Jump to content

Talk:Israel/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

Minor edit

"Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such,[a] while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv, and its main industrial center Haifa." Added period after as such. It seems this was originally all one sentence but it's previous form made 'while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv' seem awkward in the new context of the disputed capital. It sounded like while Israel's capital was being disputed people were happily making monetary transactions in Tel Aviv. made 'while Israel's main financial center is...and its main industrial center haifa' a new sentence, and added 'is' for 'is haifa' for syntactic reasons.DavidBetzer (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The change you made has been accepted. No need to explain minor alterations on the talk page like that in future though, just make it clear in the edit summary what the reason for the change is. This article like a few other articles on wikipedia is testing Wikipedia:Pending changes, other editors quickly see the changes and accept the good changes. Its just to help prevent vandalism. Welcome to wikipedia, oh and remember new sections on the talk page belong at the bottom to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome! I was wondering what to do with minor edits, but jumped with elation when I discovered that I didn't erase the article with my first go at it. I'll probably contribute more to grammar, I am scared of POVs--most notably my own. DavidBetzer (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In the section on the judiciary, there's discussion of "Labour Courts" (Brit. Eng.--with a U) and "Labor Courts" (Am. Eng.--no U). I suspect that the usage in Israel is British. I'd change it myself to make it consistent, but it's locked (for reasons that are understandable).99.188.152.81 (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Martin 16:03, 23 September 2010

Eichmans seizure

I realise that people have strong feelings about matters concerning Israel and have therefore not altered anything, but I would like to raise a point that occurred to me whilst reading the page. The paragraph that covers Eichman's seizure, trial and much-deserved execution makes no mention of the controversy that followed Eichman's arrest, particularly Argentina's reaction to what it viewed as a breach of it's own sovereignty.

Doktordoris (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a link to Eichmann's article which has a subsection devoted to the issue so the issue is covered, just not here. It's an interesting part of the trial's history but it seems a little beyond the scope of the article. Sol (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I just thought the international hoo-ha which arose from the Eichman affair was an important part of Israel's history, because it clearly shows Israel's determination to do the right thing despite it being an obvious breach of international law just like the hit-squads after the olympic hostage taking, and as such deserved a mention on the page.

Doktordoris (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Israel

The article is not clear on how "Israel" is defined, and in fact uses a wide variety of different and inconsistent interpretations throughout the article. This makes the article both confusing and misleading. Below are some examples of paragraphs which are misleading for this reason:

  • (a) the population figure used throughout the article includes Israeli citizens living in "Green Line" Israel, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the Seam Zone and the Israeli-controlled settlement areas throughout the West Bank. As an aside, this number excludes the Palestinians living in the latter two of these same areas (the Seam Zone and the full Israeli-controlled areas of the West Bank (Area C))
  • (b) the headline area (km2) figure used includes "Green Line" Israel, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, but does NOT include the Seam Zone or other settlements throughout the West Bank
  • (c) the first para in the lead mentions the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem but does not mention their occupation or annexation by Israel. The demographic reference in the same paragraph selectively includes East Jerusalem but does not reference the Golan Heights and does not explain why the other occupied territories are not covered also;
  • (d) the third para in the lead lists the territories occupied in 1967, without mentioning East Jerusalem
  • (e) the fourth para in the lead describes Jerusalem as the capital, without mentioning that East Jerusalem is disputed territory according to the international community. This para also mentions universal suffrage, without specifying that this does not apply to the non-Israeli-citizen Arabs in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights included in the population statistics - which would be fine if the article was only focused on Green Line Israel.
  • (f) the first two subsections under history refer to the whole region including the entire occupied territories without explaining as such. In particular, the first sentence refers to the “Land of Israel”, without explaining the complexity of defining this term. More generally, if this section is to refer to the whole area (which makes sense) it should be made clear. As another aside, the history section as a whole is heavily POV as it is focused on only the Jewish history of the region, but that is perhaps best left for a separate comment.
  • (g) the main demographics section covers the population of settlements in the West Bank but leaves out the Palestinians without adequately explaining the situation;
  • (h) The geographical regions section shows Judea and Samaria as states with their Israeli name, but with no explanation.
  • (i) The geography section mentions the occupied territories in turn but does not mention the Gaza Strip, which would be appropriately referred to as a government defined "foreign entity" over which Israel still holds control over the airspace, coastline, and over 80% of its land borders. There is also no mention of the disputed Shebaa farms, although this is clearly very small.

To make this article work, we need to decide what the scope of this article is, define it clearly, and then stick to it.

My view is that the article is technically about the "State of Israel" - i.e. the Israeli government, including the land and the people controlled by it (see State (polity)). This means that it is necessary to have clear references to the occupied territories which are all still controlled by Israel to some extent, including the occupied population and settlers, in the lead paragraph. However, for practical reasons we should define the focus of the article on the area in which Israeli law applies, such that the detail of the Israeli settlements and the Palestinian civil-administration areas can be dealt with in other articles so long as these articles are clearly referenced here.

The complexity of the situation should be dealt with up front in the article (for example see the relevant paragraph and table in the Geography of Israel article which attempts to clarify the issue). This should be initially explained and defined clearly in the lead - my suggestion below.

The territory of Israel can be defined in a number of ways as a result of a complex and unresolved political situation. The sovereign territory of Israel, excluding all territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War, is approximately 20,582km2 in area, with a population of approximately 6.7 million. The total area under Israeli law, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, is 22,072km2 with a population of approximately 7.2 million. Including the occupied but unannexed areas under the full Israeli military and civil control in the Seam Zone and Area C of the West Bank, the total area is 25,233km2 with a population of 7.5 million when including the area's 300,000 Israeli settlers but excluding the area's 150,000 Palestinians (representing the standard definition of the total population as per the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics). The total area under full or partial Israeli military control, including the partially military-controlled but Palestinian-governed Areas A and B of the West Bank and the Palestinian-governed territory of the Gaza Strip over which Israel controls the airspace, coastline, and over 80% of its land borders, is 28,177km2 with a population of approximately 11.7 million.

Grateful for thoughts on all this before any changes are made. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems to make a lot of sense. Good work!. Sol (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
OK well i've made a start. Need to think carefully about edits for consistency as need to keep the article simple and readable - can't have complex explanations about which territories we are including each time we use the word Israel in the article.Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, you were reverted (not by me tough); while I agree that your approach is worth giving a thought, you do not use any sources; that's a problem. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
OK fair enough - I have added detailed references as requested. Hopefully the section makes a start on solving the overarching problems with the article as per above comments.Oncenawhile (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Much better. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


Although the sourcing is now improved, much of it appears to have been arrived at by a synthesis from different sources? But this is not why it has been reverted. The reason I reverted it is that it belongs not as an independent section on this page, but needs to be worked into one of the independent and detailed sub-section pages: history, geography, occupied territories, administrative districts - or if necessary to have an article of its own. Wikipedia has a specific format for its country pages, usually following summaries of: etymology, history, geography, government, demography, etc. The concept of a detailed definition of a country belongs to one of the detailed subsection pages.
As for the issue of inconsistent uses of the word "Israel" within the main page, that should be addressed by adding the relevant qualifications (by adding more detail) to the uses of the term within the article. E.g. "The population of Israel *(counted within the greenline)" etc. Avaya1 (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have a specific format for its country pages. What it has is a recommended structure and a set of guidelines shown here. Editors are free to develop new structures and ways of dealing with pertinent information in a way that is best suited to a particular country through consensus. I don't have any views about the best approach in this case but it's rather important, in my view, for editors to be aware that they are not constrained by a project-wide standard. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Correct, there is no specific format; more importantly WP:SYNTH tells us not to combine facts to advance a certain point of view; as hard as I looked, I cannot find any point of view or opinion in this. It simply list numbers and describes the different areas and population figures. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
One thing that's being overlooked is that the 1967 line isn't a border, it's an armistice line. Israel's borders are set in the partition resolution. Here and here2 are two notable experts who have published in the field (i.e. the texts are WP:RS) on the record to that effect. So strictly speaking e.g. West Jerusalem isn't Israeli sovereign territory. --Dailycare (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare - this sounds like a sensitive subject, but I have made amendments which hopefully neutralise it and make it technically correct.Oncenawhile (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Population numbers for the Golan heights are wrong, it lists the Syrian population together with the Israeli settlers as if they were Israeli Citizens, but the majority of Syrians there do not have Israeli citizenship. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point Supreme - the column of the left includes permanent residents. Amendment made.Oncenawhile (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Edits are blatant OR and SYNTH and there is no precedent on wikipedia to support such a table, especially right below the lead. Graph should be moved to Demographics of Israel if it stays. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, I disagree, and you need to give some more reasons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no. As the editor wishing to ADD a fair amount of controversial text to the article, the onus is on you to get consensus for its inclusion, after it was reverted once. Please read WP:BRD. And also don't abuse TW be labeling the revert of your edit as "vandalism", which it isn't. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this a serious discussion? The edit is blatant SYNTH and original research. The table is simply obnxious sitting right in front of the lead. No other country contains such a chart. Any statistics belong in demographics of israel, not "definition of israel." What does that mean??? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm the editor proposing the addition of the text. I disagree with Wikifan and Hup - there is absolutely no OR or SYNTH here, and the "controversial" label from Hup is not justified - nothing in the text or table is either controversial or even close to POV. It is simply trying to solve a fundamental problem with this article, very clearly identified in the discussion above. Please could the editors who disagree with the inclusion answer the following questions so we can reach a thought through agreement:
1) Do you agree there is a fundamental inconsistency in the use of the term Israel in the article? And do you agree that the article will become unreadable if all 700 references to Israel are caveated as Avaya suggests? How else would you propose solving the inconsistency problem?
2) Do you agree that the first sentence in the proposed text "The territory of Israel is not formally defined by the Israeli government,[24][25][26][27] as a result of a complex and unresolved political situation" is supported by RS and is NPOV?
3) Do you agree that Israel is a special case in this respect - i.e. no other country in the world has such a complex and undefined territorial situation as such a fundamental part of its overall makeup - and therefore the needs of this article have to be looked at in their own right?
4) Please can you identify specific examples violating [WP:OR]] and WP:SYNTH so they can be discussed? As discussed by other editors, none of the data is forming views. What is your real concern here - and how can it be addressed in a constructive fashion?
Oncenawhile (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Yes this discussion is serious; I agree the header is too vague, but that doesn't mean that everything in it is junk. Arguing from precedent cannot really work here, because, well, there is no country like Israel. I still don't see the synth in here. I'd like to know where others see it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The section is OR. Cherry-picked data compiled by an editor placed in a graph. I know original research. Here is a chart I made illustrating UN resolutions and death tolls. The information was accurate and cited, but the graph was still OR. And while there is no country like Israel, there are plenty of countries with border and territorial disputes. "Definition of Israel" is dubious headline. Israel is a sovereign country loaded with Jews. See, there's a nice definition and I can find hundreds of RS to support the assertion. If the chart does remain it should be moved to demographics of Israel, not next to the lead of Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, with all due respect, the table that you linked is blatant WP:OR as you would have needed to go and add up all the resolutions and take a view how to allocate the countries etc - not a simple task - and the table is reaching a conclusion about who has the most resolutions. Your difficult experience should not mean that you should feel the need to ensure others suffer the same fate, at the expense of improvements to wikipedia articles. The proposed table in this article does not suffer from the same faults as your table - it takes the important numbers direct from RS, sticks them in to a table to make a complex topic digestible, and totals up the numbers to make it all fit together. It is trying to solve a problem with an article, not prove a point.
So we can move forward, can you please answer the questions posed - we cannot resolve this debate if you do not engage in dialogue.Oncenawhile (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Your questions are meaningless. Simply designed to justify the blatant OR. Here: "Do you agree that Israel is a special case in this respect - i.e. no other country in the world has such a complex and undefined territorial situation as such a fundamental part of its overall makeup." What does this mean? Israel is a "special case?" Compared to what? See List of territorial disputes. Israel is far from unique. The table is obnoxious, plain and simple. If it does remain it should be moved to demographics of israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Your questions are meaningless? Wikifan, I will not discuss this further with you unless you start following WP:EQ - two relevant ones for you "Do not ignore questions" and "Be polite, please". Oncenawhile (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
If Oncenawhile's questions are meaningless, then your objections are meaningless; therefore, if you aren't willing to discuss this in a civilized manner, you can leave. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Your questions have nothing to do with policy. I gave an example of how meaningless your questions are. I'm not being mean, just honest. Editors can't design their own rubric to justify contributions and edits. The reality is the chart is blatant OR and SYNTH. There is nothing unique about Israel's territorial issues and I demonstrated above it is quite a common issue. So, if the section does remain - it doesn't belong in front of the lead and should be moved to Demographics of Israel. it has no place here, period. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, you have not demonstrated anything above, because you have not shown any willing to enter in to proper debate - you are just repeating the same POV over and over without responding to challenges against your POV. To try to move this forward, I will engage with your single question in good faith. The link you provided above re border disputes proves nothing - all of the examples are either very straightforward, clearly defined and/or wholly irrelevant in the context of their overall countries. If you want to prove your point here, please provide ONE example of a country whose territorial situation fits the criteria I laid out in (3) above - i.e.:
  • (a) it is similarly "complex" to Israel - Israel technically has seven areas each with a different internal and external legal or control status as communicated clearly in the table, and is therefore defined differently within Israel by politicians, the CBS and others [1]
  • (b) has a similarly "undefined territorial situation" - see references provided in the text[1][2][3][4]
  • (c) and that all of this is "such a fundamental part of its overall makeup" - for example Green Line Israel is 6.7m people and 20.6km2, whilst the whole area is 11.7m and 27.7km2 (an additional 75% and 35% respectively)
Please show us one country that comes close in all three of the above in order to retain the credibility of your argument. And then, please either leave this debate or else answer questions (1), (2) and (4) above so we can move forward. Thank you.
Oncenawhile (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
At best a graph like this would go in Demographics of Israel. The merit and importance of territorial issues has nothing to do with original research and synth. I don't see how any uninvolved editor would look at the chart and support its inclusion second to the introduction. And "definition of Israel?" Territorial and population issues does not define Israel as a state. More evidence for SYNTH. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Your new statement The merit and importance of territorial issues has nothing to do with original research and synth suggests a backtrack from your previous statement There is nothing unique about Israel's territorial issues. You have contributed nothing to this debate except a wholly unjustified POV. Please leave the debate rather than waste everyone's time. I will undo your and Hup's unjustified reverts which violated WP:DRNC. I am happy to discuss further with anyone who is willing to enter into a constructive debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, you've clearly put a lot of effort into your chart, and while it appears to be NPOV and sourced, the way you've combined the sources is nonethless WP:Synth and WP:OR. While there might be a case for separating the information, and putting it in the more detailed subarticles on demographics, geography and occupied territories (although I think most of it is already covered), there's no argument for putting it on the top of the country article. There's also no such thing as a "definition" of a country - but insofar as a definition can be provided, then it consists in the information covered by the whole article (i.e. in the subsections: history, geography, demographics, occupied territories etc). Avaya1 (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Avaya,
  • On the WP:SYNTH debate, the title of the regulation is "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" - please explain to us why you think that the section "advances a position"
  • I disagree with your point on the definition of a country, but for the sake of argument am happy to change the title. How about we change the section title to "Name" (which has a number of precedents in country articles), and integrate the etymology section (which itself has a lot of room for improvement).
  • And I disagree with your wider point - clarifying this information is so fundamental it cannot be left to the bottom of the article. I would like to debate this point further but I have provided so many reasons for it above (points (a)-(i) at the top and questions (1)-(3) above) so I would ask that you respond to those so we can reach a resolution here.
Oncenawhile (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps consider placing it in a sub-section entitled "Terminology and scope"? A valuable addition to the article, Onceinwhile's efforts in putting it together should be commended. The points raised as to why it is necessary are convincing and the material is well-sourced and neutrally presented. Putting together information from different sources to make an article subsection that is comprehensive in its coverage of a given topic is not SYNTH. The fact is that there are varying definitions for Israel - a place that means different things to different people, both now and historically. The reader will benefit from the inclusion of a concise and neutral guide to the varying definitions, and how they impact the scope of the area and population under discussion. Tiamuttalk 13:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A clarification, and comments: Since my earlier revert has now been called "unjustified" twice, I'll repeat what I wrote earlier. I saw an editor adding a large chunk of controversial text to the article, the same chunk removed by another editor claiming it was synth, and that edit being reverted, using Twinkle, with an edit summary that said it was vandalism, when it clearly wasn't. I made a fully policy-compliant revert of that edit, and thus my revert was entirely justified. It turns out the "vandalism" claim was made by mistake - that's fine, but (1) Twinkle is not supposed to be used in contents disputes, in any case, and (2), per WP:BRD, once that bold edit was reverted, the next step is to get consensus here, not to edit war it back into the article. There is no consensus for it at this point, and not even a majority supports its inclusion, so let's agree, at a minimum, not to continue to put it into the article until a consensus is reached.
As to the material in question, and the arguments for and against inclusion: There is merit for the claim that the table is a violation of SYNTH. By its very existence, when no similar table exists for any other country article, it implicitly advances the argument (which was explicitly made by supporters of the table on this Talk page) that 'Israel is a special case'. It also implicitly makes some unsupported arguments such as that a difference exists between people living in the "Seam area" and those living in other parts of the West Bank, or that Gaza should still be considered as under Israeli control or occupation
But even if there was no SYNTH violation, I don't see a need for such an unwieldy table to deal with the problems is is intended to solve. If we want to clarify what we are talking about, a simple statement along the lines of "Unless otherwise noted, when discussing geographical features such as area, coastline etc.. this article refers to Israel within the the 1949 armistice lines, when discussing population, it uses the Israeli CBS figures, which include Israeli citizens living in the occupied territories." Dealing with different definitions for population and territory is hardly unique in Wikipedia country articles, it is usually handled with a footnote in the infobox, or multiple entries in it - See for example the USA article and its treatment of Puerto Rico citizens, or the France article and its treatment of French DOM/TOM vs. Metropolitan France. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

HupHollandHup, thank you and good work - you have spelled out the root of the debate here - that you believe the text implies that Israel is a special case. That explains why other editors who have suggested the text should be moved have not been able to comment on the specific text, or answer any questions posed.
IMHO the other points in your post are less core to the debate, but I will respond briefly to each one. The reference to "unjustified" was because when first challenged to give a proper justification of your revert, you went silent - you have now stated your position appropriately so we are OK. The implication argument does not apply to either the Seam Zone vs. West Bank (you are welcome to suggest amendments to the text - the differentiation is clear consensus here Seam Zone) or the situation of Gaza as a "Palestinian governed area. Israel controls airspace, maritime border and 80% of land border. Occupied in 1967, unilaterally disengaged in 2005, declared a foreign entity in 2007." (you are welcome to suggest amendments to the text, which is clear consensus here Gaza Strip).
Your last point re the importance of this refers to your first point I believe - i.e. the core of the debate. Let's focus the conversation to reach consensus whether or not Israel is a special case, and therefore whether such an explanation is required. I have set my points out above, so would be grateful if you could respond to them. To the specific examples you raised, the USA and France clearly do not meet the criteria above - they fall flat on points (b) and (c), since they are both very clearly defined and neither is material to the overall makeup (Overseas France is in total only 2.7% of the population of Metropolitan France and all the Territories of the United States combined make up only 1.5% of the population of the US proper. These are not in the same ballpark at the 75% number mentioned above for Green Line Israel vs the other territories.)
In order to move this forward, please provide could you let us know if you can find an example of a country which meets points (a) - (c) above, so we can reach consensus on whether or not the Israel article deserves this explanation?
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oncenawhile you have mischaracterised our objections. 1. Firstly, you've inserted a new, unprecedented and controversial section right at the top of the article, without getting a consensus for it. 2. Your table is a work of Synth, not because it advances the position that "Israel is a special case", but because you've amalgamated a lot of separate sources in a way that constitutes original research regardless of whether or not it's advancing a specific position. 3. Additionally (this is a separate problem), its insertion does advance positions, eg. (i) that a country has a "definition", (ii) that its "definition" is constituted by its territory, (iii) that its territory and population includes areas it merely has some degree of the military control over etc (I could go on). 4. Your argument for including the "definition" is the inconsistent use of the term "Israel" within the article. To me this is an extremely weak argument, because you can easily remedy any inconsistent use you find problematic by inserting more detail (e.g. the population of Israel + *"including settlers"*), within the subsections of the article, and the more detailed separate articles we have for this purpose, on history, geography, etc. There's nothing wrong with adding more detail, in fact it's far more precise than attempting to summarise everything in a single section. This isn't a matter of leaving something at the bottom of the article. In fact, the only way to summarise the country's "definition", is with the whole article, particularly including the history section.Avaya1 (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

1. This is classic and appropriate WP:BRD - we should all be proud of ourselves. 2. Your statement is internally inconsistent - you are saying it's SYNTH because it's OR, but SYNTH is a type of OR not the other way round. Your interpretation of the policy is logically flawed and therefore has no merit. 3. This is what I am trying to get to a conclusion on - please answer my questions so we can move forward. 4. There are about 700 references to Israel in the article. You are welcome to caveat all of them, but I suspect this will ruin the article. If you are unwilling to improve the article in the way which is your preference, please let the rest of us improve the article in a more simple way.Oncenawhile (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with HHH that something along the lines of "Unless otherwise noted, when discussing geographical features such as area, coastline etc.. this article refers to Israel within the the 1949 armistice lines, when discussing population, it uses the Israeli CBS figures, which include Israeli citizens living in the occupied territories" would neatly solve the problem the table is ostensibly supposed to solve.
The table is obviously SYNTH. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The obvious conclusion no RS explicitly stated is that these numbers are related to each other in a way presented by this table.
As for the list of "criteria" (which are obviously designed to prove a point), Israel is not the only country that occupies land and considers some or all of it to be part of its territory (see for example China where the political issues around Tibet aren't even mentiond). What percentage of the population this covers or the "undefined territorial situation" are important because they are mentioned on a wordpress blog, HS today (who?) and The Epoch Times (what?)? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The proposed sentence does not deal with any of the points (c)-(i) at the top of this discussion. The situation regarding Tibet is clearly defined, and Tibet represents 0.3% of the population of China - again, this is simply not in the same ballpark. The refutation of the sources is absurd - the undefined nature of Israel's borders is an uncontested fact - see [2] for Ehud Olmert's recent plans to confirm the borders, and here[3] for Benjamin Netanyahu's recent confirmation that the Jordan Valley (which forms the majority of Area C) will likely be annexed. Can we please stay on the core of the debate rather than going on tangents - we need to reach consensus re whether Israel deserves a more clear explanation of how it is defined than other countries.Oncenawhile (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The situation regarding Tibet, well defined or not (and it's not, in case you're not aware), isn't even mentioned in the China article.
While I find your speculation about Netanyahu and the Jordan Vally interesting, what does it have to do with the table you made up and want to include in the article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we stay focused here please? Your points are tangential, but I will answer them anyway. The China article is not relevant here - if you think the article should mention Tibet, you should suggest it on that talk page, not this one. The situation in China/Tibet is not comparably undefined as per Israel. The debates over Tibet relate to historical rights to the land (i.e. which country the land should belong to, not which country it currently belongs to) and human rights - whilst these topics clearly have analogues in Israel's sphere, that is absolutely not what we are currently discussing. The analogue of our current discussion would be whether Tibet is deemed a part of the PRC today - that is an undisputed and well defined fact. And as I mentioned before, Tibet's population is 0.3% of China, versus the 75% number above. On these two bases, the Tibet comparison is therefore wholly irrelevant. On the Netanyahu and Olmert points, you were questioning the sources used to prove the simple fact that the borders are not yet defined, so I found some even more concrete RS to close the debate on the undefined nature of Israel's borders. The Olmert quote said "In the coming period we will move to set the final borders of the state of Israel" - thereby confirming that the borders are not yet set, since his proposed policy was clearly not implemented (hence the recent Haaretz report on Netanyahu).
Can we please try to close the core debate here - if you don't believe Israel deserves a more clear explanation of how it is defined than other countries, please provide one example of another country in a similar territorial situation (i.e. complex, undefined, and relating to a large population when compared to the "core").Oncenawhile (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Whose name begins with I and ends with L?
There are plenty of territorial disputes going on in the world. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
NMMNG, with respect, please could you read the whole section chain before posting again? That link was provided by Wikifan, and was provided an appropriate response "The link you provided above re border disputes proves nothing - all of the examples are either very straightforward, clearly defined and/or wholly irrelevant in the context of their overall countries". We are trying to improve the article here, please don't waste time. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed my point. There are plenty of border disputes. You are making up specific criteria to make Israel a special case. Your specific criteria are not wikipedia policy on which editors should base their edits. In fact, they just show you are trying to add SYNTH into the article. Quoting yourself as an "appropriate response" was a nice touch though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome to suggest your own criteria for comparative relevance, or else provide constructive comment on how my suggested criteria could be improved. Can we please move forward with the discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
A lot of countries have territorial disputes. This one is not unique. No extra criteria necessary.
You were given two good suggestions, by Avaya1 and HHH, on how to fix the problems you listed with the article. I strongly object to the section you tried to add. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I have interpreted this to mean that you will not be providing any substance to support your points of view. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nice Guy. I said numerous times there is nothing particularly outstanding about Israel's terroritorial disputes. Editors cannot invent and design their own graph and then plug in information they found through independent research. Unless a chart or graph in full-form exists somewhere in a reliable source, with all corresponding NPOV data, then I could see the info merged into Demographics of Israel. Even assuming the graph is 100% consistent with wikipedia policy, it still doesn't justify inclusion in the introduction of the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Your points have been discussed and challenged above many times. Repeating them over and over will not improve the article. Please add some new substance to the debate if you want to contribute.Oncenawhile (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Your points have also been discussed and challenged above many times by many different editors. You obviously don't have consensus for the large change you wanted to make. Why not start improving the article by doing things that there is consensus to do, like add more detail where you think the current wording is incomplete or misleading? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, i have made a start.Oncenawhile (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Some of these changes are just fine, others, not so much., For example, suffrage is offered only to citizens, everywhere, thus there's no need to call out in the lead that non-citizens do not vote. The 1949 armistice lines are just that - they are not "internationally recognized borders". I'll be removing those claims. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Please make smaller edits, it makes it easier to remove just stuff that is being challenged.
The part you added about Israel's borders being undefined is poorly sourced, as well as doesn't make much sense since Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and has a UN defined border with Lebanon. That's over 50% (too lazy to look up exact numbers) of Israel's borders which are defined quite well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) :::::I see NMMNG has already reverted your change - let me echo his recommendation: make these changes one at a time, so we can get the non-controversial ones into the article. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I am trying my best to work with you guys. Can I please encourage HupHolland's technique over NMMNG's. NMMNG it is not appropriate to comment on one small piece and then revert the entire change. If you don't like any of the changes, then explain. If you like some and not others, then work selectively to revert ones you don't like. I am putting a lot of effort into improving this article, so if you would like to be involved I request that you work with the same diligence. To help you here I am trying to do it in smaller chunks.Oncenawhile (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's completely appropriate to revert a whole edit when a big part of it is being challenged and the rest is scattered all over the place. Which is why I recommended that you make smaller changes, which I see you are now doing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, "when a big part is being challenged". You need to clearly specify challenges for it to be appropriate. I think we have an understanding. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

HupHH, can we discuss your comment about suffrage? I am happy to change the words, but we cannot exclude the underlying issue here. Put is israel a democracy in to google, and every article which comes up is basically about this issue. Can you suggest a more appropriate form of words here? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made some tweaks to your latest series of edits, which for the most part are fine. I removed a blog source for a statement that already has 4 other, better sources; clarified that the Arabs in annexed territories who are not citizens have declined citizenship offered to them; reworded the language about the Green Line to reflect that it was not "borders"; removed the POV-statement that the Seam area has been "de-facto annexed". Israel is a democracy, with universal suffrage. Threre's not going to be any more appropriate words here. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Under what policy do you believe that questions re Israel's democracy are not appropriate to include reference to? They are so popular I don't believe it is possible to claim they are WP:FRINGE? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Realiable sources have described Israel as a democracy, and WP:UNDUE says that putting weird sentences that suggest there's something unique or unusual about not granting non-citizens the right to vote into the lead is inappropriate. This topic has been discussed in the past, many, many times. I suggest you read the archives. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have put in a lot of time and effort to make this article better, in particular to find a way to walk the very fine NPOV tightrope whilst making the facts logical and easy to understand. Sadly, the facts being easy to understand in this article appears to a problem for editors on one side of the spectrum. As does any suggestion that Israel might be in some way different to other countries in the 21st century. The rest of us can only question why all the defensiveness about the reality of things, although IMHO an excellent quote from today's Haaretz might shed some light on the psychology behind it[4] "That's what happens when the fire is still smoldering under the rug, the fire of the basic lack of faith in the justice of our path". I have just seen NMMNG's most recent edits, which, consistent with his name, require either fighting or surrender. Since I do not have the time to compete alone with what I personally suspect to be coordinated Astroturfing, I have decided not to fight this and I will leave (un)gracefully - back to the "once in a while" status that my name implies. See you all later. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, the NPOV "tightrope" is the whole point of wikipedia. As you reveal above, you have an obvious NPOV interest in this article. You give up your facade of neutrality after attempting to introduce substantial quantities of OR, and an unprecendented new section, at the top of an article that the rest of us have spent a lot of time (years) putting together. And when we revert your OR, you then claim that we are on a coordinated Astroturfing campaign (i.e. working for the Israeli government)? All we ask is that you edit in a piecemeal NPOV way (where you discuss any controversial changes with other editors first). Best, Avaya1 (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
State of Israel is where ever its' sovereignty is and inhabitants enjoy full citizenship. It applies to the Golan which became de facto part of Israel in 1967, after Israel defeated the Syria in a clear preemptive strike, and is now under the sovereignty of the state of Israel for 43 years (excluding the very long time it was under the sovereignty of ancient Israel), more than Syria ever had it. Syria is calling now to Israel to "return" it the Golan heights, which means that it's Israeli territory. The whole discussion on redefining territories in Israel is pure OR. --Gilisa (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Israeli settlers in the lead

In the lead it says: "Citizens of the State of Israel also live in Israeli settlements in the West Bank."

It doesn't say anything about that Israeli settlers live in Jerusalem and GH. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about that Israeli settlers live in Jerusalem because Israeli settlers don't live in Jerusalem. LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Adding that Citizens of the State of Israel also live in Jerusalem would be like say Citizens of the State of Israel also live in Eilat. LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Haaretz missed the memo =( Sol (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem as Capital - long live POV?

"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia"?


Britannica

"Jerusalem; the city’s capital status has not received wide international recognition"

BBC

"Jerusalem, though most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv"

CIA

"Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like nearly all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv"

FCO

"Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognised by the UK and the international community. The UK locates it embassy in Tel Aviv."

etc etc etc etc etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.72.61 (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All of this is in the article already. What's your point? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Arabic-language Name

It appears there may be an error in the Arabic-language version of the full name of Israel in the first sentence of the article (Dawlat Israil). I don't speak much Arabic but it seems the two words of the name are in reversed order? --173.52.149.54 (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not in reversed order. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A reader's perspective: Where is Israel?

I am offering here a reader's perspective only. I decided to have a look at this article because I wondered how Wikipedia, and also various interested groups, dealt with the issue of where Israel actually is. On the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, obviously, but where does it start? Where does it stop? Who lives in Israel (perhaps according to different definitions of Israel) and who lives outside Israel? I know other states have territorial disputes (some quite substantial; if the old Irish constitution was to be taken literally, it included a claim on Northern Ireland that would produce a very large increase in the population and area included), and there are other states with unusual territorial definitions (where what's "in" or "out" of the country depends on the definition you are using e.g. Metropolitan France) but there is something absolutely extraordinary that even Israeli law doesn't seem to establish where Israel is. And as a reader, it's definitely something of a headscratcher that e.g. the Golan is included in some definitions of Israel (including the "official" one), but the population of the Golan doesn't count towards the official population of Israel. The approach taken in older encyclopedias towards Ireland was, since NI was in practice under British administration, to mention the theoretical extent of territorial claims and then ignore it, dealing only with territories actually administered by Dublin. The Israeli case can't be dealt with so simply, because disputes are with more than one group, and in terms of practical administration, as I understand it there isn't a clear dividing line between "entirely Israeli-adminstered" and "entirely outside Israeli control" regions.

I don't really care what editors here do, but was interested to see the discussion immediately above as it crossed a lot of the points I was thinking of as a critical reader. At the moment this article seems to totally fudge what's within the scope of the word "Israel" (understandable since it's disputed and fuzzy, but unhelpful and vague for readers). Not only that, it doesn't make clear what important interested parties mean when they say "Israel" - where it starts, where it stops, who is "in" it. That's less fuzzy and should be made clear. I'm not expecting the article to come up with a single unambiguous definition of "Israel", nor for every single mention of the word to be disambiguated. But (a) every time the word "Israel" is mentioned, it must be clear what scope is being implied; (b) the meaning that relevant groups attach to the word should also be made clear. Clarity clarity clarity, please, I don't mind how it is reached so long as it is neutral, accurate and sourced! TheGrappler (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that there's any "fudging" - the article (and lead) clearly describe what is the current situation: There was a partition plan (links to article that shows its proposed borders), it was rejected by the Arabs, war ensued, culminating in armistice lines over which Israeli law was enacted (links to relevant articles, 1949 armistice lines, Green line), subsequent wars and Israeli legal actions led to a situation where East Jerusalem and the Golan were annexed, and other territories where Israeli citizens live are occupied, but not annexed. I suggested language that addresses your issues (a) and (b) - something along the lines of "Unless otherwise noted, when discussing geographical features such as area, coastline etc.. this article refers to Israel within the the 1949 armistice lines; when discussing population, it uses the Israeli CBS figures, which include Israeli citizens living in the occupied territories." HupHollandHup (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The article does an ok job of describing a complicated situation. There are three basic perspectives on where Israel is: the Israeli government perspective, the international perspective and the rabid denialist perspective. Israel believes East Jerusalem and Golan are official parts of their territory with the West Bank's status "to be resolved", everyone else thinks Golan is occupied Syria and East Jerusalem and West Bank are occupied Palestinian land that might become Israeli pending negotiations. Except, of course, for the denialist countries that don't recognize Israel, I have no idea what their maps look like. I'll re-read it to see if anything pops out. Is that even remotely helpful or not what you were looking for? Sol (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

EJ and GH are not part of the State of Israel, these two regions are occupied by Israel. Israel extending its laws does not change that they are occupied. It can not be presented as a fact in the article that these two regions are part of Israel and not occupied. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the responses above, I hope that I can stimulate useful debate: I have no agenda to grind here, other than as a reader of the article I felt that it doesn't handle some aspects very well. HupHollandHup's suggestion of a comment for clarification of figures etc is very good, that's certainly one thing that the article is lacking. Please can I advise HupHollandHup and Sol to re-read the article pretending they know nothing at all, except what they read? I don't feel there is anything glaringly incorrect or controversial about the article text, but that's because I know about the situation already (as does HupHollandHup), so nothing jumps out when reading it through. But if you imagine you know zilch, and only are building up your knowledge by what you read in the article (particularly sequentially, which makes it far worse) you'll surely notice that it is confusing and unclear on some key points. Some examples:

  • The infobox gives two area figures: incl/excl EJ and Golan. Are both of these including Sheba farms? (unclear, but I'm presuming so; I acknowledge that this is a different type of territorial dispute to EJ but probably deserves cursory noting that it's being included) What part of the West Bank is being included in these figures? It needs to be made clear what line is being used to separate WB/Israel in these figures.
  • I'm presuming the line being used is the 1949 armistice line. Why is the 1949 armistice line actually used as the basis for so many figures? It's clear to a reader that the 1949 armistice line is in many practical respects irrelevant (it no longer represents the "frontline" between Arab/Israeli control; Israel now has some control beyond that line; there have been wars after 1949 each of which had their own armistice lines; the 1949 line isn't a physical barrier, doesn't match the original UN partition proposal, doesn't correspond to a continuous physical barrier) so a reader is left guessing what significance it has beyond historical. Is it a legally-important line? ("The border between Israel and the neighboring West Bank is not formally defined by the Israeli government" doesn't suggest so, or if it is legally recognized, it's not by the Israeli government). Is it a line of political importance? Is it a line generally used by international orgs/governments? Is it a line used when compiling Israeli government statistics? Is it a line used by the Israeli courts to define the "occupied territories"?
  • To a new reader, "The border between Israel and the neighboring West Bank is not formally defined by the Israeli government" is a little confusing, because one is quite accustomed to seeing a demarcation between Israel and the WB on maps. Does the sentence I just quoted imply that the line one sees in a map, is only used by a particular cartographic convention, and the Israeli governments failure to officially define the border implies that some areas to the left of the line may not actually be in Israel at all, while some areas to the right might be? (E.g. is the failure to define borders, an acknowledgement that areas to the left of line could be conceded as part of the final peace settlement deal without it being a concession of "Israeli territory"? But then, I'm pretty sure - though this is not made clear in the article - that the area to the left of the line is treated as an integral part of Israel from the point of view of present law and government...) Or does "The border is not formally defined" mean something different: that the line on the map is a "minimal" border (Israel contains at least as much territory as is indicated in the map) but the Israeli government is reserving the right to say that some territory to the right of the line on the map, may also belong within Israel's borders? I'm trying to make quite a subtle point here and I'm not sure I'm succeeding, roughly speaking does the statement I quoted mean that the line on the map is regarded as "fuzzy", or just that it's regarded as the minimal extent of Israeli territory?
  • What do Israeli courts regard as "Israeli" vs "occupied" territories? Is this different from the government position? Apologies if I missed this in the article, but I couldn't see either of those facts.
  • The population figure is relatively well-explained in the infobox. I understand that the Israeli diaspora is unusually large, are Israeli citizens living permanently overseas excluded from the infobox figure? I actually think in the case of a country with a large diaspora, it's relevant to know the number of national citizens as well as the population living in the country. To open a can of worms: if citizens in the WB are included, but non-citizens in the WB are excluded, this is obviously somewhat contradictory but understandable given the circumstances. Part of me would find it helpful to know what number of non-citizens in EJ and Golan are included in the population figures... and of course there are guest-workers in Israel too, which bumps up the number of non-citizens considerably in a way unrelated to the Arab-Israeli issue. So I can understand leaving all that discussion to a dedicated demographics article. I hope you can see that a reader might find it odd/controversial that you are including WB citizens but excluding WB non-citizens, though. I hope you can also see that it's strange at first sight, to give two area figures (depending on EJ and Golan) but to only give one population figure (in which they're both included). I can actually appreciate why it's been done that way when I put on my editing thinking hat, but with a reader's hat on it does look curious. I don't know if it would be better to give one population figure for the entire permanent population of Green Line Israel + EJ + Golan, excluding the WB, (perhaps distinguishing the number of citizens and non-citizens) and a separate population figure that "Additionally, the WB contains X Iraeli citizens and Y non-citizens" or "X Israli citizens in a total population of Z"? I suspect this issue is one where there is a gulf between NPOV and making life easy for the reader to understand :) The current infobox population figure is probably the most appropriate, once you understand the mechanics of the Israel/Palestine situation, but to a first-time reader it does seem rather artificial in what it includes and excludes. I don't know quite how to improve the situation (perhaps a footnote would be better than cramming the infobox) but I'm sure I can't be the only one who can see some issues here? Any suggestions would be greatly welcomed! TheGrappler (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sheba farms is pretty small, I assume that's why it's not dealt with specifically. Israel considers it part of the Golan. It was occupied with the rest of the Golan in the 1967 war.
  • The 1949 lines are important because UNSC 242 calls for a return to those lines. I'd need to find a source, but I think it would be correct to say that this is the de facto recognized border of Israel.
  • I agree that "The border between Israel and the neighboring West Bank is not formally defined by the Israeli government" is kind of awkward. It was an attempted compromise regarding which of Israel's borders are defined by the Israeli government, and this is the only part that isn't. I think it would be more correct to say that the border between Israel and the West Bank/future Palestinian state is considered by the Israeli government as a subject for negotiations, or something like that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply. When I have my "I do know something about this topic" hat on, I agree with your second point - I feel like I "know" why the writers here have used the 1949 lines, in a sense it's "obvious" and everybody does it... but actually if you adopt the "I know nothing" perspective, it's clear there's an unstated assumption in play here. "De facto recognized border" is probably too neat to encapsulate it, I'm sure that statement itself would be revealed to not be 100% clear-cut on close examination, but it's expressing the kind of sentiment that makes 1949 the appropriate choice to present to the reader. I know Sheba farms is small; if it's being treated in these figures as part of the Golan I think it would be better to be explicit about it - no need for an essay; "Golan heights (including Sheeba farms)" or "Golan heights (including Sheeba farms, which is claimed by Lebanon)" rather than plain "Golan heights", would make it clear. I do wonder what "not formally defined" means; I never get the impression that it's meant to imply any area to the left of the 1949 line is not assumed to be, or treated as, 100% Israeli, but maybe that represents nothing more than a collective political assumption that it won't be conceded in negotiations. Does anybody know about how Israeli government and Israeli court positions on the extent of Israel's territory can be integrated into this article? I did try to read the article carefully, and the court position in particular was something I was expecting to see as a reader. Also, does anybody have any thoughts about diaspora citizen numbers being noted in some way? I understand there's a lot of them, proportionately... are there comparable countries for which the total citizenship figure is provided in the article, to supplement the population figure for permanent residents? TheGrappler (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I meant "de facto recognized border" in the sense that this is viewed by most other countries to be the basis for a future settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. As you correctly stated, this is a political assumption, but I think it's pretty widespread.
  • IIRC, the Israeli courts treat areas formally annexed as part of Israel and the rest as occupied.
  • I have no opinion either way about diaspora citizens. Do you have any numbers? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The Israelis living oversea are not included in the population of Israel. They are estimated around 750000 people, 80% of them Jews, this including the children of these former Israelis. Many of them are also former new immigrants who went back home or to another country 80.179.125.162 (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The 1949 Armistice Agreement border (the Green Line) between Israel and the West Bank is totally relevant, as relevant as it was 1949-1967 when Jordan controlled the West Bank. Sovereign Israel, where Israeli law applies, is within the Green Line and everyone born there - Jews and Arabs - are Israeli citizens. The West Bank is occupied territory and 90% of its population is governed by the Palestinian Authority. Israeli law does not apply in the West Bank and there is from that aspect no difference between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The West Bank is subject to Palestinian law which is British Mandate law as amended by Jordan (1949-1967), the Israeli Military Governor within the limitations of the Hague Convention (1967-1994) and the Palestinian Authority (1994-today). An exception to the above are the Israeli settlers in the West Bank (in the Gaza Strip they have been removed) to which de facto Israeli law applies on a personal basis. Their municipalities - like islands in an archipelago - are also governed by "Israeli" law by way of its application to them by order of the Military Governor. That still does not make them subject to direct application of Israeli territorial law. The Golan Heights is occupied Syrian territory under international law, but because the situation there could remain in limbo indefinitely and it was technically impossible to apply Syrian law, Israeli law and administration was applied to the territory in 1981, at which time Israel emphasized that this did not amount to territorial annexation (the status of the territory has been intermittently negotiated since the Madrid Conference of 1991). Returning to ex-Mandate Palestine territories, Israel has definitely annexed East Jerusalem to Israel, however: (a) the East Jerusalem Palestinians did not become Israeli citizens by choice, something that would be impossible in Green Line Israel; (b) the education system remained with the Jordanian-Palestinian curriculum (ditto); (c) the Palestinian population participated twice in elections for the Palestinian Authority (symbolically in Israeli post offices rather than in PA polling stations as in the WB&G) and (d) the area of annexed East Jerusalem (in which there is a Jewish majority today), drawn up hastily in June 1967, hugely exceeds the old Jordanian municipality of East Jerusalem and covers Arab-populated areas which obviously have to be returned to the West Bank - so much so that Israel left part of them on the Palestinian side of the separation fence. The last exception are the seam zone areas, namely the large Israeli towns which are technically over the Green Line but on the Israeli side of the separation fence. These areas, populated 99% by Israelis, are to be swapped with the Palestinians for sovereign Israeli territory to be transferred to the Palestinian state - and only to them (including the old No Man's Land in Latrun and what is now Canada Park and the main Jerusalem-Tel Aviv Freeway No. 1) could the above comment concerning the "irrelevance" of the Green Line in any way apply. In any and every other respect, it is as relevant as ever. In fact, given that the border end game is rapidly approaching, it is probably more relevant than ever. Monosig (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cat: OECD member economies

The OECD member economies cat is already at the Economy of Israel article, no other country article has it so it doesn't need to be here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.35 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone give a reason why this cat should be at both the Economy of Israel article and the Israel article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

For economy categories, we use the economy categories or the article ecomony of (and the name of the country) not the main category of the country or its article. Take a look here for example Category:World_Trade_Organization_member_economies. Also the article Economy of Israel is already in the category. If there is no reasonable opposition, I ll delete it. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says < Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. > and that case it s valid. --Helmoony (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Independence/Establishment

Egypt and Ethiopia are also modern countries. The situation is entirely comparable. And all three had their independence curtailed for extended periods. In the case of Egypt, the original dominant nation has been even been replaced (ancient Egyptians=Copts by Muslim Arabs). I don't see why Israel should be treated differently. Monosig (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

All three remained "countries", even when not states; Israel did not. In any case those "establishments" are vague & excessive. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I dot not see that you have actually edited Egypt and Ethiopia. Monosig (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no point in arguing that just because other pages make some sort of claims, other articles should do the same; this article is about the country founded in 1948. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
That's your legitimate POV. However the "country" was not founded in 1948. It only became independent. This is not the Wikepedia norm. See Armenia, Czech Republic (so much so "not a country" in history that it doesn't even have a name in English), Ukraine (was never a state or a country under that name), Georgia (country) (kicked off as Kingdom of Georgia in 300 BC, was independent 1918-1921 and only regained independence in 1991, most of the time under Mongol and Russian rule there being no state and no country). Zimbabwe ("established" - as the British crown colony of Southern Rhodesia - in 1901; that would dictate Israel and Palestinian National Authority tracing themselves back to the founding of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1917-1920). The "formation" of Germany, it appears, occurred in 962 AD as the Holy Roman Empire... The examples are endless. They are not "sort of claims". They are the sovereign roots of all these nation states. See the list in the previous post above (visiting them shows clearly that these are not "some sort of claims" - and as you know, if they were they woould not remain in Wikipedia). So either you have your work cut out (amending each and every every country solely to the modern state-entity) or agree to Israel being standardized with everyone else. Monosig (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
There are no standards. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is about the modern State of Israel, a parliamentary republic in the Middle East. Marokwitz (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
And that comment is not applicable to all the other nation-states mentioned above? Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia, Zimbabwe, Germany. All of these - and many more - have historical nation-state establishment dates in their Infobox Country greatly preceding their modern political independence, even if they spent centuries under foreign subjugation and/or ceased to exist as a country at all. There may be no "standard" but there certainly appears to be common usage. So when the modern Federal Republic of Germany is deemed to have been established in 1949 (or 1870), not as the Holy Roman Empire in 962 AD, Ethiopia is deemed to have been established in 1855 rather than in 980 BC, Egypt is deemed to have been established in 1922 rather than in 3100 BC (an entirely different non-Arab nation which is now the small Copt minority) - then Israel can be deemed to have been established in 1948 rather than in 1100 BC. One way or another. Monosig (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Good. Go there and start your discussions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The Arab Republic of Egypt was established in 1922. I agree that both articles should be treated the same way. Marokwitz (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Alphamoro: Yep... sorry not to be specific enough... then, to be more specific about what needs to be changed: Thw whole thing's gotta get removed. Yeah...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.83.252 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This has now been in abeyance for over a month. Nothing has been changed in any of the above examples. Germany was still founded as the Holy Roman Empire in 962 AD - not in 1871 or 1949; Egypt (non-Arab) in 3100 BC, not 1922; and Ethiopia in 980 BC. Any time we have uniformity, it will be applied to Israel as well. I am making the reversion. Monosig (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for this edit at this page. It is contested that the cases you mention are comparable by at least two editors (and you can add me as well). WP:OTHERSTFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for making this edit here. This article is abot a modern nation-state. Biblical Israel (for which there is no archaeological evidence) and other historical kingdoms of Israel are not the sbject of discussion at this page. I am reverting you bold edit, per WP:BRD. Please discuss further and garner consenss for yor changes before reinstating them. Tiamuttalk 18:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
No archaeological evidence except stuff like the Mesha Stele and the Tel Dan Stele and other archaeological evidence? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Monosig, you made an edit, you were reverted. You made the edit again. You were reverted again. I suggest you stop. Your argument hasn't convinced people that this article, an article about the modern State of Israel, should contain the information you added. You can try to convince people again or not make the edit. If you would like to advocate for standards across the project or changes in other articles you can go do that in the appropriate places. If you would like to advocate for changes to Wikipedia's rules so that an editor's right to edit articles about countries depends on some personal attribute of the editor, a rule you evidently believe to already be in place when you say "Wiketiquette dictates that you disqualify yourself from editing Israel. You assumedly know why. Start with Egypt or Ethiopia. I will then do Israel... ", you are free to go and do that at the relevant policy pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Monosig the general sanctions require editors to utilize reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions. Ancient Israel didn't merely have its independence "curtailed", it ceased to exist as a political entity. The Balfour Declaration sparked an on-going controversy as to whether or not scattered communities of Jewish people could be considered a nation. In modern usage, a “Country” is generally defined as a political entity that is known as a nation, e.g. [5] Many nations are also nation-States with a well-defined territory. But the terms "state" and "nation" cannot always be used interchangeably. See Digest Of International Law Vol 1 By Marjorie M Whiteman, Chapter II: States, Territories, and Governments, page 221. One of the other editors pointed out (above) that Germany, Ethiopia, and Egypt never ceased to be countries. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel says that the Jewish people were forcibly exiled from their land and strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland because of their sense of historic and traditional attachment.[6] The LoN Mandate cited the "historical" connection of the Jewish people with Palestine as grounds to "facilitate Jewish immigration" and for "reconstituting their national home in that country." [7] Both of those documents are mentioned in the article. You are making unsourced and disputed claims that are contradicted by those particular published sources. harlan (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the context for this discussion is that it's a matter of disupte, to what extent modern Israel can be considered to be a "continuation" of ancient Hebrew tribes/states in the area. One could also argue that the nascent State of Palestine is the rightful continuation of ancient Israel, not the Tel Aviv government that now sits in the UN. Also, how other articles are edited isn't an argument to edit this one in any certain way. The content of this article has to flow from the best sources relating to this subject. --Dailycare (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Source for Jerusalem capital

Here is a UN source saying blankly Jerusalem is capital of Israel [8] 216.249.58.120 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

All I see there is "Capital" followed by a blank. --Dailycare (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The Human Development Reports are written by independent experts. They are not considered as UN sources. They all carry a standard disclaimer "The reports are independent publications commissioned by UNDP. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board, or the Member States." harlan (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong numbers in Religion section

I think that the percentage of seculars in Israel and traditional has been shifted somehow. It's actually the opposite, as seculars are the majority. Anyway, I checked for a proof in the reference (http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/relinisr-consensus.htm) and couldn't find any of those numbers, nor anything that is trying to estimate the role of religion in Israel population. In the article "Religion in Israel", under "Religious self-definition" there are the correct numbers with reliable source. I was wondering if anyone could bother editing "Israel" articles with those. I can't do that as I don't know how to. The source document that is linked to the correct number is in Hebrew. Use Google translate on the 6th dot in the first page if you want a verification. Edit: I found data from 2010. http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3890179,00.html The numbers are in the first paragraph. 217.132.237.70 (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Culture section

I noticed that the Culture section does not mention any non-Jewish cultural activity. Does anyone have any suggestions for improving the section? There's a sub-section on cuisine, for example. Presumably, non-Jewish Israelis do at least eat (?). --FormerIP (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

what are you talking about, there are many mentions of Arab culture throughout the section, including in the food subsection. Do you have a specific Israeli culture you wish to add? Or are you just here to complain that Israel is too Jewish? 74.198.9.177 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be no mention of any non-Jewish artist or any non-Jewish culture practised in Israel. There's a vague reference to a "minority imprint" at the top of the section, but no details on how, where or when. In the cuisine section, it is mentioned that Jewish cuisine incorporates Middle Eastern foods, but there is no discussion of non-Jewish cuisine.
Perhaps it really is the case that there is no non-Jewish contribution to Israeli culture worth mentioning. But if that is the case, then probably that in itself would be something that merits discussion in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
you appear to not know how to read. It clearly states Israeli cuisine incorporates both Jewish and also Arab cuisine. Again, if you have something to add to the article, let's hear it. Stop soapboxing your distaste for Israel's Jewishness here. 74.198.9.177 (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Not really. It states that Jewish Israeli cuisine incorporates Middle Eastern foods, which is not the same thing. Not soapboxing, just soliciting views on something that looks to me like an issue with the article. Thank you for yours. --FormerIP (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it better now? --Ravpapa (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ravpapa! That looks like a big improvement. --FormerIP (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Article size

This article is way too long at the moment, more than double the reccomended limit, and slows down loading times. WP:Article size suggests 100k warrants a split. Perhaps culture and government can be further split for starters.Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Foreign relations

It seems to me the section needs a bit of reorganisation.

It is after all about relationships, and relationships as we (hopefully) all know are:

  • chronological (start and end)
  • contextualised (family, work, social group, etc. - translate to regional, economic or common goal oriented international org., etc.)
  • occur within specific environment (cooperative, adversarial, predatory, mentoring, etc.)
  • contain a degree of dependence or interdependence
  • are ideally based on commitment to common goals, but can be dysfunctional, and even destructive

And, unsurprisingly all this relates as much to relationships between states as it does to individuals.

The current section does not seem to reflect these commonly-known truths about relationships. Perhaps this is due to the poor authorship of the foreign relations article that had until now been a disambiguation page, or the equally poor article on foreign policy that was confused with foreign affairs. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Per alphabetical order, I put Arabic ahead of Hebrew, in the languages section. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Putting Arabic ahead of Hebrew is WRONG! The majority of Israelis (Jewish) do not speak Arabic. English is also an official language in Israel. The correct order should therefore be Hebrew, Arabic, English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.8.145 (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I think you should change "The IDF Namer (Heavy IFV), introduced from 2008" to "The IDF Namer (Heavy IFV), introduced in limited service since 2009"

As there are only 60 in service, and actual service only started in 2009...

- 93.97.255.48 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

edit requst

there is a constant mistake in how "state of Israel" is pronounced in Hebrew. it is not pronounced "Medīnat Yisrā'el", but instead it should be pronounced "Medīnat isrā'el". it is written with a "י" as in "I" and not "Y" it is also not pronounced with a "Y", but pronounced as an "I". its "ISRAEL" not "YISRAEL". pronounced as in EES-RA-EL. mistakes occur in:

officially the State of Israel (Hebrew: About this sound מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info), Medīnat Yisrā'el; (also in the speech recording it is pronounced wrong)

also in : State of Israel מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (Hebrew) Medīnat Yisrā'el دَوْلَة إِسْرَائِيل (Arabic) Dawlat Isrā'īl

and many more places.(including this talk page)

Danial27b (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Where do you get that from? Remember we won't consider dialects or mispronunciations. The Hebrew clearly shows ישראל / Yisrael as the standard, not אשראל / Israel. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew - English cannot be translated letter per letter seeing how the letters don't have the same tone and or usage!. some letters have multiple uses such as "י" being used as an "I" and as a "Y", in this case it is used as an I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danial27b (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the "Economy" section, you need to add a reference to the recent discovery of massive quantities of natural gas off of the Israeli coast. This has been widely reported in major news outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post. The discoveries are expected to make Israel energy-independent, and possibly a net exporter of energy, with profound long-term implications for its economy, and raising an additional dimension to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It has been described as a "game changer" in the region. At a minimum, it should be mentioned in the 'economy' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joegelman (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


as said in Israeli news, the gas is not at a massive quantity, and is not enough to make the country energy independant. but that should still be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danial27b (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

what's up with this?

Sagi Nahor (talk · contribs)/[9] This was the 2nd in 24 hours and the 3rd since Jan 9. Where is the discussion? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

the map needs to be updated

the map shown is wrong as it shows the wrong borders for the state of Israel. the borders shown in this map have changed over 30 years ago and Israel currently is bigger. instead of showing the "green line" as the border of the state of Israel the map should include the current real borders and the "green line" border can be included within those borders. to conclude this map needs to urgently be updated as it hurts Wikipedia's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yam123yam (talk • contribs) 12:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflicts and Peace treaties section

I came across this piece of text in the article in the above section

The First Intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule,[118] broke out in 1987 with waves of violence occurring in the occupied territories. Over the following six years, more than a thousand people were killed in the ensuing violence, much of which was internal Palestinian violence.[119] During the 1991 Gulf War, the PLO and many Palestinians supported Saddam Hussein and Iraqi missile attacks against Israel, though Israel did not participate in that war.

I wonder about the accuracy and balance of the bolded words and phrases. Any thoughts ?

Also; Did Hussein fire missiles at Israel ? How many were the 'many' who supported the firing ? How many missiles were fired ? How did the many provide their support ? etc.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 12:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't personally know the details of the violence in or among Palestinians in the occupied territories during the six years following the First Intifada, or their precise support for Saddam in the Gulf War, but I'll try to help a bit on your other questions. According to the source cited in the Scud article, Saddam fired 42 Scuds at Israel during the Gulf War. I remember watching the footage of the missiles hitting Israel at the time. As for Palestinian support for Saddam, I don't know how much he actually received but he had actively tried to get it. In an effort to try and break Arab support for the Gulf War Coalition, Saddam tried to characterize his invasion in Kuwait as somehow being an action in support of the Palestinians and that it would help the fight against Israel. Despite being attacked by Saddam, Israel is said to have "not participated" in the war because they did not respond to the attacks with any military action. Both Saddam's attack on Israel and Israel's refusal to respond were calculated decisions by each side. Saddam hoped to provoke Israel into joining the Coalition, which would have likely caused it to fracture with Arab nations leaving. Israel knew that they were essentially being "used" to that end, and so refused to respond for just that reason. By the way, I use Saddam here rather than Hussein only to distinguish between Saddam and King Hussein of Jordan, who was still alive and in power at the time of the Gulf War. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone changed the main map

Someone changed the main map and added the Golan Heights territory as belonging to Israel. Is the discussion should not pass through here? Eli.berckovitz (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Occupied Areas

I don't really know what brought you to the conclusion to leave the occupied areas out of Israel, but it's certainly wrong. The west bank is under an Israeli control, and so are the Golan Heights. Jordan is no longer interested in the West Bank, so it should be atleast marked in another color. The Golan Heights became a very important area in Israel and it is under a full control of the Israeli government. 82.81.157.135 (talk)

The Golan Heights may be important to Israel, but it isn't in Israel. It has fallen under Israeli "control" in connection with the six-day war, but that war hasn't changed Israel's borders. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The map in the infobox, assuming that is what you are referring to, shows the shape of the country this article is about, as defined by reliable sources, in red, and all land not in the country this article is about, as defined by reliable sources, in another color. It's really as simple as that. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Independence

Shouldn't it be "independence from the United Kingdom", (in the infobox) been as that was the power, rather than British Mandate of Palestine? Like India for example has "Independence from the United Kingdom" rather "Independence from British India"? The Madras (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated than that. Various agreements made it into a territorial partition which you can think of as something like a trust with the UK as the trustee. The UK then handed the issue over to the UN. I think it's good as is. Sol (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Science in Israel

A month ago the article looked completely different. Someone(s?) made extensive editing on it without any consulting I could see here on the TP. Anyway, I don't understand why the "science in Israel" (or science and education) section was removed and instead less important issues, for instance about Israeli cuisines, were given entire sections. Science in Israel is very notable and should reinserted into the article. Also, many pictures were removed and overall, aside for the welcome historical review of Israel, these changes declined the quality of the article.--Gilisa (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Capital City

Whats up with that? Why is Jerusalem listed as the capital since Tel Aviv is? True, UN doesn't recognize that fact, but we can't look at what UN says. Plus Wiki info in all the other languages lists Tel Aviv as the capital, not Jerusalem. This should be fixed. Norum 19:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem is listed as the capital because, well, it is the capital of Israel. Read the note next to it for further information, and search the Talk page archives for the zillion times this has come up in the past.
By the way, what other language Wikipedias do isn't our concern. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
What led you to say "Plus Wiki info in all the other languages lists Tel Aviv as the capital, not Jerusalem" ? Which languages did you look at ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see..Romanian and Polish to start with. How can Jerusalem be even listed as the capital, since Israel doesn't have the control over the whole city and its international leegal status has never been clearly determined? Norum 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel has physical control over the whole city and has for decades. Regardless of whether they had control over the entire city, governing functions such as the Knesset meet in Jerusalem. I would point out that State of Palestine lists their capital as "Jerusalem" even though they have physical control over none of the capital. It does also list Ramallah as the administrative capital, but in the case of Israel the administration is physically located in Jerusalem. Details of international recognition are discussed in the Israel article and noted in the infobox. This has all been discussed to death. Please read the archived discussions and notice that all of your points have been raised before. Just quickly looking down the other language versions, I can find a lot more than two examples that list Jerusalem as the capital, in fact I hadn't found any that didn't in my quick search. The German, Danish, Afrikaans, Dutch, Scot, and Turkish versions all list Jerusalem. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Romanian article says Jerusalem is the capital and the Polish article has Tel Aviv is in error since it's inconsistent with the lead section of the article and the footnote cited in the infobox both of which say that Jerusalem is the capital but that it's not recognized. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Very Biased Map (other side)

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

there are a lot of explanations and discussions, political views and International Law experts. The wiki page about Israel can cite them or not. What it must do is depict the situation as it exists in reality, to some people with delight and to others with grief.

The Map of Israel should include (24.01.11) all Judea and Samaria and the Golan. Simply because all these areas are currently (see date) under Israeli control. I herewith demand the change so that truth is depicted in the wikipedia and not any justified or not plans, schemes, dreams or wishes of anybody.

Israel contains Judea & Samaria & the Golan. (remark: and of course all of Jerusalem...)

Please fix the map. Support Truth.

נלביא (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
If I broke down the fence and built a barbecue and swimming pool in my neighbours garden, the map would still show it belonged to her.נלביא-you need to read the UN position on the 62 years of Israeli land grabs.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 13:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Under your logic, Tuma, the map of North America should show plenty of land currently claimed as United States territory under various Native American labels, such as Lakota Nation, Powhatan Renape, Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) League, etc. Much land in the USA was acquired by essentially similar moves. Furthermore, many other countries gained their land by "breaking down the fence and building a barbecue and swimming pool", a practice which has been going on since time immemorial. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
(Nizhóníyeeʼ! Great idea! :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC))
Not to throw further gasoline on the fire (too late), and at the risk of some serious flaming, I have to agree with Rickyrab. 100 yrs ago, this territory would be "Isrel" and everyone would move on. Now everyone has to have a meeting and decide if the territory is really there's (and then the French need to think about it for another 6 months...). Yes, this is no longer the days of the territorial landgrabs where the European community carved up Africa, Asia, and the Pacific or countries like Prussia could just go around and grab land all around it and the other countries basically turned a blind eye, but on the other hand I don't understand why it's ok that the UN thinks it can simply say "Your capitol is officially Tel Aviv because We Say So. Come on... I guess it depends a lot on your point of view (as much of Wikipedia, and the world as a whole, does) and where your allegiances lay. Personnally I don't care what the "UN Position" is - these are the same people who can't spend a dollar without 50 cents of it disappearing in graft and abuse and allow "questionable" countries to sit on the UN human rights council. Let the flamers commence! Ckruschke (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Rewording request

In a diagram of the areas of Israel, it says something in the nature of, "Gaza and the west bank are not part of Israel," which is terribly biased. They are undoubtedly disputed, but are by no means non-Israeli land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.92.44 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


Relations with Egypt

The resignation of Hosni Mubarak puts relations with Egypt in doubt, due to known anti-Israeli sentiment among Egyptians. Maybe this article should reflect that fact. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it a little premature to speculate on what might change when Mubarak's resignation is so recent. Ltwin (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased map

This map in the article claims that Jerusalem belongs to israel. Under international law and world consensus, east jerusalem does not belong to the state of israel. This picture should be modified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_districts_numbered.pngNPz1 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You can make out East Jerusalem in that map? Don't you have better things to do with your time? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The map doesnt make a distinction between east/west jerusalem, it just says 'jerusalem' and this part is inside israel. That should be fixed.NPz1 (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Since only one of the three maps in the article shows the city of Jerusalem, I assume you're talking about that one, in the "Occupied Territories" section. On that map, the boundary line clearly (especially if the map is viewed full size) passes through the circle representing Jerusalem, with part of the circle in Israel and part in the West Bank. Why is this a problem? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought NPz1 was referring to the map linked above. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Sorry, I missed the link while re-scanning quickly today. But again, the map I referenced is the only one showing the city of Jerusalem, so complaints about how a place not shown at all is represented on a map seem a bit ridiculous, moreso since the one map that does show the place, does so "correctly". Fat&Happy (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The map is referring to Israel's administrative districts. The Jerusalem District does include East Jerusalem. I don't think the map can be modified because this is how the state of Israel is broken up into administrative regions. However, perhaps a footnote in the caption can state that the Jerusalem District includes areas whose annexation by Israel has been challenged? GabrielF (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think GabrielF has a plausible solution, namely to use a footnote.NPz1 (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need for a footnote. As I wrote above, if anybody can see East Jerusalem in that map, they have too much time on their hands. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said there is no distinction of east/west regarding the map, thefore I called for a clarification, maybe through a footnote as mentioned.NPz1 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The map doesn't show the city of Jerusalem, which is why we don't need to say anything about East Jerusalem. It shows the administrative district of Jerusalem. I don't see how that map shows East Jerusalem at all. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the whole of Jerusalem does not belong to the state of Israel which the map/part now depict, therefore I call for a clarification on this matter.NPz1 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem is Israels capital and so it clearly belongs to Israel and is under Israeli control. the fact that the Israeli government allows diversity in the east of Jerusalem does not mean it is not Israeli territory. furthermore the map itself is wrong as it shows the wrong borders for the state of Israel. the borders shown in this map have changed over 30 years ago and Israel currently is bigger. instead of showing the "green line" as the border of the state of Israel the map should include the current real borders and the "green line" border can be included within those borders. and by the way if there is a neighborhood of immigrants in Washington DC for example, it dose not mean that Washington DC is now partially belongs to the USA. it just means that there is a neighborhood of immigrants there nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yam123yam (talk • contribs) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The language used about territory often betrays other messages. Yam123yam-Israel does not "allow diversity" in East Jerusalem -it illegally occupies it. Theft does not equal legal ownership.Possession is not 9/10ths of the law; in fact the penalty for knowingly retaining stolen goods is often higher than for the theft. Israel is guilty of both crimes, per UN etc. The footnote is the minimum clarification required.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 09:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_districts.png should be the one used under the "Districts of Israel". It shows entire Jerusalem as well as the Golan Heights as part of the relevant districts, as in reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.89.162 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel essentially claims East Jerusalem as part of its territory, and Israel occupies it, being the dominant power on said real estate. Thus, for practical purposes, East Jerusalem is Israeli territory. International law can protest all it wants to, but the fact on the ground is that East Jerusalem currently is in Israel's possession. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There are five kinds of areas as far as I know. Gaza; Normal Israel; Areas that have been occupied by Israel but not annexed and it's considered illegal by the world (West bank); Areas that have been occupied and annexed to Israel although not recognized by the world, and part of the inhabitants didn't ask to receive citizenship (Golan); Area that has been occupied but only partially annexed, but annexed to the municipality of Jerusalem, and it's inhabitants don't have full citizenship (East Jerusalem). What is the map supposed to show? There are also three types of zones in the West bank. A, Palestinian autonomy; B, same but Israeli military control; C, Israeli control. There's also a big wall, and many places where Israeli settlers live. Does the map need to show all this too? Ly362 (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel is in Western Asia

you need to know that israel is not in Africa like Egypt. thanks ! פארוק (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

military section

why are the last 2 paragraphs in military section there? they relate to humanitarian/aid activity, it seems they are the opposite of military activities. if these were carried out by the israeli military forces, it should be made clearer. if this is the a major role of the israeli military this should be stated, not implied. Persius321 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how it could be much clearer than it is. The first of those paragraphs starts by saying "Israel mobilized a team of 150 IDF doctors and rescue and relief teams" and goes on to talk about the work of the IDF units. The second paragraph talks specifically about the Israeli Defense Forces, by name, as well. That's the name of the Israeli military. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I think those two paragraphs would benefit from an introductory sentence, so I just added one. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. I don't think it makes much more clear that the sections are talking about the IDF than they already were, but it is worth having a transition statement from more "traditional" combat operations to humanitarian ones. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Phrase in the lead

Hi, there is a phrase in the lead "Following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Israel was legally constituted within the Green Line borders, as defined in the 1949 Armistice Agreements". I'm wondering if this is correct. The armistice agreements explicitly provided that the Green Line is not a border and I'm not aware of Israel annexing areas between the partition plan border and the Green Line, but of course I'm not aware of everything. Is it verifiable that Israel would have annexed those areas? The Palestinians have offered them to Israel as a territorial concession in the 1980s, IIRC. I think that it would be at least correct to say that Israel was "constituted" (=declared independence) referring to the 1947 Partition Plan, and that sounds to me like a sentence that might replace the one currently in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There are parts of Israel today that were not part of Israel in the partition plan (other than WB, Gaza, Golan), but these were taken in the 1949 war, rather than annexed afterwards. I'm not really sure if I'm understanding you correctly when I say that, but my general point is that I don't think annexation is an issue here.
The position in international diplomacy today seems to be that Israel up to the Green Line is unquestionably Israeli sovreign terriotory. Presumably, this must reflect a decision taken at some point (eg by the UN or a treaty). Maybe someone is able to identify that? --FormerIP (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
At least West Jerusalem isn't considered part of Israel by the international community, and it would be one of the territories not Israeli in the Partition Plan and west of the Green Line. --Dailycare (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I think there's quite a lot of Israeli territory that was not in the partition plan. We have a map here (it's all the pink bits) [10]. However, I think the point is these areas are not now considered "occupied" or "annexed". Including the historical explanation for that would be good if we can source it. But I don't think the phrase "was legally constituted within the Green Line borders" is doubtful.
West Jerusalem is considered Israeli by the international community, I think.--FormerIP (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is a source where Abba Eban refers to Israel's presence in the pink bits (this is a good and compact term for this area) as "occupation" in the context of the armistice agreements, i.e. armistice occupation. Here2 professor d'Amato argues that Israel's borders remain those described in the Partition Plan (This is a very interesting text, IMO). There is also the fact that the international community refused to consider West Jerusalem as Israel's capital before the Six-Day War, which is specifically because under the Plan, Jerusalem was defined as a Corpus Separatum. So the question becomes, whether Israel has verifiably annexed the pink bits? I find this unlikely since the UN would probably have rejected the annexation and methinks that would be widely reported. In most of the proposals related to the now-defunct two-state solution, most of the pink bits were slated to become Israeli. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it may be that you are on to something interesting, but there's also a difference between the view of the international community and the view of our old friend "some scholars". The latter might be of interest, but the usual issues of what standard of sources to go by, weight etc are likely to be relevant.
I rather think it is like you say: if there remains a reasonable and legitimate argument for saying that parts of Israel are occupied or annexed, then people would be making it with reasonable frequency, which is not something I'm personally aware of.
One more point: I'm not sure that any part of armistice Israel can be considered "annexed", for the reason that Israel did not previously exist. I'm no expert, but I don't think something can be annexed by a state that hasn't yet come into existence. --FormerIP (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Israel declared independence, referring to the Partition Plan, before the armistices. I agree concerning your point on weight, but we've so far not seen any sources establishing that the sentence is verifiable. Of course, it doesn't say that Israel was "constituted" in all the territory enclosed by the Green Line, but anyway. --Dailycare (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"..is a parliamentary republic in the Middle East located..."

I think we should use formulations in the intro similar to the Kosovo article: "...is a disputed territory", "...partially recognized". That would be more appropriate.--Severino (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, a sentence like this: "The Land of Israel, known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisrael, has been sacred to the Jewish people since Biblical times." has no place in a serious encyclopedia. We must not mix history with religion and myths.--Severino (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo is entirely irrelevant here. Kosovo declared its independence two years ago and was never a state before that point. Israel has a sixty year history of existence as a state. To refer to the entire state of Israel as a "disputed territory" would be to advance a point of view that is simply not held by more than a fringe in the Western World. I fail to see how your second quote is problematic. Wikipedia is not commenting on the validity of Jewish beliefs, merely the existence of a belief that the land of Israel is "sacred to the Jewish people". This is a fact. GabrielF (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If I was an alien reading this article and I read the first 3 paragraphs, i would have no idea about the ongoing war and Israel's status as an actualy and historically disputed territory. This article seems biased torwards Israel, and the intro is too long.Warkos (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the first three paragraphs mention disputes over territory, citizenship status, historical dispute in the partition and founding, complex and unresolved political issues, the current failure to come to a diplomatic solution between Israel and the Palestinians, and much more are all in the first three paragraphs, I'm left with one of two choices. Either you want it to be written so that Israel is a one eyed one horned flying purple people eater or you didn't read the first three paragraphs. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Your attack is ad hominem, and you're assuming bad faith putting words in my mouth. I am neutral, i came to the article to get neutral information, and felt that the war was overlooked. I was afraid to speak though, about such a sensible matter. I guess you can't expect neutrality on an issue like this. I just think that its modern creation and the enormous disputes over this territory should be right in the first paragraph. Correct me if i'm wrong. Is there another article for this territory in a non denominational manner? Warkos (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Believe it or not, Israel isn't defined solely on it's sordid war history. It has a population, history and tradition which are independent of the Israel-Arab crisis. If the title of the article was "the Israeli-Arab conflict" your point might have made sense, but in actuality the conflict is only one facade of Israel's existence. The conflict is addressed in the intro on several occasions, just as it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.65.16.64 (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue. The first three paragraphs cover the material and seem to do a neutral job of it. Sol (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Sol on the neutrality and content of the lead. J.Rly (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

the degree of recognition of a proclaimed statehood or territory is an important issue. there is something like limited recognition and israel could qualify for it.--Severino (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel is fully recognised, has a seat in the UN (which was the one who gave it statehood in the first place), has been around for around 63 years and is a powerful militairy, enconomic and political power in the reigon. Israel is not a disputed territory, it is recognised by nearly all states. Claiming that it is a disputed territory in the into of this page will not only be a false and unbased claim, but it would cause thousands of neutral readers to believe that it isn't a real state. Goodguy1066 (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Israel is referred to in RS as a state, so we should do that here, too. It's a significant point however that it isn't "fully recognized" since a significant block of countries in fact don't recognize it. I don't however see a need to introduce the "disputed" terminology that Severino proposes, Israel is referred to in sources as a country. At least in English-language sources, that is. --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not true that israel is "fully recognized" and "recognised by nearly all states", nor was it in the last around (sic) around 63 years. The claim it would be powerful militairy (sic), enconomic (sic) and political power in the reigon (sic) has nothing to do with the recognition of it's statehood. Neutral readers have noted that Kosovo/Kosova (or Western Sahara) is also referred to as a state in RS and recognized so by other states - by others not. The limited recognition of Israel (63 years after the proclamation!) is something that shouldn't be concealed.--Severino (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The entire Western World / Free World acknowledges the democratic State of Israel. The only countries who do not recognize Israel are regimes who have a religious and cultural bias for not recognizing. Mentioning that several countries that are not free do not recognize a free State is pointless. the situation in Kosovo is a break-away region of a country done so under international law. the situation in Western Sahara is a break-away region supported by a government in exile which exercises very little control over its territory. Israel is a nation that has full international recognition by all sovereign free states.--Smart30 (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

for the purposes of wikipedia, your conception of "free world" doesn't matter too much.

israel is not recognized by many countries 63 years after it's proclamation, among them some of the neighbouring countries. others have cut diplomatic ties during the decades or do not recognize territorial or administrative declarations like the occupation of the territories that were conquered in 1967 or jerusalem as capital. it has limited recognition and bears similarities with other states with limited recognition like the State of Palestine (western sahara is not a break away region BTW, it resists the moroccan occupation) and the article should reflect that.--Severino (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nokia arena

Resolved
 – AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nokia arena is the home of Maccabi Tel Aviv sporting club, Not Maccabi Haifa, as also mentioned in it's article. Pls fix it. Stavnir (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

the west bank

the west bank IS part of israel and there's a jews live in

on 67 days wars we Conquered the west bank and the golan...

we gave sinay (bigger then israel) to eygpt for peace with them

the golan and the west bank are belong to israel

Introduction

Dear friends,

An introduction should present general facts in an easy-to-read format.

I have edited the introduction to represent the general facts first, followed by the more specific facts, as any well written article would do.

Many of the more particular secondary facts, such a the 'Seam Zone' shouldn't be in the introduction, because an introduction should only present the general facts in an easy-to-read format.

This edit happens to also allow information to follow a more chronological order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagi Nahor (talk • contribs) 12:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sagi Nahor (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical claims

I have serious problems with this article, that I am incapable of remedying... Please fix, they are: that though the world which can be proven to at times be at least mildly anti-semitic spins it as "false massaia's" or "failed rabbi's" there has never been a time in history where any Jews gave up their claim to Israel until the modern Hassidic Satmar movement being the exception. Everyone from the Vilna Gaon to Maimanodes to Saadia Gaon to the Talmud and all in between have said they would like to see the people they lead to settle in Israel and form a country. Some had even left with their whole villages and students to do so , these were not comparable to the Muslim/Christian crusades, because these were not religious, (the Jewish religion is ingenious with or without Israel) but an attempt to right a wrong, where they were banned from most Middle Eastern countries by the Arabians and Romans before. Maimonodes for example even kisses up to the Arabian religion in his books, in order for them not to continually destroy the Jews, and ban them from every country, as they did in all of Arabia, tried to do in Syria and Lebanon. And fanatically did in the "Al Asqa" region of "Al Kuts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turmerick (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

History section

I reverted an edit by a confirmed sock puppet from a few weeks ago. OuroborosCobra reverted my revert. The edit in question was a duplication of information already summarised in another section (Jewish History of the Southern Levant). The new information is overweight and selective, showing only the Jewish history of the region without explicitly saying so - unlike "Jewish History of the Southern Levant" which I believe is balanced and appropriate. The duplication makes the article look absurd. I have no intention of debating this further - this article is too contentious. OuroborosCobra, I am not going to try again - if you think the sockpuppet was right, you should explain here. Otherwise I suggest you self revert or spend the time to improve it as you see fit. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So now you are going to claim this is about a sockpuppet, something you also didn't say in the edit summary? On you to prove that, not me. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to be personal but you are being lazy. It is here - User:FesCityRaver. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Why am I being lazy? You never made the claim of sockpuppetry in the first place, and the onus is on the person MAKING a claim to back it up, not on everyone else to prove it for you. Your removal of vast amount of content for reasons that don't even match what you stated them to be was frankly vandalistic. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You are avoiding the question. You should explain to everyone your view on the text. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
My view on the text is that it establishes more clearly the history of Hebrew/Jewish history in the region, which carries some continuity to the modern state. There certainly should be balance with the history of other cultures, but you don't establish that by unilateral blanking, lying about or changing the reason for your blanking, claiming you won't get further involved when that's precisely what you keep doing, and then calling other people lazy to boot. You said on my talk page that I was being "over sensitive about a contentious article." If it is so contentious, why after almost a month had none of the many people who watch this article taken such extreme issue with the content to warrant its outright blanking with no discussion, something normally done only to vandalistic content? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Like OuroborosCobra, I think we should keep adding shit to this article, which is already too long and takes way too long to load, until it bursts at the seams. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Has the sock been circumcised? Telaviv1 (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

There is a factual error in the Etymology section. The article states, "According to the Bible, Jacob and his sons had lived in Canaan and were forced by famine to go into Egypt for four generations...". Instead of "four generations", it should read "four hundred and thirty years". Reference Exodus 12:40 [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.127.167 (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Too long, too long

I think that most of the different sections in the article, especially the lede, but also the history, military, foreign relations and occupied territories need to be drastically cut.

In the lede I would drastically cut the two sections related to history. Just provide the minimum of essential historical information. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

First to recognize

I'm not going to change it without a citation, but I swear I learned in one of my undergrad history courses that the Soviets actually beat the US to recognizing Israel after the UN vote. If I remember correctly, the difference was a matter of hours, if less.. Do we have a citation for the claim "The United States was the first country to recognize the State of Israel, followed by the Soviet Union."? 75.86.135.63 (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the source linked to at the end of the following sentence, "On May 14, 1948, the United States became the first country to extend de facto recognition to the State of Israel." (page 24) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I did some googling, and actually found the answer on wikipedia itself. While the US was the first state to recognize Israel de facto (11 minutes after the declaration), the USSR was the first de jure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#Aftermath Should this be mentioned on this page as well? 75.86.135.63 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you check Simon Montefiore's biography of Stalin he says the USSR was first, but given the conflicting reports and that it was a matter of a few hours I don't think its worth making an issue out of it. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I only ask in the interests of accuracy. This is one page where I wouldn't want to edit anything without consensus. Perhaps we should phrase it similar to the Israeli Declaration of Indepedence page? 64.134.33.57 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The US was the first to recognise. Ahron Bregman: "Thus, just 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion declared independence Washington recognized Israel [...]. Shortly afterwards Russia and the government of Guatemala followed the US example in recognizing Israel."--Frederico1234 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Just grammar

In the opening, "efforts by elements within both parties to diplomatically solve the problem have so far only met with limited success" might look a little nicer as "but efforts by elements within both parties to solve the problem diplomatically have so far met with only limited success". I might even go so far as to suggest "on both sides" instead of "within both parties", as the term "party" can refer to a party in the dispute or contract, or to a political party. I understand that we're dealing with the former case, the "parties" being Israel on the one hand, and the Arab states on the other. 200.121.6.219 (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This request has been up for 20 days now, highlighting a potential ambiguity and making a suggestion for a noncontroversial change; nobody has responded in opposition and yet no changes have been made to the article. If the editors with access to the article can't be bothered to edit it, perhaps it should not be protected. 200.121.200.43 (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
 – By following edit. --AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors interpreting things

Some discussion is needed about this edit. My view is that adding the text "but Israel as a Holy Land of the Jews was recognised in the Qur'an by the Sura 5:21." is an editor's rather than a secondary source's intepretation. The source used is Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad Sayyārī, Revelation and falsification: the Kitāb al-qirāʼāt of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Sayyārī, BRILL, 2009, p.118" (link here) which says "For God rescinding His decree granting the Holy Land to the Children of Israel" see etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Was not aware of it previously and in general I'm not an expert on Islam. It might appear that Sura 5:21 is "Zionist":
From other hand the source quoted says For God rescinding His decree granting ..., i.e. cancelling, and Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Sayyārī gives references, so I guess there could be number of interpretations. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think attribution should be used here along the lines of "some Islamic scholars say ...". --Dailycare (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The world's largest solar parabolic dish

Please change the description of the picture in the Chapter "Science and Technology". The picture does not show the "The world's largest solar parabolic dish" and also the article cited [271] does not describe it as such.

You can change it to "One of the world's largest solar parabolic dishes at the Ben-Gurion National Solar Energy Center in Israel." that is the description of the same picture under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_reflector. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.101.201 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

the lergest city in south israel is Ashdod, not Ashqelon please fix that.

] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.107.201 (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion in Israel

The source that tries to estimate religiousness of Jews is false. I made that statement about a year ago and it's stil here, unanswered. Here, is an oficial estimate, 2010: http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st07_04x&CYear=2010. Please, someone, fix it. 89.138.224.50 (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

History

I find statements like "In 1516, the Land of Israel was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the region until the 20th century..." to be word play with facts of history to make a false political and/or religious point. No one can honestly make an assertion that anyone had connquered the "Land of Israel" when no "Land of Israel" ever existed before 1948. The allusion that it has always been known as such, which is sprinkled throughout the article, is wrong, and the bible is not an historical evidence to be cited in what presents itself as academically factual. I am not going to edit these statements out because I do not know the editing history and what agreements had been reached, but I hope that sober minds who already have invested effort in this article do some needed editing to make it more acceptable to the non-biased mind. Biraqleet (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "No "Land of Israel" ever existed before 1948."? No extra-Biblical proof (which I presume is what you meant when you say "the bible is not a historical document")? Are you serious??FlaviaR (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suppose on the one hand the term Eretz Yisrael, Land of Israel or whatever have been in common usage since long before 1948 and on the other, it might be better to say something generic like the area, the region or whatever. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This little exchange is a good example of all the small moments that collectively make up Wikipedia's Israel/Palestine problem. There's a legitimate concern here: we should use contemporary terms when discussing historical concerns. But the first editor decided to add some unhelpful commentary; despite being unfamiliar with the history, they note the text is the product of dishonest wordplay from biased editors. That just invites a hostile response from another editor who will usually overreact, sidestep the real content question and engage in conflict over the commentary. I realize that Biraqleet is a new user so I don't want to criticize them although I would suggest reading WP:AGF. But I wanted to bring this up because I think the editors in this warped little corner of WP ought to recognize how interractions that would be mundane elsewhere are so problematic here. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, normally the way it works is: statement a -> statement b -> hundreds of oscillations between those and various other chaotic orbits around the basin of attraction -> some active or inevitable damping through energy loss -> some meta-statements and analysis -> a meta-meta-etc analysis -> everyone distracted by something shiny elsewhere -> the end -> sockpuppet makes an edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Might I make a suggestion?

I have noticed that the article text occasionaly uses terms that are not contemporary or specific to the subjects they describe. For example, the section "Jewish History in Israel and the Palestinian Territories" uses the term "Land of Israel" to describe the area as late as the 16th Century even though it is anachronistic there. It is also a nebulous description and one that may or may not correspond to modern Israel, the subject of this article. In fact, I would suggest that the term is more of a theological concept than a geographic one and it would be best if we reserved its usage for that purpose. I'm not picky about alternate terms but I'd be happy to hear any suggestions. Thanks --JGGardiner (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I recommend Cisjordan. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Cisjordan doesn't occur in dictionary.com. In French, "Cisjordanie" means the West Bank. If "Palestine" isn't usable what about going boldly with "the area"? ;) --Dailycare (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I recommend using whatever term was the prevalent at that time in history. "Israel" ceased to exist after the territory was conquered by the Assyrian army, so using that term prior to 1948 is just foolish. Similarly, the area was referred to as "Palestine" from sometime at least as early as 18th/19th century up until 1948 and from the time of the Roman occupation, the area was divided up into several smaller provinces such as Samaria, Judea, Peraea and Phoenicia. Although I'm a strong proponent of Israel and their historical claim to the area, I think we need to use the proper terminology for whatever historical period we are discussing throughout the article. My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
According to Palestine, that term has been used since 450 BCE. --Dailycare (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I have not gone to that page, but all I can say is I personally disagree. It is also not supported by historical documents that can be found in about a 15 sec Google search. For instance, I found a page that had numerous Roman maps, for instance, and Palestine was not a roman province - unless it was an "unofficial" reference. As we all probably know, the regional naming convention is a political football that is tossed back and forth depending on your POV and what axe you have to grind. Again, my 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

When I wrote the request, I wondered if anybody would respond and if nobody did, I was thinking of using the "area" term. It seems Cisjordan most commonly refers to the West Bank. In WP it is a redirect to that article. I think that it also refers to the are more generally but it seems that usage is mostly among academics. As for the contemporary terms, it seems that the Mamluks divided the area into sanjaks (districts) of the Damascus Wilayah (province). I'm thinking of using a term like "Mamluk Levant" since that also gives some of the bigger picture as well. But I'm fine with any of the terms I've heard. Thanks for all the input. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Academic writers in English call it Palestine with very few exceptions. This is true even for Israeli historians who call it Eretz Yisrael in the Hebrew editions of their books. To Ckruschke: the place was divided into three provinces, Palestina Prima, Palestina Secunda, and Palestina Tertia, in the late Roman and Byzantine periods. Zerotalk 01:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Looking at some sources on Palestine, emperor Vespasian officially named the area Palestine in CE 70. Before that, the area was known as "Syria Palestina" and apparently the name ultimately stems from Philistines that lived in or around the area. --Dailycare (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of category

There are about 20 country's who don't recognize Israel and countries who call the area "Palestine", Hezbollah and Hamas (Hamas being elected by the Palestinian people) do not recognize Israel either. Is there any reason why the "Category:Disputed territories in Asia" shouldn't be in this article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor removed the category saying in the edit summary that it undermines Israel's legitimacy. That seems to be a case of "I don't like it". If Israel's legitimacy is impugned according to sources, the category belongs here. However, as I noted in my earlier edit summary the category can also refer to Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the Gaza strip and the West Bank which aren't "Israel" but still closely associated with Israel due to the ongoing occupation, also warranting the category. --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Here are some sources I quickly found: Hamas: [11], they were elected by the Palestinian people. Hezbollah:[12], in the Lebanese government, Most Arab states:[13], map at Syrian parliament website: [14] Im sure more like these can be found showing that Israel is disputed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Israel is not a "Disputed territory". Don't be ridiculous. A country with territorial disputes is not a "Disputed territory". Marokwitz (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
How is Israel not disputed? see the sources above, many surrounding nations do not recognize it, evidence for one neighboring country has been provided calling the area "Palestine", and Hezbollah and Hamas do not recognize it, Hezbollah has been in direct war with Israel, Hamas is elected by the Palestinian people, see the link above: "Hamas would never recognize Israel since such a move would counter the group's aim to "liberate" all of Palestine.", How is Israel not a disputed territory? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:CAT#Categorizing pages: It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Does this article say anything about Israel being a disputed territory? Nope. Hence, no category. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The cat: "Member states of the Union for the Mediterranean" is in the article, but there is no info about that in the article, I realize that this isnt an argument but still, info can be seen here at the talkpage justifying the cat.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If what SD says is true about the 20 or so states that do not recognize the existence of the Israeli state and therefore its sovereignty over all of its controlled territory, then there is certainly a territorial dispute by the common definition. That information about the disputant states should then be included in the "Foreign relations" section and there will be a basis for the category. Quigley (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Supreme Deliciousness, you were told this same thing at WP:A/E. It shouldn't be news to you here. And a Talk page isn't the article, is it? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Okey, Ill see if I can ad some info to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If this turns into an edit war, it will surely be added to WP:LAME. BarkingMoon (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
^👍 Like I was thinking the same thing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

On behalf of all Native Americans, I demand that the USA be categorized as "disputed".
To put it another way, the UN recognizes Israel, and the only ones "disputing" Israel are the ones who want to kill every living Jew in the world. Who gives a flying freak what terrorist organizations think? Israel is not "disputed" by anything legitimate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(FWIW, I'd just like to throw in that the few fringe Native Americans who do not recognize the United States are about as nuts as Hizbollah; you've just equated an entire racial group with terrorists. Good rhetoric, though... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC))
Most common definitions of a disputed territory do not include territory whose sovereignty is disputed between states and nonstate actors (such as Hezbollah or Native American tribes). However, if sovereign states, such as the 20 (I am assuming fully recognized Arab and Muslim states) that SD alludes to, reject Israel's sovereign rights over the entirety of its pre-1967 territory, then it is no joke to include the article describing the country and territory of Israel into the 'disputed territories' category. Quigley (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it IS a joke to call Israel's existence "disputed" by giving credibility to countries who have a goal of murdering everyone within it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It happens very often in territorial disputes that one country does not regard the territory they control to be "disputed". While Pakistan contends that Kashmir is "disputed", India maintains that its chunk of Kashmir is an "integral part of India"; however they word it, the fact of their disagreement on the sovereignty is what makes people regard Kashmir as a disputed territory. Many Indians would also think that Pakistan has the "goal of murdering everyone within [India]". However, one party cannot by definition assert a dispute out of existence, unless that party accedes to the other's claims. Quigley (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Given the premise, that it's strictly a matter of opinion(s), the category of "disputed" should be abolished altogether. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you want to start a CfD on Category:Disputed territories (and an AfD on disputed territory, which while not having the most impeccable sourcing at the moment, will have reliable sources that reveal themselves on threat of deletion (or if you just look for them)). Until such a discussion succeeds in deletion, we can assume that the category's longevity and wide use means that the consensus is that the category and concept is a notable enough one that can be used correctly and according to reliable sources. Quigley (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is pretty silly. A state without full recognition is not the same as a disputed territory. Israel is not a territory, it's a state. It is not "disputed" it is unrecognized by a small minority of other states. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that a territorial dispute is a somewhat specific concept. Non-recognition however can occur for a variety of reasons. It has most commonly occurred when one country does not like the government of another country. So non-recognition is not evidence of a territorial dispute per se and is probably SYNTH to say so in my opinion. I would also note that 22 states don't recognize the PRC. Although I got that number from Wikipedia so you might take it with a grain of salt. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you dont believe non recognition, still in this case we have a neighboring country having a map at an official website saying "Palestine", and most importantly, Hamas, elected by the Palestinian people saying: "Hamas would never recognize Israel since such a move would counter the group's aim to "liberate" all of Palestine." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
To reinforce what JGGardiner (talk · contribs) says above, to go from saying that Hamas and Hezbollah dispute Israel's sovereignty over its land to saying that Israel is a disputed territory is WP:OR. A WP:RS needs to be produced – preferably several – that clearly indicates a reality to the effect that Israel is a disputed territory. Stating as fact that Israel is a disputed territory based on a source that says group X or group Y says so is in essence taking a side and violating WP:NPOV. As an aside, purely for irony's sake, it is of interest to note that a Google search for "Israel is a disputed" yields a whopping seven results. Lo and behold, the first three are to past Wikipedia discussions.—Biosketch (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thats not all Hamas says, Hamas refers to the area as Palestine.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
That sounds even more SYNTH-y. A map with an alternate caption? Libya rather famously printed maps with England replaced by ocean but I don't think that made a territorial dispute. Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 and later assumed executive powers in a move that may or may not have been legitimate, depending on your point of view. In any event, I'm not sure an "aim" to "liberate" an ill-defined entity ("Palestine") is a territorial dispute per se. My friendly neighbours to the south liberated Iraq and I wouldn't call that a territorial dispute. They seemed totally happy with the territorial integrity of Iraq.

I will grant you that your SYNTH is very persuasive SYNTH. I've seen much worse SYNTH. Sometimes I say to a user "we can't use your argument because it is SYNTH and who are we to say it's right?" But I'm privately thinking "what a load of BS -- I wouldn't swallow your SYNTH if it was glazed in honey." But your SYNTH is actually quite reasonable and I have to say, were it not for WP:SYNTH I might actually use it, like if I had a blog or wrote a book or something. Kudos. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • See this source: "The contemporary conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East is a multi- layered dispute. One component is the struggle, since the early 1880s, between Jews and Palestinian Arabs for control of the same land, called "the land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) by the Jews and "Palestine" (Filastin) by the Arabs. The other is a regional conflict of more recent vintage, dating back to 1948, between states: the state of Israel and the various Arab states. This second conflict has been, at times, about the very existence of the Jewish state of Israel in the heart of the Muslim Arab world, but it has also been over tangible issues such as borders, resources, and territory lost and won in the cycle of wars between them" Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, Second Edition: Patterns, Problems, Possibilities (Indiana Series in Middle East Studies), p 3. Laura Zittrain Eisenberg, Neil Caplan, Indiana University Press. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It's true that without something in the article body to justify the categorization, the category can't be there. However, the source below has no qualms framing the conflict as one over disputed territory.

"Since the Zionist movement claimed Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people, that land came to be the site of conflict between the Palestinians and Zionists. Thus, at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at its current stage, is a disputed but shared territory - that of Mandatory Palestine - with which the history and identity of both sides are inextricably intertwined." - Israel and the Palestinian refugees (Springer 2007 Eyal Benvenisti (Editor), Chaim Gans (Editor), Sari Hanafi (Editor)) page 149, Transitional Justice and the Right of Return of the Palestinian Refugees by Yoav Peled and Nadim N. Rouhana.

Whether that provides an OR-free/SYNTH-less mapping to category membership I don't know because I don't know what the category membership rules are. I should add that it's probably fairly trivial to find other serious academic sources like this that use the term 'disputed territory' to describe Israel but unless everyone agrees on the category membership rules I would expect this discussion to go nowhere, and rightly so. I guess having categories without a documented decision procedure to decide category membership in cases like this is great for getting people to talk to eachother, but not very helpful when it comes to doing the categorization bit. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Good, at least now this can move from a purely theoretical discourse to one actually involving sources. That is a step forward. The Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace source provided by Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) doesn't justify the "Disputed territories in Asia" category because the source distinguishes between the dispute's territorial dimension, which the authors confine to what we call the "disputed territories" (i.e. not to all of Israel), and the political conflict over whether Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. The Transitional Justice source proposed by Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) is less clear, as it says "Mandatory Palestine" and not "Israel." It did, however, make me realize that Israelis from the anti-Oslo camp do often insist that the conflict with the Palestinians and with the Arabs is not over '67 but over '48 (e.g. the Phased Plan). In other words, they would actually agree with the claim Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is making.—Biosketch (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace source says: "The contemporary conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East is a multi- layered dispute. One component is the struggle, since the early 1880s, between Jews and Palestinian Arabs for control of the same land, called "the land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) by the Jews and "Palestine" (Filastin) by the Arabs.", so this is about all of the land of Israel, so I don't really understand how you can say: "i.e. not to all of Israel". The Israel and the Palestinian refugees source says: "Since the Zionist movement claimed Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people, that land came to be the site of conflict between the Palestinians and Zionists. Thus, at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at its current stage, is a disputed but shared territory - that of Mandatory Palestine", the territory of mandate Palestine is the same as Israel + the West Bank and Gaza. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Accoring to CNN fact checking of Jordan's King Abdullah its 36 countries The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the source Sean. I agree with your point that such sources should be easy to find. My point last night was just that SD was using weak sources. Quite often in I/P an editor with a source will continuously note its existence rather than engaging in real discussion with opposing editors. So I was just trying to say to SD that his/her sources weren't so great that they should preclude discussion. As for the specifics, I generally feel the same as you. I don't follow category policy much. It seems that it is inherently "LAME". I probably wouldn't have commented on this at all if I didn't have something snarky to say actually. So I should apologize to SD for that. I don't know how the category is defined but my one serious point last night is that the editors involved with it seem to have excluded the PRC which is a similar case. The distinction is probably arbitrary: a sovereign state is really a territorial dispute with an army and a navy. I would suggest this should be talked about at the cat talk rather than here. Besides, when was the last time I/P editors took a field trip? --JGGardiner (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
@Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), it's vain to keep trying to use these two sources. Simply put, "Eretz Yisrael" and "Palestine" are not Israel. If someone were so inclined, they could perhaps add the article Mandatory Palestine to the category of "Disputed territories in Asia." But Mandatory Palestine and Israel are two very different things.—Biosketch (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
@ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs), are you trying to argue that not recognizing a country is the same as engaging in a dispute with it?—Biosketch (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the term "disputed country." It is not whether two countries engage in disputes but wether the country is has recognition as fully legitimate itself. According to CNN 36 countries do not recognize Israel thus I do believe that it is a valid as category here. I am not going to sit and suggest that the entire article be written around the the theme but the view is prominent view point. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I much preferred the earlier SYNTH. This newer one is what I'd call "double SYNTH". CNN never uses the number 36 in relation to states that don't recognize Israel but only in one instance when talking about states that don't have diplomatic relations. Non-recognition and a lack of diplomatic relations are different concepts. Conflating the two is SYNTH. As well, neither of those two things are the same as a territorial dispute. Saying so is the second SYNTH. I'd also note that CNN does not state in its own voice that the 36 is the correct number of non-relations states but rather that is what an Israeli IMF list implies. Here is the CNN wording where they are careful to note it is not their fact: "According to their list, that would leave 36 U.N. countries that do not have diplomatic relations with Israel." Note that is the only sentence in that article which includes the number 36. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ BC Kessner, HS Today. "Israel's Hard-Learned Lessons". Retrieved 7 October 2010.
  2. ^ Ahmed Ismail / BBC News. "Israel: A Country Without Defined borders". Retrieved 7 October 2010.
  3. ^ The Institute for National Security Studies. "The Legacy of Undefined Borders, Tel Aviv Notes No. 40, June 5, 2002". Retrieved 7 October 2010.
  4. ^ The Epoch Times. "Israel Journal: A Land Without Borders". Retrieved 7 October 2010.
  5. ^ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12&version=NASB
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel/Archive_35&oldid=1079502968"