. If such sources aren't available then we'd have to assume that the content isn't adequate for inclusion. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted a question at WP:RSN, let's see if they consider the existing source sufficient. WarKosign 20:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tanbircdq Stop polluting the article with scare tags. If you believe some facts are not supported properly, please tell which specific fact you think is missing. WarKosign 12:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your behaviour seems to violate WP:POINT. Is your goal to improve the article, or to remove (or tag as unsupported) as much information as you can ? WarKosign 12:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I have added the tags to the section to encourage better content supporting sources to be added rather than outright removing content which is inadequately sourced or not event sourced at all. I have removed content which is not supported by any of the sources and removed irrelevant sources which do not support the content. Please avoid wholesale reverting as you did here, thank you. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You removed "Israel was the first country to set up a field hospital" which was supported by MFA. While tagging it as self-sourced can be justified, removing supported statements cannot. This or this sources can be added to support the statement, as long as you do not delete it.
You tagged sources as {{Failed verification}} without filling the reason field or stating the reason on the talk page. If you had a reason to put the tag, kindly share this reason with the rest of us so it can be addressed. WarKosign 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Probably the mfa site, carrying as it does, a load of political speeches, is not the best source, esp. since most of Israel's medical mission to disaster zones are written up and published in the relevant health journals (Kreiss, I think, on Haiti, for all statistics, for example). As far as I know, the Argentines has the first field hospital set up, within hours of the quake, because they already had a unit there looking after troops. This is what the chronology implicit in the verb tenses of Lee H. Harvis's, Rescue from Chaos: Usaf Responds to Disaster in Haiti, Dog Wear Publishing 2012 p.53.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
A note. The background editing stuff (Bandung Conference etc) could probably now be shifted to the Mashav page which is poorly developed, and needs some work. Some of my additions may be WP:Undue. I'll leave that to other editors to figure out. The book links I provided, and there are many more available, give much more substantial material on Israel's contributions abroad however, and should be read more thoroughly than I can manage at the moment. Generally, in sourcing, we should use Google Books or Google scholar as the primary research vehicle, and only when we fail to come up with useful results should be scour newspaper or general web sources. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see that's already done, without my pompous nudging. Good.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have re-added the source of Israel being the first on scene. The refs are ABC and Israel's MFA. The original revert was done with a claim that Argentina's field hospital was the first on the scene. However, Argentina's Air Force Mobile Field Hospital was on scene because it was already deployed to Haiti for UN MINUSTAH reasons. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There is some disagreement regarding what constitutes a hospital; one could argue that Argentinian medical facility was the first hospital. I changed the claim to be "first hospital capable of surgery", there doesn't seem to be any doubt about that. WarKosign 07:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to nitpick, they were the first hospital, because they were already there for years, Israel was the first hospital deployed after the quake. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This all looks like hype, I'm afraid, and I'm making these comments out of distaste for any risk that what should be a purely humanitarian operations be spun to flatter a national amour-propre (I heard about the shenanigans of the aid organizations using the boat people disaster for such ends from one of the embassy people directly involved, in the early 1980s, and with Haiti, it was deplorable to see the huge coverage given the least effective 'actors', like the US, while Cuba and groups like MSF did far more long lasting work, and beat everyone statistically, for promptness of interventions, numbers of surgical operations, and money directed at saving Haitian lives. Even the Kurihara intervention left the local council with a huge financial burden, though I don't think anyone should note that, though it was covered in Japanese newspapers.
As to the specific meat of the claim, many hospitals were damaged, and field hospitals and tents were set up on the 13th in tents by Cuba, which had 344 doctors in Haiti already but Within hours of the earthquake, sent airplanes ferrying in complete field hospitals. If you want 'complex surgery' then a day before the excellent Israeli team arrived Médecins Sans Frontières was providing major surgery in tents around the MSF-supported Carrefour Hospital. The UMGI/PM field hospital was established on January 13, 2010. During the first 9 days, the hospital functioned in the United Nations compound in two storage tents capable of holding up to 250 patients. ..though it had no organized operating rooms.Within hours of the earthquake, airplanes from Cuba were bringing complete field hospitals, some some 60 doctors were flown in the next day and 1,500 more medical personnel followed quickly afterwards. Our text says Israel had the first field hospital capable of complex surgery set up. Sure, for 4 days, the Dominican Republic (first in) Argentine, Cuba, did no complex surgery serious in tent wards which mushroomed everywhere? Cuban medicos set up a trauma field hospital by converting a local eye clinic, and were doing surgery there in the first twelve hours. No one among the 350 disaster specialists of the Cuban Henry Reeve Medical Brigade there on the 13th was capable of doing more than a few swabs and stiches?. They had the largest medical team on the ground and 'Public health experts say the Cubans were the first to set up medical facilities among the debris and to revamp hospitals immediately after the earthquake struck.. The article Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Haiti earthquake, though defective (nothing substantial about Cuba's hugely disproportionate effort) but it does mention that Argentine already had a field hospital operative there earlier. This has nothing to do with Israel, for me. On a day recently celebrating my country's birth as a nation, I happened to be with several other people of my generation, oldies, and we were all shocked to see something we'd never seen: hundreds of young kids in the streets standing wrapped in the national flag. We felt no less intensely about the country, but it was alien, historically, to flaunt one's pride so visibly, and was mocked spontaneously as another example of detrimental Americanization. One shouldn't wear one's patriotism on one's sleeve, nor insert it into articles, esp when, as here, it is a matter of delicacy, of helping other countries without blowing a trumpet: the Cubans, Icelanders, and others, in covering this, didn't brag or boast (Tom Fawthrop. Cuba's aid ignored by the media? Al Jazeera 16 Feb 2010), and they were ignored by the Anglo-American/Eurocentric press coverage.
At the time by the way, a controversy blew up in Israel, reflected in the New York Times, that Israel could do miracles in Haiti, while ignoring the disasters on its doorstep, and if you mention Haiti, and want this mfa hype in you would probably have to balance it by noting that. eg

Israeli rescue teams' efforts have been second to none, and their staff have shown true humanity in a time when it is so desperately needed by the victims. If there be among you a needy man, one of thy brethren, within any of thy gates, in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy hand from thy needy brother" Deuteronomy 15:7 However, for all that Israel's sterling work overseas deserves to be praised, it highlights the lack of compassion shown by the country's leaders to those suffering on its own doorstep. Israel's insistence on doing next to nothing to alleviate the suffering in Gaza while rushing to Haiti's aid exposes just how far they are prepared to stray from the religious teachings to which they claim to adhere. Likewise, when Zionist movements such as Bnei Akiva trumpet the achievements of Israel's relief teams as representative of the entire Jewish people, they inadvertently tar all Jews with the same brush when Israel's frequent violations of international law are brought to light.'Seth Freedman,'Israel's double standards over Haiti,' 22 January 2010


Some week ago, ahead of most countries, Israel sent scores of doctors and other professionals to Haiti. Years of dealing with terrorist attacks combined with an advanced medical technology sector have made Israel one of the most nimble countries in disaster relief — a factor that Western television news correspondents have highlighted. But Israelis have been watching with a range of emotions, as if the Haitian relief effort were a Rorschach test through which the nation examines itself. The left has complained that there is no reason to travel thousands of miles to help those in need — Gaza is an hour away. The right has argued that those who accuse Israel of inhumanity should take note of its selfless efforts and achievements in Haiti. Many commentators argued that the work in Haiti was a reflection of a central Jewish value. Michael Freund, a columnist in The Jerusalem Post, wrote on Thursday, “Though a vast gulf separates Israel from Haiti, with more than 10,500 kilometers of ocean lying between us, the Jewish people demonstrated that their extended hand can bridge any gap and traverse any chasm when it comes to saving lives.” But on the same page, another commentator, Larry Derfner, argued that while Israel’s field hospital in Haiti is a reflection of something deep in the nation’s character, “so is everything that’s summed up in the name of ‘Gaza.’ ” He wrote: “It’s the Haiti side of Israel that makes the Gaza side so inexpressibly tragic. And more and more, the Haiti part of the national character has been dwarfed by the Gaza part.”ETHAN BRONNER For Israelis, Mixed Feelings on Aid Effort New York Times 21 January, 2010

If only Israel had opened a field hospital to help wounded in Gaza... oh, wait, it had: Under Hamas Fire, Israel Keeps Humanitarian Aid to Gaza Flowing

The officer also noted, however, that Hamas has prevented Israeli humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza, and that a field hospital erected by Israel near the Erez border crossing to treat Palestinian wounded has not seen much use. Indeed, COGAT reports that fewer than 50 injured people have sought treatment at the field hospital, due to Hamas’ opposition to it.

WarKosign 21:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The mfa in any case is not a reliable source for a claim like this.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Those are opinion pieces that don't seem to comment that Gaza is not a natural disaster but 1) a man-made disaster of Hamas' doing, and 2) Israel sends in truckloads of humanitarian goods daily. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the mfa source, as per the RS/N comments. I would note that I consulted the Cuban Foreign Ministry site to see how they commented on Cuba's commitment, and the text read:

"En este momento están trabajando dos hospitales de campaña cubanos en instalaciones de alojamiento de nuestro personal médico allí",.

but since that is a government source, I discarded it as not RS for such claims.Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering what the purpose of the following source is that Sir Joseph readded here; Dr. Besser Assists in Haitian Baby's Birth. The only information I can see in this source is; "Dr. Richard Besser helps a woman deliver her child amid the chaos in Haiti." This doesn't appear to support any of the content on this page.

If no one has any objections, I suggest removing the MFA citations where better sources are available, with the exception of the few claims that still need to be addressed. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The link above doesn't work for me. This seems to be the same video. It supports the fact that Israeli hospital was equipped to assist in a complicated childbirth, but now there are better sources so we don't need to keep it.
I prefer keeping the MFA citations, backed up by an independent source.
If you see unaddressed claims, please specify them here. WarKosign 14:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you should keep the mfa, unless the RSN request favours its retention.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)