Talk:Israel/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

NPOV has been removed from this article

The last paragraph of the introduction to this article has been changed from "Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage. Israel's status as a representative democracy has been questioned as Jewish residents of the occupied territories are allowed to vote while Arab residents are not.." to "Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage." There is clearly only one point view being expressed here. The point of view of the majority of Arabs and a minority of Jews (such as Miko Peled) is being erased, and only one view is allowed to remain. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, this fringe controversy (assuming it does exist in mainstream society) does not belong to lead. Second, your sources don't support your POV-pushing edit. Third, it's not a matter of "points of view", but facts. The fact is that Israel did not annex the West Bank (it's a "disputed territory" according to Israel) and its Arab citizens are Palestinians (not Israelis) who vote in Palestinian elections. It doesn't affect Israel's status as a democracy. The complex issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the occupation are properly treated here and in other articles.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, your unwillingness to assume good faith (WP:AGF) and your violation of the one revert rule demonstrates your unwillingness to create a NPOV article. The truth is I am neither a Jew or a Muslim, and have no bias towards either side of this argument. I only wish to see this article represent both sides fairly. The Miko Peled book, as well as other sources, make clear that many Jews as well as the vast majority of Arabs do no feel Israel is a representative democracy. Your claim that is in a fringe issue is not supported by the facts, and you misrepresent the issue as far less complex than it actually is. The far more NPOV article on Israeli-occupied territories states:

"The International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power". UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel’s occupation "an affront to international law." The Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation". According to Talia Sasson, the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than 4 decades that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law.""

As many have pointed out before, Israel is not a democracy as long as they occupy lands that lack complete control over their affairs, and continue to recognise parts of Palestine as legally Israel, which breaks all international laws and even the Israeli government's number one ally, the United States, agrees on this.

Secondly, what about the millions of Palestinians who live under Israeli occupation, yet receive none of the benefits of being Israeli citizens? Democracy for Jewish Israelis alone is not democracy at all. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

the fact that Jews in Israeli settlement of the Israeli-occupied territories are allowed to vote in the Israel's elections, while Arabs in the same territories are only allowed to vote in Palestinian elections for officials that have little power to do anything, does call into question the claim that Israel is a representative democracy. The objective of this article should be to fairly represent both sides of this issue. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You broke 1RR several times. I don't care who you are. What you are doing is WP:synth. The fact that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law doesn't undermine Israel's status as a representative democracy, where all its citizens have the right to vote, regardless of ethnicity, religion or gender (and that's a lot compared to its neighbors). Israeli citizens living in West Bank settlements have the right to vote just like Americans living outside the US can vote for the American elections (I guess). The Arabs who live in the West Bank ARE NOT Israeli citizens, they are Palestinians (both in citizenship and identity). The exception could be East Jerusalem, although Israel offered citizenship to the Arabs living there, after the entire city was annexed.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Israeli citizens living in West Bank settlements have the right to vote just like Americans living outside the US can vote for the American elections (I guess). Where your comparison falls down is that Israel regards the Occupied Territories as Israeli, not part of abroad.     ←   ZScarpia   16:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

False. Israel never annexed the West Bank and treats it as "disputed territory".--Wlglunight93 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Did I say that Israel had annexed anything? Did I refer specifically to the West Bank? Land can be treated or regarded as being properly part of a country without formal annexation. After all, legally-speaking, under Israeli law not even East Jerusalem, part of the West Bank you refer to, was formally annexed to Israel. Is Israel busy building and expanding settlements on land it doesn't regard as Israeli? Disputed territory? Indeed!     ←   ZScarpia   10:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand that your emotional attachment to Israel is important to you. Your point of view represents fewer than 20% in the Middle East. The second view I included represents more than 80% of the people in the Middle East. Both points of view need to be expressed to achieve a NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: That's like saying like saying we need to add a lot more creationist viewpoints to our Evolution article to achieve NPOV because only 40% of the U.S. population believes in evolution. No. We look at what worldwide sources (academic sources, not "people" on the street) say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If only that were true. The view that Israel is no longer a representative democracy can be sourced for the book “Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict” by John B. Judis, or “The general's son: journey of an Israeli in Palestine” by Miko Peled, or from many, many other published reliable sources. Your false assumption that the opinion of more than 80% of Middle East that is Arab has no academic sources is fundamentally racist. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"your emotional attachment to Israel", "fundamentally racist". Please moderate your tone and words. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the tag has been reverted back and forth a few times today, I'm just dropping in to this discussion to remind everyone that this article is subject to a one revert rule. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the broad sentiment of Gouncbeatduke - the unusual situation in the West Bank is clearly a highly notable and widely publicised issue relating to the way Israel's democracy is defined.

A related point here is set out in this detailed 2012 analysis. As summarised here: "There is an unwritten rule in Israeli politics that Arab parties are not viable coalition partners, and in Israel’s history no Arab party has ever been included in the government coalition." Due to the existence of this situation, Arabs / Palestinians have no de facto ability to have their views represented in Israeli politics.

To describe Israel's democracy without any kind of caveat is highly misleading.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

How would you suggest such a caveat be worded? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your sources only prove that Israel is a democracy. The fact that many Israeli Arabs don't vote for Arab parties or don't vote at all does not change Israel's democratic character just like the fact that many Americans don't vote doesn't mean that the United States is not a democracy. On the contrary, many Arabs in Israel do vote and there are three Arab parties in the parliament (Knesset). It doesn't matter if they never form a government (Israel is not an Arab country). Regarding the occupation of the West Bank, this issue is properly covered here and in other Israel-related articles. But to use such controversy to ruin the lead and challenge the objective fact that Israel is a representative democracy is false and POV.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

How about:

"Israel is governed via a parliamentary system elected through proportional representation. Israel has operated coalition governments since independence as no political party has ever had a majority,[1][2][3], although no Arab party has ever been included in such coalitions. Israel's democratic framework is also applied to the West Bank, but only in Israeli settlements."

This is hopefully simply, factual and plain, and doesn't try to create unnecessary controversy. Any detail regarding high profile debates or criticism can be included in an "endnote" if needed.

Thoughts? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion is irrelevant. Arab parties have never been included in a coalition since they have never had common ground and mutual interests with the major parties which had formed and established those coalitions through the years. There are also non-Arab parties that have never been part of any coalition either. It has nothing to do with whether Israel is a representative democracy or not. --Infantom (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No. False and POV. Read my comment above.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wlglunight93, the above drafting has already taken into account your comments above, so your terse response is not helpful. To respond:

• There is nothing "false" in the above - you made that accusation so either withdraw it or substantiate it.
• Re "POV", that is of course your subjective judgement and I have tried very hard to find a middle ground between you and Gouncbeatduke. Could you please provide a constructive response?

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a single reliable source provided by you or Gouncbeatduke challenge Israel's status as a representative democracy (regardless of the West Bank occupation or the Arab parties not joining a government). Whether you like it or not, this is a fact that must be mentioned. Therefore I suggest you leave the lead as it is and remove the "disputed" tag.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wlglunight93, thanks for explaining - now I understand your concern. The only reason I removed the words "representative democracy" is because they are fully covered by the words "parliamentary system". A parliamentary system is, by definition, a representative democracy ([4]) so the term is superfluous.

Can you please comment on the rest of my proposal. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Israel's democratic framework" doesn't apply to the West Bank simply because this territory is not part of Israel (it was never annexed, unlike East Jerusalem), and the Arabs living there are ruled by the Palestinian Authority. Israeli settlements are in Area C. This issue doesn't belong to the lead.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, " a Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy. All modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies". Hence Israel is a Representative democracy. Ykantor (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You might like to also check out the definitions of ethnocracy and ethnic democracy.     ←   ZScarpia   16:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The democracy in Israel is not perfect, but it is still a democracy. e.g. Freedom House chart:

Countries highlighted in blue are designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's 2014 survey Freedom in the World

Ykantor (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The question raised by the reference removed from the article, Peled, Miko (2012). The general's son : journey of an Israeli in Palestine. Charlottesville, Va.: Just World Books. ISBN 978-1935982159. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help), is whether a country can occupy a territory for 50 plus years, allow people of one religion in that territory to vote in country wide elections and not allowing the people of another religion to vote in country wide elections and still credibly be called a “representative democracy”. No one is disputing that Israel is claiming the right to do this, the question is if both views should be expressed in an article with a NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Gee, sounds a lot like Hawaii. 2600:1006:B003:176F:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT. What is Israel generally regarded as? That's what should go in the lead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of the middle east that is Muslim "generally" regard Israel not to be a representative democracy, the small minority that is Jewish "generally" regard Israel to be a representative democracy. This is why both views should be included in the lead to obtain a NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And, as I alluded to above, we need a worldwide point of view, not just the Middle East's. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of the citizens of the World "generally" regard Israel not to be a representative democracy, the small minority that are citizens of the United State and Israel "generally" regard Israel to be a representative democracy. This article has a clear Systemic bias, likely resulting from the fact so many English speaking editors are citizens of the United State and Israel. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about citizens, I care what academic/scholarly sources say. So what are your academic/scholarly sources stating Israel isn't a representative democracy? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you are interested in academics, you might consider the view of Ilan Pappé who is a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter in the UK, director of the university’s European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies. His books include "A Modern History of Palestine" and "Gaza in Crisis" (with Noam Chomsky). His answer to the question “is Israel a democracy?” is as follows:

“No, Israel is definitely not a democracy. A country that occupies another people for more than 40 years and disallow them the most elementary civic and human rights cannot be a democracy. A country that pursues a discriminatory policy against a fifth of its Palestinian citizens inside the 67 borders cannot be a democracy. In fact Israel is, what we use to call in political science a herrenvolk democracy, its democracy only for the masters. The fact that you allow people to participate in the formal side of democracy, namely to vote or to be elected, is useless and meaningless if you don’t give them any share in the common good or in the common resources of the State, or if you discriminate against them despite the fact that you allow them to participate in the elections. On almost every level from official legislation through governmental practices, and social and cultural attitudes, Israel is only a democracy for one group, one ethnic group, that given the space that Israel now controls, is not even a majority group anymore, so I think that you’ll find it very hard to use any known definition of democracy which will be applicable for the Israeli case.”

What are the academic/scholarly sources saying Israel is democratic? The only one cited by the article in the last 15 years is the right-wing spin-doctor Freedom House, which actually lists the occupied territories as unfree/undemocratic (see http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2010/israeli-occupied-territories ). So it is only by the Israel/US recognized ever-changing ‘what we decide to annex this week’ borders that Israel gets a passing grade from Freedom House, and not by any internationally recognized borders of what Israel actually controls. Using that as your only source for Israel’s democratic status requires some pretty selective parsing of the information. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Here you go: [5]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I have seen this before. While I think the methodology is very flawed, recognizing Israel is a “flawed democracy” and not a “full democracy”, as the Economist article states, would be a much more NPOV than the currently language in the lead of the article. Would you be willing to see language like that? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What specific language are you proposing? I note that France is also considered a flawed democracy so if you come up with wording, it might help if you also envisioned wording for the France article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have already proposed what I think is a NPOV. "Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage. Israel's status as a representative democracy has been questioned as Jewish residents of the occupied territories are allowed to vote while Arab residents are not." I would be happy to add the Economist article as a second reference. Maybe the wording "Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage. Israel's status as a full democracy has been questioned as Jewish residents of the occupied territories are allowed to vote in Israel’s elections while Arab residents are not." would address some comments. The reason Israel ends up somewhat below France has do with very different flaws in the respective democracies in the very poor methodology the Economist uses, and I can not imagine a good WP:LEAD that sums all that up. I also thought the "Israel is governed via a parliamentary system elected through proportional representation. Israel has operated coalition governments since independence as no political party has ever had a majority,[6][7][8], although no Arab party has ever been included in such coalitions. Israel's democratic framework is also applied to the West Bank, but only in Israeli settlements." proposal would be an improvement. The only option that is totally out of sync with the source material you and others provided is leaving the article as is. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an entire section for this. The West Bank Arabs vote for the Palestinian Authority (or they should). It has nothing to do with religion, but nationality. Israel is a representative democracy and this is the mainstream view.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is not about what is or is not the mainstream view, but about whether an alternative view should be mentioned. Interesting that you should mention nationality, there being no such thing, within Israel, as Israeli nationality.     ←   ZScarpia   16:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not in the lead, unless the alternative view has widespread (not just in the Middle East) acceptance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article. Perhaps the best way to summarise the rest of the article isn't to just pretend that the mainstream view is the only view?     ←   ZScarpia   17:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You want to try that line of thinking at Evolution or September 11 attacks and see how far you get? Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Establish the nature of Israel's democratic system is a prominent controversy and you might have a case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If the body of the article argued about the nature of Israel's political system, then a proper summarisation of that, if it was included in the Lead, as per the Manual of Style, which you quote, would present it in terms of points of view, not present one view, however dominant, as a fact. However, in this case, the body of the article, doesn't argue about the nature of Israel's political system, therefore the removal of the added material in the Lead was quite correct. In any case, I agree with Ykantor's argument that an imperfect democracy is still a democracy. As far as the argument about whether the situation in the West Bank is relevant or not, I would say, Israel not having well-defined borders, that would depend on how reliable sources in the round interpret it. As far as representing major and minor viewpoints presented in the body of the article in a balanced way in the Lead goes, I can't see that there's been a problem in the two articles you pointed out, but that's because neither of them have had to resort to presenting opposing viewpoints in the bodies of the articles. You could have chosen umpteen more relevant examples from the ARBPIA area.     ←   ZScarpia   22:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this points to the question if this article can really have a NPOV if it moves all political criticism to a separate article and simply inserts a

See also: Criticism of the Israeli government

message. For reference, the following was removed from the "Politics" section:

Israel's status as a representative democracy has been questioned as Jewish residents of the occupied territories are allowed to vote in Israel’s elections while Arab residents are not.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN, thanks for your post. The nature of Israel's democracy is indeed a highly prominent controversy. For example [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. To exclude any nuance around this issue in the lead is wholly misrepresentative.

Looking at other country articles, it is not uncommon for the "political system" summary to not be included in the lead at all. If we can't agree here, I suggest we delete the summary of this topic altogether from the lead and deal with it in detail in the poltics section below. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: I don't know what countries you looked at but I looked at ten and all of them mention the system of government in the lead. If "representative" is an issue then something like "Israel operates under a parliamentary system as a democratic republic." could be used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the "To exclude any nuance around this issue in the lead is wholly misrepresentative" statement. I do not believe the word "representative" is significant, I think the issue is the "democracy" and/or "democratic republic" claim. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

As many have pointed out before, Israel is not a democracy as long as they occupy lands that lack complete control over their affairs, and continue to recognise parts of Palestine as legally Israel, which breaks all international laws and even the Israeli government's number one ally, the United States, agrees on this.

Secondly, I agree with Gouncbeatduke: what about the millions of Palestinians who live under Israeli occupation, yet receive none of the benefits of being Israeli citizens? Democracy for Jewish Israelis alone is not democracy at all.

As far as the word 'Democracy goes'...Not many countries in history that claimed to be democracies really were. Solntsa90 (talk)

@Solntsa90: You're bringing your personal opinion into this. Please don't. According to what you said the United States is not a democracy because of the state of affairs in Puerto Rico. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:NeilN, ok, how about:

"Israel operates under a parliamentary system as a democratic republic elected through proportional representation. Israel has operated coalition governments since independence as no political party has ever had a majority,[14][15][16], although no Israeli Arab party has ever been included in such coalitions. Israel's democratic framework is also applied to the West Bank, but only in Israeli settlements."

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Question 1: Arab parties in coalition governments

@Oncenawhile: "although no Israeli Arab party has ever been included in such coalitions" seems a bit pointy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It is highly notable when considering whether a country's government is truly representative, and is much less pointy than it could be. If we wanted to be pointy we would be more direct and state that "There is an unwritten rule in Israeli politics that Arab parties are not viable coalition partners"summarised here Half the world is aware that Israel as a country / government does not represent its Palestinian / Arab minority, so we should mention it but in the most factual and least pointy way possible. Can you think of a better way to achieve the same? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"although no Israeli Arab party has ever been included in such coalitions" would be an extremely polite way to refer to the Herrenvolk democracy issue in the lead, and would need to be significantly expanded in the "Politics" section to even come close to a NPOV article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You'll probably have to start an RFC on this as I feel your proposals POV-push the other way. However, if no one agrees with me, have at it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

“if no one agrees with me”? Are you trying to be sarcastic? You clearly speak for the majority of native English speaking editors who have created the Systemic bias in this article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Given this, and your past responses, you really do need to read WP:AGF. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying you don't have good faith, I am saying your statement is very passive-aggressive given you are in a clear majority. It's kind of like asking "if no one likes whiskey" in an Irish bar.

I hope you will seriously consider the idea put forward by multiple editors that Israel's democracy is indeed a prominent controversy. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"although no Israeli Arab party has ever been included in such coalitions" What is this claim supposed to mean? If they were not in coalitions it's because they are anti-Zionist, not because they are not allowed. Take an absurd example as Ahmad Tibi bashes Israel non-stop, yet is the deputy speaker of the Knesset. Some here also ignore the fact that there were and are Arabs and Druze in non-Arab parties such as Labor, Meretz and others. Yuvn86 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yuvn86, the "Deputy Speaker" point is a red herring. Tibi is not "the" Deputy Speaker, but one of c.10 (the number changes and is not fixed in law) appointed to reflect the balance of MKs, and is a purely ceremonial role.

To your second point, ultimately it is about numbers and representation. As this example shows[17], the majority of Arab Israelis vote for Arab parties. And these Arab parties will by convention never have any power to join the coalition. In a normal democracy, all communities would expect to have a reasonable chance of having someone that looks like them / thinks like them / understands them as part of the government. But Israeli politics are structured to ensure no Arab Israeli ever makes it in to a position of power.

Look at it another way. In the 66 years since Israeli was created, how many Arabs have been in the cabinet? The answer is one. In 65 years, and representing 20% of the country's voters! And read this [18] if you want to see how he got on.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

How about something simpler like "...although the ability for Israeli Arabs to be represented in government has been questioned"? Then we can add a footnote explaining the anti-Arab coalition convention and the one minister in 66 years. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have already stated my comment about Arab parties participation in coalitions. "anti-Arab coalition convention" is a biased interpretation and conclusion. Very unreliable and POV pushing. Infantom (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Infantom, I assume you are referring to your comment above: "Arab parties have never been included in a coalition since they have never had common ground and mutual interests with the major parties which had formed and established those coalitions through the years. There are also non-Arab parties that have never been part of any coalition either."

As I showed in Q3 below, Freedom House thought this topic was important enough to include in their Israel article. On your fist sentence, explaining your view why Arab parties have never been included, this sounds like WP:OR, and it sounds wrong, since it is a faulty generalization based on one policy, and ignoring (a) other policies not relating to Jewish-Arab relations, and (b) parallels with the secular-religous divide in Israel where coalitions have been formed. On your second sentence, the Arab citizens are by far the largest political grouping in the country never to have been part of a coalition; if you disagree with this, please be specific. This is almost certainly why Freedom Hosue thought to call to topic out specifically. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this proposed text misses the point, the source linked to above says (I didn't check but am trusting the editor who wrote this) "There is an unwritten rule in Israeli politics that Arab parties are not viable coalition partners, and in Israel’s history no Arab party has ever been included in the government coalition." This is a different notion from Arab parties not having yet been in a coalition. If the point was just that Arab parties haven't yet been in a coalition, then that there are other parties too that haven't been in a coalition would be a valid counterpoint. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dailycare, I agree. Whilst the idea of the "unwritten rule" is widely accepted (e.g. [19][20][21][22]), it is unwritten and therefore reliant on the views of commentators and scholars. The question therefore is what does an WP:RS need to look like in order to support this statement in the article. Do you think those provided so far in this thread are enough? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, of the sources you provide I think Kimmerling, Ghanem and Pedahzur are RS while Beinart arguably isn't. And I believe the pages you kindly linked to support this content. We have reliable sources in writing concerning the "unwritten rule", which is good enough. Of course, the content would have to mention the rule is unwritten. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. On this basis I propose the following amendment to the proposed addition to the lead:

"...although an unwritten rule in Israeli politics has meant that Arab parties have never been part of government coalitions."

Any comments?

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

- During Israel first decades, the Arab parties were part of the coalition, because they were satellites of the biggest party, the forerunner of the present Labour party.

- the phrase "unwritten rule" is vague. It can be written simply that "Arab parties have never been part of government coalitions, except during Israel first decades when Arab pro Zionist parties were in the coalition". Ykantor (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing vague of an unwritten rule, and anyway it's the term used in the sources so the opinions of individual editors concerning it's vagueness or otherwise aren't relevant. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor, can you provide sources to support your statement that "...Arab parties were part of the coalition, because they were satellites of the biggest party"? Everything I have read states the exact opposite. Here are a few WP:RS as examples: [23], [24], [25], [26] and [27]

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at one off those parties- Progress and Development . Ykantor (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor, those were not "parties". They were Arab lists formed for the purposes of electoral support of Mapai,[28][29] because Arabs were barred from membership of Mapai until 1973.[30] Unlike political parties, they were not active between elections, and were therefore certainly not part of governing coalitions.[31]. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

-They were parties according to the Israeli law.

-They were members of the coalition according to the law (?) or rules.

-Other parties were not active between the elections too.

-This is a minor point, and does not worth more discussion. If someone wish to include a mistaken sentence (such as no Arab parties...) in an article, than let it be. Ykantor (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor, do you have any sources to support your first two points about law / rules? I don't think that either of those points are correct. They are referred to in all the sources as Electoral lists. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I arrived at this discussion having spotted an edit to Progress and Development. All these parties that took part in coalition governments (Agriculture and Development, Arab List for Bedouin and Villagers, Cooperation and Brotherhood, Cooperation and Development, Democratic List for Israeli Arabs, Democratic List of Nazareth, Progress and Development and Progress and Work) were still individual parties, even if they were associated with Mapai (they are referred to as parties here and here for example). I think it's far too simplistic to say that "no Israeli Arab party has ever been included in such coalitions", particularly when Yitzhak Rabin's 1992 government was dependent on the support of Hadash and the Arab Democratic Party. Number 57 11:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Number 57, glad you stopped by. Your expertise is appreciated so please do stick around.

With respect to your post, can you provide any better sources which actually explain that these were proper parties? I have found four detailed descriptions, all of which explain the opposite, i.e. that they were not parties:

• Ilana Kaufman: "The Arab lists, as their name indicates, were not proper parties but ad hoc electoral arrangements for the election of Arabs to the Knesset."[32]
• As'ad Ghanem: "Most of the lists were established by Mapai under Ben-Gurion... Most of them served more than one term and all were subservient to the leaders of Mapai". This is a detailed description of the history of the Arab lists, and it never uses the term "party".[33]
• Rebecca Kook: "For the first seven rounds of elections. most of the Arab votes were distributed amongst the Israeli Communist party (Maki later to become Rakach. later to become Hadash) and various Mapai and Mapam satellite lists. These were lists formed by the two main labor movement parties headed by Arab candidates. They were for all intents and purposes, however, extensions of the leading parties in terms of positions and coalition alignment. They are commonly described as satellite lists because of the patronage relationship between them and Mapai. The Israel Communist party, however, was long considered the only party to truly represent Arab interests until the appearance of the Progressive List for Peace (PLP) in 1984."[34]
• Majid Al Haj: "Until the late 1960s, Arab-alliliated Knesset lists were one of the most efficient instruments for channeling Arab votes. These satellite lists were initiated and backed by Zionist parties, mainly Mapai-Labour, which was the principal political force until 1977. The object of these lists was not the political mobilization of the Arab populations but rather the capture of Arab votes."[35]

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Number 57, I note you are interested in Electoral History as well as Israel; I'd be very grateful for your help at Arab satellite lists. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think some confusion is arising here because "party" and "list" are used fairly interchangeably in Israel due to the electoral system, which is entirely dependent on lists. They are being described by the sources you quote as "not proper parties" because they were not truly independent bodies - they were established to be Mapai affiliates, and would almost always support Mapai/Labour. However, they were separate parties, as Mapai's membership rules prevented Arabs from joining it. It is also part of Israeli electoral law that a list "must consist of at least one registered party". Number 57 20:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Number 57, it may be that you and I (and others) have a different view as to the fundamental charcteristics of a political party. To my mind, having a set of unique policies is one of those, and these lists definitely do not qualify there. Perhaps if you could provide some sources supporting your post above I would be able to understand better?

Having said that, to try to get back to the main discussion here, do you think that any of this conflicts with the statement that "... an unwritten rule in Israeli politics has meant that Arab parties have never been part of government coalitions"? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of their level of independence, these were still separate political parties (due to the membership restriction issue), so we simply cannot say an Arab party has never been part of a coalition government. What do you need evidencing? The fact that "list" and "party" are used interchangeably in Israel is demonstrated that several parties have "list" as part of their name (e.g. United Arab List, National List, Rafi, Progressive List for Peace etc). The electoral law's requirement about lists is mentioned Knesset website. Even if it weren't for these parties, as I mentioned in my first sentence, it's too simplistic to say that Arab parties have never been part of a coalition government - Rabin's 1992 government was reliant on the support of the Arab parties, although they were not formally part of the coalition.

Regarding your second point, I think it is certainly the case now, but would need a couple of qualifers: "since the demise of the Arab satellite lists, an unwritten rule in Israeli politics has meant that Arab parties have never formally been part of government coalitions". Number 57 12:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, I'd rather we didn't have anything this simplistic in the article. It's an extremely complex issue and should be explained in more detail on the Politics of page. I'm concerned that trying to cover it like this in one sentence gives the simplistic impression that Arab parties aren't included simply because they're Arabs. However, the reality is that they aren't included because their platforms are incompatible with most other parties (supporting a one-state solution, or being Islamist or anti-Zionist). It also gives the impression that Arabs are deliberately being cut out of the political sphere, which ignores the fact that many Arabs vote for (over 20%) and are elected on Zionist parties' lists (oddly Likud Beiteinu were actually the best-supported Zionist party amongst Arab voters, getting over 4% of the total). Number 57 17:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Number 57, before we conclude here, the points you made that need evidencing are:

• "They are being described by the sources you quote as "not proper parties" because they were not truly independent bodies"
• "However, they were separate parties, as Mapai's membership rules prevented Arabs from joining it..... these were still separate political parties (due to the membership restriction issue)... It is also part of Israeli electoral law that a list "must consist of at least one registered party""

The first point appears to be your subjective interpretation.

The second point is the heart of the question, but the evidence you have provided so far is anachronistic, as the law you have referred to are all much more recent than the elections we are discussing. Having spent some time researching this, I don't think that prior to the 1992 Parties Law that there was a requirement for a List to also be a "registered" as a "Party". For example, the 1965 Yeredor case against the "Socialists List" suggests it was a list comprised wholly of individuals, with no mention of "registration as a party". Oncenawhile (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Re the Kaufman source, if they weren't parties, she would have simply said "they were not parties" rather than "they were not proper parties"; by using the phrase "proper", she is still saying that they were political parties, but not normal ones.

Re the Socialist List/al-Ard case, there is no mention of registration as a political party, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any. You may be right about the 1992 law, but unless we have a copy of the law that applied at the time, I don't think we can be sure. However, that would only prove that an organisation didn't have to be a party, not that it wasn't. I think we have to then bear in mind the Kaufman wording.

After all this, even if they were not legally political parties, they were still separate organisations to Mapai (you yourself referenced the fact that Mapai did not admit Arab members in the satellite lists article) that ran on separate lists to the Knesset, and so I maintain that saying that "Arab parties have never been part of government coalitions" is too simplistic a statement to reflect the complex reality. Number 57 08:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Number 57. Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of Kaufman. But I do agree that we can't be sure either way without more information.

I don't think we should avoid such an important topic because it is complex. One of the great qualities of wikipedia is that editors often work together to find accurate ways of explaining complex topics in a simple fashion.

I agree that we must not give the "simplistic impression that Arab parties aren't included simply because they're Arabs". They are excluded because they have "Arab policies". As you put it, "the reality [ ] that they aren't included [in coalitions] because their platforms are incompatible with most other parties" is exactly the notable point here. We could add that that doesn't even account for parties which are excluded because they don't recognise Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, despite that as we note here the majority of Israeli Arabs do not recognise that definition. So whilst "Arabs" are not "cut out of the political sphere", policies representing the majority Arab view are certainly cut out from government.

To solve this issue, all that the lead needs is an oblique reference somewhere to imply the undisputed fact that there are problems with the representation of Israeli Arabs in the government. I am relaxed about how we do it, so long as it can point to somewhere for a more fulsome explanation. One simple way is to state that:

"... an unwritten rule in Israeli politics has meant that independent[nb1] Arab parties have never been part of government coalitions", with "[nb1]" explaining that we mean Arab satellite lists.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that the proposed sentence is overly simplistic if it fails to explain why - and given the range of opinions about the country, some readers will make certain assumptions as to why that is. For instance, you mention problems with the representation of Israeli Arabs in the government - this is true, but it also overlooks ministers like Raleb Majadele. I really don't see it as being a sufficiently important issue as to warrant mention in the introduction – having worked on election articles for pretty much every country, this is a pretty common situation around the world (Turkey being a local example), but I would be quite happy for it to be discussed in the politics section, where justice can be done properly to the situation. Perhaps this text would be an appropriate overview:

Until the 1970s, the Israeli Arab vote was split between satellite lists of the major Jewish parties (which were part of every coalition government until 1977) and the Communist Party. After the Labor Party cut its ties with its last satellite party in 1981, several new independent Arab parties were formed, eventually coalescing into the Communist-dominated Hadash, the nationalist Balad and the Islamist United Arab List, which together usually receive around 80% of the Arab vote. The three parties typically win around 10–11 of the 120 seats in the Knesset, which is lower than the share of the Arab population in the country and caused by lower turnout amongst Arab voters and around 20% of Arabs voting for Zionist parties. Although some governments have been dependent upon the support of the Arab parties, none have formally been part of a government since 1977, as their platforms are incompatible with most Zionist parties. However, a few Israeli Arabs have held ministerial posts after been elected on Zionist parties' lists.

I think this explains the history and current situation in sufficient detail for the reader not to have to make assumptions, and I hope is also sufficiently brief not to add too heavily to the article. Number 57 22:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Number 57, I'm not a great fan of your draft because it ignores the intense criticism out there on the subject. I'm not saying we should turn it upside down, just that we should acknowledge that the negative viewpoints on the situation.

So you know what I mean, please could you read these five pages: [36], [37], [38], [39] and [40]

Supported by these sources, i have three amendments - (1) only one Israeli Arab has held a ministerial post, and he "felt like a hunted man";[41] (2) we must add the "unwritten rule" point (however worded); and (3) the only government dependent on the support of Arab parties (as opposed to Arab lists) was Rabin's 1992 government, and that in itself is notable. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Re your proposed amendments, a couple of them are incorrect – Majadele was not the only Arab minister (Salah Tarif was a minister without portfolio, and several others have held deputy posts), and Rabin's was not the only government to depend on Arab parties - Shimon Peres' 1995-96 government also did so. I also don't understand why the "unwritten rule" bit is needed if it's explained why Arab parties are not included in governing coalitions. If the Sons of the New Testament somehow won seats in the next elections, they could end up in a governing coalition, as their platform isn't diametrically opposed to the main ones'. Number 57 11:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No those two points are not incorrect as they follow multiple WP:RS. The reason why they do so is that Tarif is Druze (which the WP:RS separate out when considering this issue) and Peres's 1995 government was simply a continuation of Rabin's government (there was no new election until 1996). If we follow the sources we can find a form of words which we both agree on to include these amendments and not whitewash the concerns raised in the WP:RS. Do you have any comments on the 5 sources I suggested you read above? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are incorrect: Peres' government was a separate government - that's why it's listed as the 26th government, not just a continuation of the 25th. As for the Druze issue, some reliable sources include them within Israel's Arab population (and we have always included them in List of Arab members of the Knesset) and its clear that some self-identify as being part of the Arab population, but even if they weren't, that still ignores Deputy Ministers. My concern is why you are so keen to include "negative" viewpoints - why not simply let the facts speak for themselves? Number 57 10:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Number 57, certainly we should let the facts speak for themselves - the question we are debating is what facts we show. I am simply keen to ensure that a balanced set of facts are presented, even if that means showing the "complexity" of modern Israel. We should not hide things just because we don't like them. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Question 2: Democracy in the occupied territories

The fact that Israel illegally occupies 'disputed territory' (which for the record only Israel disputes, the rest of the world recognises it as belonging to Palestinians) and disenfranchised the native population where they cannot independently operate their own affairs without Israeli approval lest they face the wrath of illegal armed campaigns against their people, is like saying South Africa was a democracy because whites could vote, despite the bantustans designed specifically to concentrate blacks in certain areas, a la Gaza. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Or like the U.S.A. was a democracy before 1870 or 1920? Oh, wait... just your opinion again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Israel is as likely as democratic as the USA in 1870. The reason the debate exists today is because modern democracies are held to higher standard. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"independently operate their own affairs", well, they do. Some other user here already explained that Israel didn't annex the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinians there are almost all ruled by themselves - the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. The truth is that it's much more freedom/independence than what Egypt and Jordan ever gave them when these 2 countries held these territories before 1967. Yuvn86 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn’t the situation a bit more complicated than that? Israel has established settlements in the occupied territories. When Theodor Meron (not a person who can really be labeled as anti-Zionist) was legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, he advised creating the settlements would be a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Residents of these settlements can vote in Israel’s elections, other residents of the occupied territories can’t. I doubt we are going to solve it all here, but we should at least be able to agree there is a raging debate around the issue. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. That there is an issue here is undeniable. We don't need to solve it or unbalance the article with criticism, but we should not hide it either. Some minor factual wording in the lead can point to the issue, which can be elucidated in the main body.

To this question specifically, see West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord to understand a little re Israeli control of the West Bank over the last 20 years. In summary, in some areas the Palestinians have local government (akin to municipal authorities), but the Israeli government retains control of most of the powers that usually lie within the hands of a national government. And of course West Bank Palestinians have no ability to influence Israeli government, whilst the Israeli settlers do. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the statement: "Israel's democratic framework is also applied to the West Bank, but only in Israeli settlements."? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "democratic framework" and how it is applied to the West Bank? Infantom (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

i.e. In the West Bank, those living in Israeli settlements can vote in the Elections in Israel, whereas those living outside the settlements under Israeli military occupation cannot. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Because those people living in Israeli settlements are Israeli citizens, while Palestinians in the West Bank are not. They vote for the Palestinian Authority (whenever there's an election). It's not so difficult to understand.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct - that is exactly the point. The PA is in practice more like a local / municipal authority than a national government, as it is Israel which controls the West Bank's borders, channels tax receipts, and controls internal freedom of movement. So if the West Bank was more like a normal country, its inhabitants would be able to vote for both the Palestinian Authority (local government) and the Governement of Israel (national government). You hit the nail on the head. So presume you have no objection to including this reference? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What's your point? The West Bank is under Israeli occupation, which it doesn't mean this territory belongs to Israel. The Palestinian Authority is an autonomous government, not an independent country.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The occupation is semi-permanent (almost 50 years...), yet its non-Jewish inhabitants do not get to vote at the "national level". To leave a population disenfranchised for two generations is highly unusual in similar modern situations. And highly notable.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's about citizenship. And while Hamas and PA are not really national governments - it's mostly them who rule the daily lives, laws, education books etc of their people. Palestinians with Israel citizenship vote in Israeli elections, and those without, don't vote. Similar that Arab Israelis don't vote in Palestinian elections either. Yuvn86 (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. South Africa has the same policy around citizenship - see Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, 1970. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, boy, here we go again... Your comparison between Israel and Apartheid South Africa is a common libel among antisemites, although completely false. Today, within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts and in the Supreme Court. Under apartheid, black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population. They simply had "the wrong skin color". Laws dictated where they could live, work and travel. By contrast, Israel allows freedom of movement, assembly and speech. Some of the government's harshest critics are Israeli Arabs who are members of the Knesset. Even they are able to support terrorists who kidnap and murder innocent civilians, teenagers and babies, in cold blood. Furthermore, Israeli Arabs live much better and enjoy more civil rights and economic prosperity than Arabs in any other Arab country.

In fact, passengers on buses and shoppers at the mall represent a very mixed population of black, white, brown and possibly pink Jews, Christians, Muslims and others whose blood is indistinguishable when splattered on the ground in an act of Palestinian terror. There isn't racial or ethnic segregation in buses, bathrooms and hospitals... I know at first hand because when I visited Israel I was attended in a hospital where right next to me Israeli doctors were treating an Arab family. Israeli Arabs have everything what their brothers in Arab countries don't: freedom of speech, democracy, individual liberties, good health care, prosperity, education, jobs, rights, etc. You will find more segregation and conflict within Muslim minorities in Europe than Arabs in Israel. In fact, you could find more similarities between apartheid South Africa and the Arab countries, where gays, women, Christians, Arameans, Kurds, Maronites, Yazidis, Assyrians, Copts and other minorities are treated differently (in some cases also persecuted and slaughtered for religious or ethnic reasons)... Furthermore, racist policies are well know in Muslim countries. The fact is that black Muslims are mistreated far worse than allowed by Human Rights Organizations, or the poor construction workers from Sri Lanka who are treated no better than slaves, not to forget servants or domestic help from South East Asia etc, who are beaten, burnt or simply die of natural causes. The real apartheid against Palestinians exist in the Arab countries where they keep them in refugee camps without citizenship (unlike Israeli Arabs). They have kept their apartheid refugee industry as their "winning card" against Israel.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, where anyone can pursue higher education, get the best health care, etc. Israeli laws don't make a racial/ethnic-religious distinction like in apartheid South Africa. In Israel, no matter your ethnicity, whatever you are Arab/Palestinian or Jew, you can go to the same hospital, reside in the same cities, use the same roads, eat in the same restaurants, study in the same universities (even in OPt), swim in the same beaches, your vote will have the same value of Jewish citizens' vote, go to the same courts with the same judges that can be non-Jews, even in the supreme court. Arabs can be elected to the same posts, including Prime Minister, President, Knesset spokesman. It was demonstrated that the "Jew-only roads" are pure bullshit, the same with the "Jew-only buslines", pure propaganda lies fabricated by the Pallywood industry. Don't even mention the "apartheid wall", that do not make racial/ethnic distinction v. gr: Palestinians/Arabs and Jews live on the both sides of the fence. In any case, it's a security-related issue, not something based on racial segregation. But what the Palestinian Authority really wants, is to place Israel as the bogeyman. They have no idea of security. They would be overwhelmed by AQ, Salafists, Hamas and all manner of Jihad outfits, if it was not up to Israel that actually keeps them safe. For your information, Hamas planned a coup against Abbas in the West Bank this year! (Abbas himself admitted it). What they do not know, is that a Palestinian state cannot ever happen unless Israel's security is assured.

The Palestinian Authority is an autonomous government that controls the overwhelming majority of Palestinians in the West Bank, although it's not a sovereign state. Indeed, since PA was created in 1994, Palestinians under their control (areas A and B) have Palestinian citizenship and passports. Palestinians in Gaza are ruled by Hamas dictatorship. While the restrictions placed there by Israel are security-related, not something based on race.

Nevertheless, not everything is rosy in Israel and the Palestinian territories. There has been a difficult conflict for the last 94 years and shit happens on both sides (and both peoples have very good arguments). But if we want to contribute with something positive to solve this issue we should start by telling the truth. Comparing apartheid South Africa with the Israeli democracy is not a step in the right direction.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wlglunight93, your post is a straw man argument. I recognize that any mention of South Africa can elicit an emotional response, but we are talking about a very specific aspect here, and answering a very specific comment from Yuvn86. None of the points you commented on have been made or implied here. Would you mind commenting on the specific point raised regarding the disparity between Jews and non-Jews in the West Bank vis a vis voting for the government that has controlled the "national-level" aspects of their lives for 50 years? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, you mentioned the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, 1970, which was a racist law applied in apartheid South Africa, so don't talk to me about a 'straw man argument'. You implied that somehow Israel is comparable to the South African apartheid. I was answering to that accusation.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I identified a single similarity, as a direct response to a specific question. You responded by identifying lots of differences regarding unrelated aspects which were never mentioned, whilst ignoring the point I made. I suggest we focus on the point at hand, rather than worrying about subjective implications. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, how are Palestinians having autonomy equals that there's an apartheid from Israel towards them? Israeli citizens (of any background) vote for Israeli elections, Palestinians vote for Palestinian elections. You wrote that Palestinians have no word in Israeli politics, but Israeli citizens have no word in Palestinian politics and life either. Yuvn86 (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed you used the word "apartheid". I did not say or imply that. Apartheid is a very complicated word. We are talking about democracy, so I suggest we focus on that and not confuse the issue at hand. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yuvn86, you are missing the key point - that "Palestinian autonomy" is at a local level only (and then only in Areas A and B). So whilst many West Bank Palestinians can vote for their local government, no West Bank Palestinians can vote for the government which impacts their "national level" affairs (e.g. Israel controls the West Bank's borders, channels tax receipts, and controls internal freedom of movement). However West Bank settlers can (indirectly) vote for both the Yesha Council (which has effectively the same powers as the PA) and they can also vote for the Israeli national government. Do you see the disparity now? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wlglunight93, you explained your own point of view excellently, though I think that parts of what you wrote are either irrelevant to the article or show confused thinking. What you didn't do so well was to show an appreciation of either the purpose of Wikipedia or of what people who have a point of view other than your own actually argue. We're here to factually summarise what reliable sources say, which includes detailing what the different points of view are, not to establish what the truth is or to concern ourselves with contributing positively to finding solutions to the problems in the Middle East. What critics of Israel tend to argue is not that a state of apartheid exists in Israel proper, but that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians as a people amounts to, or shows aspects, of apartheid. Apartheid is legally defined as the institution of a regime whereby one ethnic group dominates others or gives itself privileges not accorded to others. Relative to defending itself against accusations that it practises apartheid, a fundamental difficulty that Israel has is that it defines itself as the state of the Jews rather than the state of all its citizens. The Zionist concept of 'hafrada' is a bit of an obstactle too.     ←   ZScarpia   06:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You contradict yourself, you write that it's about the territories, and 2 lines after that it's about Israel and its definition. Well, I don't know, logic tells me that most states are nation-states. Sweden has a Swedish majority, and even a cross on its flag even though most Swedes identify as atheists. Are you going to claim it's not a democracy then toward the seculars, non-Christians and the non-Swedes? Yuvn86 (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't write that "it's about the territories". My point was that you don't appear to appreciate what point of views other than your own argue. The first part of that sentence describes how you present views opposed to your own. However, in various ways, you've misrepresented the arguments of your foes. As Oncenawhile wrote, you set up a straw man. Sweden has a Swedish majority? Actually, the curious thing about Sweden (and something similar is also true about a lot of other states besides) is that Sweden has a 100% Swedish majority in that all Sweden's citizens are Swedish. Israel is something of an exception in that citizenship and nationality are not identical.     ←   ZScarpia   23:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And all Israeli citizens are Israeli. But just like minorities in Israel identity as Arab or Druze or other backgrounds, I gave a similar example with Swedish citizens who may identify as Finn or Iraqi or Lebanese or non-Christian. Yuvn86 (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yuvn86, your analogy is of a multinational state; noone is disputing that Green Line Israel is multiethnic / multinational. This "question 2" is not about Green Line Israel. It is about the occupied territories, and the fact that Israeli settlers in the region are deemed citizens of Israel eligible to vote in Israel, whilst everyone else are not. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To try to refocus this question, I believe we have established the following:

1. National democracy: Settlers in the West Bank can vote in Israeli national democracy; others in the West Bank are unable to vote for the government controlling their "national issues" (e.g. border control, channelling of tax receipts, internal freedom of movement)
2. Local democracy: Settlers in the West Bank can vote for their local authorities (forming the Yesha Council); Palestinians in areas A and B in the West Bank can vote for their local authority (Palestinian National Authority)
3. Precedents: No examples have been shown to reflect a similar situation in any other country apart from possibly South Africa historically

Does anyone disagree with any of these three points? If the above is now agreed, please could everyone then comment on an amended proposal for the addition to the lead:

"Israel's national democracy is also applied to the West Bank, but only in Israeli settlements"

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

My proposal: "Israel is a democracy within Israel. In the west bank, Israeli settlers vote in an Israeli elections, while the Arab Palestinians vote in Palestinian Authority elections." Ykantor (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Israel is a democracy within Israel." makes little sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree - I recognise what Ykantor is trying to say, but that form of words doesn't work. Also, Ykantor's draft makes a false equivalence between Israeli national elections and Palestinian local authority elections. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile - I'm afraid that your 3 "agreed upon" points are inaccurate. They borrow the term "local democracy" from other systems, but it does not apply in this case. The PNA is not a "local authority" but a national one, whereas the Yesha Council is no more than an interest group without any formal status. Jewish settlers in the West Bank, as Israeli citizens, vote in the Israeli elections. Palestinian residents of the West Bank vote in the PNA elections. Moreover, there are very few parallels to the historical South Africa. If any, there are many parallels to historical military occupations by democratic states, such as the post-war occupation of Japan. I agree with the claim that there are NO exact precedents, since the occupation of the West Bank is not occupying a territory that was a sovereign state beforehand, as the case was with Japan. Lophostrix (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Lophostrix, your "historical military occupations by democratic states" parallel falls over because the Japanese precedent you suggest and other similar situations were and were always intended to be temporary. What is the longest-lasting example you can show? We are coming up to 50 years in the West Bank. The South African situation, whilst with many differences, also lasted for decades.

As to whether the term "local democracy" applies to the PNA elections, I suggest you read our own article on the Palestinian Legislative Council. "The PLC has limited power and responsibilities, restricted to civil matters and internal security".

Perhaps we should try to avoid getting lost in the weeds here. No amount of mental gymnastics can avoid the fact that Palestinians have been semi-permanently disenfranchised from voting on major issues of national importance, yet those living next to them in settlements have not been. The citizenship point is entirely circular and only proves the point.

I am happy to continue discussing this nit-picking as long as people want. I am sorry if you have lived your lives until this point trying to ignore this issue. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico. 116 years and counting in the 19th, entire 20th, and 21st centuries. 2600:1006:B123:235C:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If only! The key difference is that the Puerto Rico disenfranchisement is applied EQUALLY to everyone who lives there. If you were born in New York but become a resident of San Juan, you become disenfranchised.

It's a good example though as the form of disenfranchisement is similar.

Hence the proposed text: "Israel's national democracy is also applied to the West Bank, but only in Israeli settlements"

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: First I strongly resent the personal tone of your last statement. You do not know me, my opinions or my "life" that you are so eager to describe. Please refrain from such comments in the future. For the matter at hand:

- The Japanese precedent is the best one I could find, because it was a post war occupation in modern times. It is far form being comparable with the Palestinian one, for the reasons we both mentioned. BTW, the occupation of the West Bank is also intended to be temporary (for this reason it was not annexed to Israel, unlike East Jerusalem). Unfortunately, some temporary things have an extremely long timescale. As I wrote, I DO agree that there are no precedents. I do not find any similarities to South Africa, except for the "long duration".

- I didn't mention the PLC at any point, but the PNA. This body DOES conduct the national affairs of the Palestinian people, including negotiations with the Israeli governments, and holds an observer state status in the UN. It is not a "local democracy", certainly not in the form of a local administration operating "under" a national one, such as what I understand your claim to be. (It would be helpful if you could provide an example of what you mean by "local democracy" - the US federal/state system?)

- As far as I know, the term "disenfranchisement" can only be applied to citizens of the disenfranchising country. In any democratic country, non-citizens cannot vote. As Israel did not annex the West Bank, the Palestinians vote in PNA elections (as I wrote before) and not in Israeli elections. The unique phenomena here are the settlements, in which (Israeli) civilians live in military occupied territory, and vote of course in Israeli elections.

- Hence, I would like to propose an amendment to the proposed addition: "Israel's democratic system also applies in the Jewish settlements in the West Bank.". If it weren't redundant and explained two sections below, I would also add: "Arab citizens in the West Bank are subject to the Palestinian National Authority administration and partake in its elections." Lophostrix (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lophostrix, I acknowledge the shortcomings of my last statement which was unnecessary. If it's any consolation it was not directed specifically at you (hence the use of the plural), and it was an "if" statement not an accusation.

As for the "intended to be temporary", some elements of the last 50 years of Israeli government wish(ed) it to be temporary, and some do/did not. Today's government is unquestionably leaning further towards the "permanent" end of the spectrum. The annexation point you reference is a red-herring, as the non-annexation was more likely for a mix of "international relations" considerations and "demographics" considerations.

You are wrong re the PNA / PLC / PLO, although I recognise this is a very complex subject. The headline point is that the only formally mandated elections are to the PLC, in which the majority forms the goverment of the PNA. Per the Oslo accords, the de facto powers of this entity are limited to "local government" type affairs (see here for a thorough explanation). The "State of Palestine" is technically the PLO not the PNA, and has a diplomatic role only. As the explanatory article shows, Israel retains the "State" powers over the West Bank.

As a result, I disagree with your proposed language since it juxtaposes "apples with oranges" in a misleading fashion.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, at least we both agree it is a very complex subject... The PNA was indeed created after the Oslo accords to conduct the internal affairs of the Palestinians, and the PLO was recognized by Israel to represent the Palestinians on a national level. However, the international community (including Israel, de-facto), recognizes the national status of the PNA, for example by membership in UN institutions, and the peace negotiations that were transferred from the PLO to the PNA. For the most part the PLO and PNA leadership is the same, which may lead to obvious confusion of roles. (My simple assertion here, is that if a body can appoint a UN ambassador, it certainty has a national, rather than local, status.) The head of the PNA is the President (currently, Abbas) of the PNA, who is ELECTED by the people, NOT by the majority of the PLC, which is also elected. The president in turn appoints the prime minister.

I do not accept your source, as it is rather obscure (I hope I'm not offending you if your are the author..), quite dated, and not to mention promotes a political agenda.

Regarding the "temporal" occupation - the Israeli government signed the Oslo accords, in which it stated that the occupation is temporary. There has never been any decision or agreement to null that. Whatever you, me, or anyone else think the Israeli government intentions are, is based on mere observations and interpretations, and quite frankly irrelevant to this discussion. The facts are that the Israeli government recognized it to be temporary, and since then it has been going on for about 20 years.

Please explain your objection to my proposed text, I did not understand your metaphor. Lophostrix (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lophostrix, thanks for your detailed reply.

It sounds like we are broadly talking to the same set of facts. I would summarise it that the [President/PNA/PLO] has both local government powers and a diplomatic role on the international stage. That diplomatic role is intended to build international pressure to confer national / state type powers on them. But they do not have those powers today. Here's another source, given you dismissed my previous one.

An explanation for my metaphor is found at the wikipedia article Apples and oranges. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: Ok, at least we are making progress. I agree with your summary and accept your new source (it is however dated and does not cover the developments of the recent decade, in which the diplomatic role of the PNA grew). Just a comment, that the diplomatic role is to represent the interests of the Palestinian people. Attaining state "powers" is just one goal (although a main one) and "building international pressure" is just means to this goal, the other more important one being negotiations.

Please don't ridicule my request to explain your objection to my proposed text (preferably without metaphors, food-related or otherwise). I know what "apples and oranges" mean, but I don't see how it applies in this case. Lophostrix (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lophostrix, what I was trying to say is that juxtaposing "Israel's democratic system... in the Jewish settlements in the West Bank" with the "Palestinian National Authority administration and ... elections" is implying a false equivalence given the national vs local powers of the respective electoral / legislative systems we have discussed above. I don't see a good reason not to state plainly and simply that part of the West Bank population participates in Israeli national democracy and part of it does not. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Question 3: should anything be included about the question around Israel's democracy status

Weight and NPOV standards recommend including majority views and minority views with prominent proponents. Israel’s questionable democratic status may be the majority world view. If it is a minority view, many prominent Israeli-born Jewish proponents of this view can be cited, including Ilan Pappé, Gershom Gorenberg, and Miko Peled, as well as many prominent non-Jewish proponents. Therefore, by NPOV standards it should be included.

In the lead, it might be reasonable to say: “Though Israel’s democratic status is questioned , the Basic Laws of Israel define a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.” This statement could be expanded in the “Politics” section. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(WP:BLP violation by an IP user.     ←   ZScarpia   21:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC))

Your use of sources is absurd. The same source by Freedom House states Israel is "free", but instead you decide to use the source about the "occupied territories" that are not part of Israel. This is the one that is relevant. Infantom (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Infantom, I suggest you read your own sources a little more carefully as it appears to undermine your argument. Here are a few quotes from Freedom House:

• "Palestinian citizens of Israel enjoy equal political rights under the law but face some discrimination in practice. Palestinian citizens of Israel currently hold 12 seats in the 120-seat Knesset—though they constitute some 20 percent of the population—and no Arab party has ever been formally included in a governing coalition. Arabs generally do not serve in senior positions in government."
• "After Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, Arab residents were issued Israeli identity cards and given the option of obtaining Israeli citizenship, though most declined for political reasons. These noncitizens can vote in municipal as well as Palestinian Authority elections, and remain eligible to apply for Israeli citizenship. However, Israeli law strips noncitizens of their Jerusalem residency if they leave the city for more than three months."
• "Israel hosts a diverse and competitive multiparty system. However, parties or candidates that deny Israel’s Jewish character, oppose the democratic system, or incite racism are prohibited. "

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

How does it "undermine" my argument? I claimed Israel's status is "Free" according to Freedom House itself, which is true. The fact that Israel's scores are high enough to be labeled as a free country-although the difficulties you mentioned- is the main point here, and that's what is relevant. That's also a neutral and reliable source to follow, certainly more than other biased interpretations. Infantom (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I think we are agreed. Gouncbeatduke, are you happy to add a few points into the article on this topic, but following the Freedom House source closely when you do so? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's start with the lead. The way it reads now the Freedom House reference on Israel is in the first sentence of the forth paragraph. Both the Freedom House reference on the occupied territories and the Freedom House reference to Israel is in the second sentence. I think this should give NPOV weight to all sides. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you in agreement that the key point of Freedom House reference is Israel's "free" status and its political rights rating? Gouncbeatduke, i suggest you post your addition on the talk page first, since your edits on this topic appear to be very controversial. Infantom (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree best that Gouncbeatduke post a proposal here first for discussion. Re the "free" status, that is important but is not sufficient without pointing to the issues raised. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The last attempt at wording, with all references, was:

In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and Democratic State. Though Israel’s democratic status is questioned , the Basic Laws of Israel define a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.

I have only been watching from afar, mostly, but I have a basic question. Why is Freedom House being used as some sort of authority on whether a country is free or not? It is just one US-based organization. The question is too vague anyway: what does it mean for a country to be free? Someone added Freedom House at some point, doesn't mean we have to use it. Kingsindian (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a very good point. It mostly only in the US, Canada, Israel, and the UK that you find the Freedom House parsing of a “Free” Israel inside the 1967 borders and a “Not Free” Israel including the occupied territories. The majority world view is that Israel is defined by the borders it occupies and that Israel is not free, as evidenced by the 2013 UN vote on “The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” (A/C.3/68/L.68 - Vote: 165 Yes, 6 No, 3 Abstain). The POV pushers here have not only removed the minority view of many prominent Jewish Israelis, they have removed the majority world view. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well said. Let's work with everyone here to agree a form of words which works for all. I think we're getting close in the threads above.

The important thing is to keep it very succinct and very factual. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You've already been told that public opinion is irrelevant and we should use reliable sources instead. You are the one that used Freedom House as a source (selectively) in the first place, what's your problem with it now? "The majority world view is that Israel is defined by the borders it occupies..."- is that a joke? No country in the world recognize the west bank as Israeli territory. Infantom (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Israeli democracy is not perfect, which is true for nearly all other democracies. e.g. The U.K, the "mother of democracy" occupied Scotland and although Glasgow resident voted recently for Independence, they are still occupied. The U.K occupied the Falklands islands, let British settlers in, and does not allow Argentina to resume its' rule. However, Britain is universally considered as a democracy. The same criterion should be applied towards all countries, Israel inclusive. Note: I am an Israeli, and in my opinion Israel should unilaterally withdraw from the west bank, but this is a different issue. Ykantor (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How and when did the occupation of Scotland take place? What form does it take? In the recent Scottish referendum on independence, Scots as a whole voted No to independence, though a couple of constituencies such as Glasgow and Dundee produced Yes majorities. Is Glasgow really being prevented from setting itself up as an independent entity? Doesn't the UK parliament refer to itself as the 'mother of parliaments' rather than the 'mother of democracy'? Wouldn't the 'mother of democracy' title properly belong to one of the classical Greek city states such as Athens? Are the Falklands governed like the Occupied Territories in that UK settlers vote in UK elections while indigenous Argentinians are excluded? Englishmen were the first to definitely land in the Falklands (and also South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands). Doesn't that give the UK some kind of legitimate claim to sovereignty over the Falklands? Jews colonised parts of the Middle East in Biblical (if the Bible is to be believed) and modern times. You have talked about the UK occupying Scotland and the Falkland Islands, but, to be consistent, shouldn't you be talking about the whole of the area controlled by Israel (including Israel proper) having been occupied too?     ←   ZScarpia   15:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid Ykantor is mistaken. Scotland is not occupied. Anytime it wishes, it can have a referendum and break off (it recently voted no). Does Ykantor think that if there was a referendum in the West Bank, it would choose to stay occupied? Anyway, that is neither here nor there. Nobody is talking about "perfection". The issue is how to present whatever political system Israel is, in the lead. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Are sources really questioning how democratic Israel is rather than whether Israel is a democracy? For the purposes of questioning Israel's status as a democracy, how do sources treat Israel's geographic extent? Before dealing with the Lead's treatment of Israel's democratic status, should we deal with that of the body of the article?     ←   ZScarpia   18:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Peel Commission Partition Plan, July 1937

- Technically Glasgow ( a quarter of all Scots) is occupied against the locals wishes. there are ongoing disputes about the Falklands and Gibraltar. We may find faults in most of the democracies, but they are still considered as democracies. The same criterion should be applied for all countries, including Israel.

-"'mother of parliaments'". Sorry for my mistake with the mother of all democracies.

- "Are the Falklands governed like the Occupied Territories in that UK settlers vote in UK elections while indigenous Argentinians are excluded?". I am not a legal expert but it seems that as an intermediate arrangement, it is acceptable that The Israelis settlers are voting in the Israeli election while the Arabs are voting for the Palestinian authority which is partially ruling there. As said, in my opinion, The final agreement(?) should include an Israeli withdrawal from the west bank. Even if this is a flaw, then in similarity with other democracies, Israel should be considered a democracy.

- "shouldn't you be talking about the whole of the area controlled by Israel (including Israel proper) having been occupied too?". Yes, I can see the logic behind this claim. Nowadays there are more than 12(?) million people residing between the Jordan river and the sea. But the 1st reliable census on 1922 resulted in about 800,000 people living here, and more than 1 million at the time of Peel Commission. It is a pity that the country was not peacefully divided between the Jews and the Arabs according to the Peel's map. No country in the world accepted Jewish refugees and the Peel proposed tiny Jewish state could have save a lot of Jews from the Holocaust (my own family inclusive). Please note that the proposed Arab state could not economically survive, according to both Peel's and UNSCOP's commission, unless the Jewish state would contribute some of its taxpayer money. Would not this proposed land division be beneficial for the Arabs? In return for a partition the Arabs would have the resources for maintaining good educational and medical services, which in turn would enable the Arab well educated next generation to prosper?

-"if there was a referendum in the West Bank, it would choose to stay occupied?" Definitely not. However, judging by the Israeli Arabs reactions to the proposal of annexing them to a future Palestinian state, some Arab Palestinians would prefer to be annexed to Israel, rather then being a part of a Palestinian state. Ykantor (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(See the Acts of Union 1707 article for details of how Scotland came to be part of the UK. It involved a vote not a military conquest. On the question of what proportion of the Scottish population Glasgow represents, see the following statistics. Scotland 2013 population: 5,327,700. Glasgow: Glasgow City Council population - 592,820; Greater Glasgow Urban Area population - 1,199,629. Glasgow vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum: 364,126 people, representing 75.0% of the Glasgow constituency's voters, voted; 194,779, representing 53.5% of those voting, voted Yes; 169,347, representing 46.5% of those voting, voted No. I very much doubt that the view that Glasgow is under occupation, even technically, is widespread or well established, even among Glaswegians.     ←   ZScarpia   22:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC))

I suggest we not try to decide it if Israel democracy status is questionable or not. We simply need to decide if the questioning camp should be allowed to have their voice included in a NPOV article. If the cited references of Ilan Pappé, Gershom Gorenberg, and Miko Peled are insufficient, we could also cite the Avraham Burg quote: “It will not be possible to define Israel as a democracy when a Jewish minority rules over a Palestinian majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — controlling millions of people without political rights or basic legal standing.” Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Ykantor: I am glad you say that you are not a legal expert; it is not a bad thing: neither am I. That makes your comment that "Glasgow is technically occupied" a bit less silly. Find one authority in the world that considers Glasgow as occupied territory. The fact that some portions of Scotland voted for independence in a referendum does not make them occupied. While West Bank/Gaza/East Jerusalem are considered occupied by all authorities. I agree with you that all countries are imperfect, but let's not indulge in silly comparisons.
• Regarding the other points, the Peel commission in 1937 is not relevant to the status of Israel today.
• With your comment about the Arabs voting in Palestine and settlers voting in Israel, perhaps the following comment from the "mother of all democracies"' record in India would be helpful. Here is "We shall not subvert the British Empire by allowing the Bengali Baboo to discuss his own schools and drains" (Finance Member Evelyn Baring, quoted in Sumit Sarkar, Modern India 1885-1947, pg 13). Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

- Even if we do not agree about Glasgow, what's about the Falklands and Gibraltar? When the U.S occupied the Philippines, wasn't it a democracy? When Holland occupied Indonesia, wasn't it a Democracy? There is no justification to apply a special criterion toward Israel, other than the one used for the rest of the world.

- ""We shall not subvert the British Empire by allowing the Bengali Baboo to discuss his own schools and drains"" . If you use harsh words like "silly", then this sentence is an example for a demagogue speaking, as the Israeli government accepted the principle of 2 fully independent states between the Jordan river and the sea. While the Israeli treating of the west bank is flawed, the Palestinians could already have had full independence. The main obstacle is the so called the right of return. The Israeli public suspect that this unrealistic demand is a cover for the conversion of Israel to an Arab state. And why the Palestinian leaders are insisting that the temple was not in Jerusalem? This is an historical fact and has nothing to do with politics. Unfortunately, the Palestinian leaders continue the disastrous policy of opposing the Peel commission plan in 1937, the 1947 U.N partition plan, and supported the plan to destroy Israel in 1967. Why can't we coexist peacefully? Ykantor (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the "so-called right of return" is contained in various UN resolutions and is also a condition of Israel's UN membership, which Israel agreed to. Perhaps we should move on from arguing about whether Israel is a democracy, to dealing with criticisms of the type of democracy practised there (ethnocracy / ethnic democracy / apartheid etc.)?     ←   ZScarpia   06:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

For such views you already have the Criticism of the Israeli government article. Yuvn86 (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Criticism of the Israeli government is for a detailed treatment of criticisms made of Israel's system of government. Nobody is suggesting that the contents of that article are repeated in the same detail in the Israel article. Can you, though, give a valid reason why a brief note to the effect that Israel's democracy is strongly criticised for being ethno-discriminatory would be unacceptable?     ←   ZScarpia   11:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

-"Right of return" is contained in various UN resolutions and is also a condition of Israel's UN membership, which Israel agreed to". I would suggest to avoid legal arguments. A good lawyer can always support both side, provided he has the right motivation. e.g. The Arab states opposed the UN resolution 194, including the text: the refugees should be permitted" to return to their homes at the "earliest practicable date" and this recommendation applies only to those "wishing to... live at peace with their neighbors".

The poor Palestinian refugees suffered a lot , and we have to concentrate in generously solving the problem while building a lasting peace in the Middle East. i.e. Jews should not rule Arabs, and Arabs should not rule Jews. A proposal for the right of return of millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel is a recipe for the end of Israel as a Jewish state and a disaster. The public in Israel would never accept such an idea. This is the major obstacle in the peace process.

- Usually I avoid pointless discussions concerning declarative statements, but those terms are used against Israel for one purpose- to illegitimate Israel for no reason. The critics are purposely using extreme terms like Apartheid , which has nothing to do with Israel. Israel has its share of wrong doing, and any constructive criticism is helping to improve the situation. But applying a special criterion toward Israel and other criteria for the rest of the world does not benefit anyone. Anyone who is interested to learn the issue , can read some of the Israel and the apartheid analogy sources : source 13, source 15, source 16, etc.

If Israel is such a bad place for Arabs, it is amazing that the Israeli Arabs prefer staying in Israel rather than being annexed to a Palestinian state, and it won't be a surprise if a significant number of the west bank residents would prefer being annexed to Israel. Ykantor (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor: Regarding your comment that one should avoid legal arguments, it reminds me of the old joke: "If the facts are on your side, pound the facts, if the law is on your side, pound the law, if neither is on your side, pound the table." For the rest, you may have your opinion about how terms are used, but that is not relevant to this discussion here. This discussion is not about the peace process, but how to describe Israeli political system in the lead. You can have your POV and I can have mine, but we can still have a consensus on a mutually agreeable text. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment about the "so-called right of return" claimed by Palestinian refugees. Your comment implies that the right of return is something invented by those refugees, which it was not. Unfortunately for you, your personal opinion of whether criticisms of Israel are valid or not count for nought here: if you want to stop statements about something being included, you need valid reasons, which don't include your personal disagreement with the contents of the statements. I would say that there are plenty of succesful multi-ethnic societies where minority groups are not discriminated against. Perhaps they work because those societies have low levels of ethnocentrism.     ←   ZScarpia   00:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

- "so-called right of return". I apologize for using these words. I should not have done it.

-"there are plenty of succesful multi-ethnic societies where minority groups are not discriminated against." Looking at Israel and the Arab states, the accumulated experience of Arabs under Jewish rule, or Jews under Arab control, is a sad story. It would be better to avoid such a rule. The idiom: "Good fences make good neighbours" exists in many different cultures and languages, and in my opinion describes the only alternative which leads to a lasting peace.

- Let us say that the reason for the problematic relations is a society that have high level of ethnocentrism. To my knowledge, the process of modifying the society or the people is very slow at best, and might take hundred years. In the meantime, the only alternative is "Good fences make good neighbours"

- ""If the facts are on your side, pound the facts, if the law is on your side, pound the law, if neither is on your side, pound the table." " A nice joke, but my proposal was to look at the facts and not entering legal arguments. Israel has its share of a wrong doing, which should be mentioned here of course. On the other hand, why to apply a one criteria toward Israel and different criteria toward other nations? Why to use a propaganda term like "Apartheid" which can be used since people does not know what is the meaning of this term ? Ykantor (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"The idiom: "Good fences make good neighbours" exists in many different cultures and languages, and in my opinion describes the only alternative which leads to a lasting peace." Perhaps. But perhaps not, especially when two people have been sharing a house and the phrase is being deployed by the person who has chucked the other out, kept all the furniture, changed the locks, but allowed the other to move into the garden shed temporarily as a 'generous concession'.     ←   ZScarpia   03:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We should ask ourselves what can be done for having a better future for all of us? why should the mutual killing continue? both sides have bitter memories. The poor Palestinian refugees has suffered a big disaster, and the Israeli public remember the Arab attacks of 1921, 1929, 1936-1939, 1948 and so on. The 2 opposing neighbors should stop dealing with the bitter memories and should look for a better future for both neighbors. Ykantor (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• What exactly is meant by, "Israel’s questionable democratic status"? Rationalobserver (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Israel’s questionable democratic status" is the term we have been using for the point of view expressed by the prominent Jewish Israelis Avraham Burg , Ilan Pappé, Gershom Gorenberg, and Miko Peled (see reference ), and the view expressed by the majority of the world’s nations (see 2013 UN vote on “The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” A/C.3/68/L.68 - Vote: 165 Yes, 6 No, 3 Abstain). If there is a better term for it, I think we are open. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

-Israel and Democracy. Please remember to use wp:rs and not some Israeli individuals opinions, that worth like any other person on earth.

-Those quoted individual opinions, does not have any argument or analysis that may substantiate their views. They just say that Israel is not a democracy or similar.

- The quoted U.N resolution does not say anything about Israel and democracy. This resolution is about "The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination". Where is the connection?

- Before writing in the talkpage, it is suggested to read about democracy and to understand what are the characteristics of Democracy, and whether the Israeli regime suit the definition. Ykantor (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• (via Feedback Request Service) I think something should be included, but your wording is a bit strong if it relies purely on the views of those four individuals. It might be better to say something more specific, such as, "several scholars have pointed out that as many as ... of Israel's inhabitants are barred from political representation". You should obviously check if your sources support such a statement. I don't see a lot of overlap with the UN resolution, so maybe that should be kept to the side. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 01:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Getting back to the question We need to ask a question of our own. First, is there significant evidence from multiple mainstream (NPOV) and reliable sources that challenges Israel's standing as a democratic state? If yes, then it probably needs mentioning somewhere in the article. But we need to be careful with respect to WP:DUE We also need to be cautious about sources and degree of acceptance. In my experience it's not hard to find sources for almost any proposition, including some that are patently ridiculous. If sources exist that cast doubt on Israel's status, but they do not indicate that this concern is widespread or mainstream, or perhaps the sources themselves fail NPOV, then the issue should most likely be treated per the guidelines of WP:FRINGE, again with proper regard for WP:DUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The views expressed by Avraham Burg, Ilan Pappé, Gershom Gorenberg, David Remnick, Oren Yiftachel, and Miko Peled (see reference ) constitute at least a significant minority view and may be a majority world view. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have to repeat: Please remember to use wp:rs and not some Israeli individuals opinions, that worth like any other person on earth.Ykantor (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ilan Pappé, Gershom Gorenberg, Oren Yiftachel, and Miko Peled are far from being notable Israelis and their opinions are far from being mainstream. They are considered to be extremely radical by the Israeli and Jewish public. Pappe immigrated from Israel after he was involved in a false academic publication affair (Teddy Katz's Tantura Libel). Not every fringe opinion should enter the lead or main text of the article. Do we introduce in the lead that many consider the Moon landing to be a hoax and a government-led conspiracy? You can find far more views supporting that then mainstream that say Israel is not a democracy. MathKnight 21:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Avraham Burg and David Remnick are certainly mainstream, Remnick is not Israeli. The rest are mainstream by world standards even if not considered such in Israel. I agree there are millions who say Israel is not a democracy, six who have Wikipedia articles should be more than sufficient to cover any 'significant minority view' standard used to date in Wikipedia. If you could find six individuals with Wikipedia articles who think the moon landing is a hoax then it should probably be included, but you can't find them because they don't exist, thus the hoax is WP:FRINGE and this is not. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that this is not a forum, and everyone have to obey the rules. Are you familiar with the wp:rs ? Have you read the Wikipedia:Five pillars: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons"? Ykantor (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor is clearly a POV pusher who is not interested in a NPOV article. I am familiar with wp:rs and have provided six reliable sources. Ykantor has provided NO reliable sources for his POV pushing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

-Please behave yourself. Personal attacks are not appreciated in Wikipedia

-Under this I.P address, there are no other contributions here. If you mentioned sources under other nickname, please read again the wp:rs definition. Ykantor (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's try to find a fair way of solving this issue:

• Ykantor, it seems you think these authors are fringe, which they may be in Israel, but in a topic area so hotly disputed in the global scholarly community you need to reach a much higher bar to prove fringe. What criteria are you using?
• Gouncbeatduke, can you bring sources from other respected (and neutral) academics to prove the names you're proposing are mainstream?

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The main claim so far to any of these six authors being WP:Fringe has been based on the fact Ilan Pappé was driven out of Haifa University by Rabbi Yaacov Perrin and the followers of his “even one million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail" philosophy. Pappé's move to a far more prestigious position at the University of Exeter has been seen by the world academic community as more of a comment on his unwillingness to buckle under to pressure by racists than the “scandal” claimed here. Following Pappé’s move to the UK, he was sought out by Noam Chomsky to co-author the now world-famous Gaza in Crisis, a book Publishers Weekly said "should be read and reckoned with by anyone concerned with practicable change in the long-suffering region". Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe this RfC has been incorrectly filed. The policy topic area is only for discussing policies and guidelines; I suggest pol (politics, government, and law) instead. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anon126: I believe we need to de-politicize the discussion and get an objective policy answer if the following statement is true:

The views expressed by Avraham Burg, Ilan Pappé, Gershom Gorenberg, David Remnick, Oren Yiftachel, and Miko Peled (see reference ) constitute at least a significant minority view on Israel's democratic status and may be a majority world view.

If the above statement is true, then their view should be included in the article. If it is false, it should not. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Most discussions will involve policies and guidelines, but if I'm not mistaken, the "policy" section is for discussing the policies themselves and changing them. I have no comment on this issue; I am simply saying that it should be filed in another section to attract more interested people (that is, people interested in politics and government). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

- I will appreciate it if you explain if those persons views should be consider wp:rs referring to the issue of "Israel democracy".

- do those views pass the wp:biased : "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking."

- do they pass the wp:sps: "Questionable sources are ... include websites and publications expressing views that ... rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

- Do they pass the wp:newsorg: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." etc. Ykantor (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The only claim made so far that any of these six authors do not meet all these criteria has been based on the fact Ilan Pappé was driven out of Haifa University by Rabbi Yaacov Perrin and the followers of his “even one million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail" philosophy. Pappé's move to a far more prestigious position at the University of Exeter has been seen by the world academic community as more of a comment on his unwillingness to buckle under to pressure by racists than the “scandal” claimed here. Following Pappé’s move to the UK, he was sought out by Noam Chomsky to co-author the now world-famous Gaza in Crisis, a book Publishers Weekly said "should be read and reckoned with by anyone concerned with practicable change in the long-suffering region". Pappé has published more than a dozen books dealing with Israel's democratic status. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Pappe is a wp:rs for history, but is he an expert concerning Israel and democracy ? does he pass the wp:sps, wp:biased, wp:newsorg as previously mentioned?. What is the other 5 sources status? are they wp:rs? Ykantor (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Pappé is a wp:rs for Israel's democratic status. As I said, he has published more than a dozen books dealing with Israel's democratic status. Those who continue to delete these six cited references from the article should be required to come up with a better reason than their feelings and one false slanderous allegation about Pappé’s academic record. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you repeating your personal view about those 6 persons instead of providing sources in which their status may be checked? e.g. Which of the Ilan Pappe books deals with democracy in Israel, as you repeatedly claim? does he pass the wp:sps, wp:biased, wp:newsorg as previously mentioned? Ykantor (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Pappe represents the cutting edge of radical anti-Zionism according to Shlaim, another member of the "new historians". This status has nothing to do with him being or not being wp:rs , but according to wp:biased :Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...". Ykantor (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You spoke out in favor of removing all reference the "new Historians" because you claimed they were not wp:rs in the history section. Now you are using a "new Historians" as a wp:rs. Clearly your only criteria for what is wp:rs is if it currently suits your POV pushing agenda. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

- yours:"You spoke out in favor of removing all reference the "new Historians" because you claimed they were not wp:rs in the history section." This is probably a mistake. I do not remember such a call. It does not make sense too, since I appreciate Benny Morris, one of the so called "New Historian".

- yours:"Now you are using a "new Historians" as a wp:rs". Pappe is not an objective historian at all, according to himself. I have not yet used him as a source, and I do not have any such intention. Anyway, according to the rules he is an wp:rs for history, but not for the subject which is discussed here.

- I have already warned you to stop personal attacks, and this is the 2nd warning. Although you have been asked to provide wp:rs, you have not found any one yet, and apparently prefer personal attacks instead of the hard work involved. Ykantor (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I read this discussion with much interest, and would like to add my two cents.. You are dealing with the extraordinary claim that a country which proclaims itself a parliamentary democracy (which Israel does, in its basic laws) is in fact not a democracy. As par wp:rs, "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." In this light, Ilan Pappe and other new historians make very poor sources, as they really do not pass the wp:biased (Pappe himself is very politically active). Reputable sources, such as CIA factbook and Freedom house, list Israel as a parliamentary democracy (the latter uses the term "electoral democracy"). Another well cited index, the Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index 2012 [42] gives Israel a score of 7.53, which puts it at the same category, "flawed democracies", as France, Italy, Portugal and above Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and many other countries whose democratic nature in not "disputed". For many reasons, one can find someone to dispute almost anything about Israel - but to call something "disputed" requires some more substantial source than individuals like Pappe et al... For the sake of fullness and accuracy, I would add a "criticism" subsection, explaining the shortcomings of the Israeli democracy. The Pappe citations belog there, IMHO. Lophostrix (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As Israel is product of British racist colonialism, it is not too surprising some British magazines are willing to rate just the Israel within the 1967 Israeli borders according to democratic status. The world view is significantly different. If you want to be fair minded, why would you ignore the fact that Israel within the borders Israel actually controls and has controlled for more than 45 years is not democratic? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

- You would better look for the meaning of democracy, colonialism and racism before you wrongly use them.

- Please look at history books and see that you wrongly say that "Israel is product of British...". The British Mandate started with the first High Commissioner at 1920 and up to 1939 it was neutral concerning Jews Vs Arabs, with some bias toward the Arabs, since the Jewish immigration was limited. The Mandate government so called assistance to the Jews was limited to a maintenance of an orderly regime that enabled the population (Jews and Arabs) to invest, build, establish factories and universities etc. This was the only support for the Jews. The Mandate regime limited the Jewish immigration, and members of my family were murdered in the Holocaust, because they did not have minimum money that was required in order to receive the immigration certificates. From 1939 the British turned against the Jews, and during the 1948 war they were considered an enemy by the Jews. Ykantor (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor, I suggest you look at the history books too. Just start a little earlier. Try reading Charles Henry Churchill as a start. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's worth pointing out that the appointment of the openly Zionist Herbert Samuel (see e.g. s:The Future of Palestine) as "the first High Commissioner at 1920" caused outrage in Palestine, and was heavily criticised in Britain. You are correct that Britain became more pro-Arab as the Mandate wore on, but to suggest that it started evenly is fantasyland.

PS - I am sorry to hear that about your family.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

- I have not said that the Mandate regime was strictly neutral in its' early years. It restricted the Jewish immigration and justifiably helped poor Arabs by giving them agricultural land in Bisan valley for peanut money. So if it was biased, it was not for the Jews. BTW As I recall, Herbert Samuel was the High Commissioner that gave the land in Bisan valley.

- Lets talk about facts. Will please provide facts that shows the British were preferring the Jewish side? I am not aware of any such a fact. Ykantor (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The facts are catalogued well in this book. It's worth a read. It covers Beisan well. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

- As asked previously, "Will (you) please provide facts that shows the British were preferring the Jewish side? I am not aware of any such a fact". Usually the person who claims should base his claim with support and not otherwise.

- Please note that even your direct link says: "Sir Herbert Samuel, the first British High Commissioner in Mandatory Palestine (1920–25) has been generally regarded as an impartial administrator. Sahar Huneidi argues" otherwise. Ykantor (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If we weren't so far off on a tangent from this discussion, I would summarise Huneidi and provide even more sources. However, I don't see how this will help answer the question that is the subject of this thread. If you would like to see theh facts summarised, I suggest you read pages 230-234 of the book I linked to. The impartial administrator is just part of the marketing blurb, as the publishers try to make Huneidi's perspective sound fresh (no major scholars I have seen conclude that Samuel was fully impartial. Anyway, can we get back to the point of this thread? Perhaps you could answer Gouncbeatduke's question " If you want to be fair minded, why would you ignore the fact that Israel within the borders Israel actually controls and has controlled for more than 45 years is not democratic? ". Oncenawhile (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: The Economist is indeed much tainted with modern liberalism, I should have chosen a more conservative journal to prove my point.. Frankly, don't quite understand your claim: are you saying that because of the colonial history of Britain, British sources should be considered biased with sympathy towards Israel? I wish it were true... The Economist is an important medium and is well cited within Wikipedia, unlike Pappe who can only be cited with regards to his own views. But I'm not here as a defender of the Economist. I listed other reputable sources, and you have listed no sources that are not private persons (which was my main point).

To your inquiry - you claim that you consider the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza "part of Israel", the people there do not have equal rights to Israeli citizens, therefore Israel is not a democracy? There are two problems with this: first, even if we were all to agree with this entire sentence, it is not backed by reputable sources (I won't go again into the Pappe thing) and is considered original research. Second, the first assertion of your claim "the occupied territories are part of Israel" is not correct. They are not considered part of Israel by Israel itself, the PNA, the UN or any other country. I also don't think that YOU actually consider these territories to be part of Israel, except in this context.

BTW, I did not comment on the question of how impartial the British mandate in Palestine was, as it is really besides the point here. It is a very complicated question, their views changed considerably over time and varied between personas. I could have written an essay about it just from stories I'd heard, if only I held any regard for long dead British officials... Lophostrix (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

- to Oncenawhile: As said, you should base your claim, and not me. Will you please show at least a couple of facts that are inline with your claim?

-Concerning Gouncbeatduke's question, I have already replied here few times: "what's about the Falklands and Gibraltar? When the U.S occupied the Philippines, wasn't it a democracy? When Holland occupied Indonesia, wasn't it a Democracy? There is no justification to apply a special criterion toward Israel, other than the one used for the rest of the world." Ykantor (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor , are you now claiming that Shlaim and the New Historians are a reliable source and should be included in the history section, or are you still claiming they are not a reliable source? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you return to the already discussed points? see my response of 14 Oct here.

- Will you please have a look at the definition of a wp:rs? A hint: An expert who is a wp:rs for submarines is not necessarily a wp:rs for Aristo. Another point- My opinion does not matter concerning wp:rs. Instead, we should follow the rules.

- You have not replied yet to my questions of 13 October here.

- Please avoid repeating the same point and try to reply to my questions. Ykantor (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I keep asking because you never answer the question: Are you now claiming that Shlaim and the New Historians are a reliable source and should be included in the history section? A simple yes or no would answer it.

As far as your question about the U.S. pre-WWII occupation of the Philippines, the thinking of most U.S. Presidents and most European democracy leaders at that time was that Asians and Africans were so primitive that they were better off being ruled by white people in America or Europe. So no, that kind of racist colonialist occupation would not be allowed under the rules of any modern democracy. If you want to say Israel is a democracy by 19th century standards, I can agree with that. Israel is not a democracy by any modern standard. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As said few times, my view or your view does not matter. Wikipedia articles should be based on wp:rs. It is a pity that you ignore the difference between a wp:rs for history and wp:rs for democracy. The new historians are supposedly wp:rs for history of Israel, but they are not necessarily a wp:rs for aircraft, nor they are automatically wp:rs for democracy. If you want to validate your claim that Israel is not a Democracy, you should support it with wp:rs for democracy. Where are those sources?

- As for you question, I regularly quote some new historians like Shlaim (not always) and Morris (always). You could have seen it in my past edits here.

-It seems that that you view countries as either democracies , or the opposite of democracies. However, each country has a different "amount" of freedom or democracy as compared to other countries, as published by Freedom House or similar establishments.

- Not all Jews share the same view, neither do the Arabs. (For Gay Palestinians, Tel Aviv Is Mecca) Arab Gays in the west bank might not share your view about Israel's freedom or democracy. The same goes for Arab women who are murdered because of the so called "the family's honor". On the other hand, Israel is occupying the West bank Arabs against their will. Israel democracy has flaws, but it is still a democracy.

- As for your claim of past racist theories, I am not an familiar with those views and it does not matter. Even in retrospect, those imperialist countries (e.g. The Netherlands,, Belgium) are seen as democracies during the time they ruled their empires. Ykantor (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Israel may not be a democracy by your standards, but your standards are irrelevant. There are reliable sources to support Israel's democratic and free nation status, and there was even an agreement to use them. What are your reliable sources? Infantom (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The views expressed by Avraham Burg, Ilan Pappé, Gershom Gorenberg, David Remnick, Oren Yiftachel, and Miko Peled (see reference ) constitute at least a significant minority view on Israel's democratic status and may be a majority world view. There has yet to be any reliable source produced to claim this is not the case. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, for the following reasons:

1. These sources are inherently biased, as other editors and I have explained already. They use the claim of "non-democratic nature" to promote other, unrelated, agenda. They are certainly not "significant minority view", but personal views of the people holding them, who cannot be equated with the views of governments and organizations dealing specifically with democracy. You also show no evidence of this being "a majority world view".

2. The democratic nature of many countries is commonly attacked by the media or minority groups (or others) as a rhetorical leverage to correct their alleged wrongs. One can easily find such "not a democracy" claims on the US, the UK and many other democratic countries. These claims do not make it a significant minority view.

3. It is illogical to ask one to provide reliable sources that something is insignificant. Had it been significant, you could have found RS (=unbiased) that support your claim... Lophostrix (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It’s funny how Wikipedia works. People who have published dozens of books or been speaker of the Knesset are claimed to speak only for themselves, and a handful of anonymous right-wing Wikipedia editors are claimed to speak for the whole world. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)