Jump to content

Talk:Israel/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61→Archive 65

Ethnic groups

Does the percentage of "Ethnic groups" cover people from "problematic areas" such as Gaza, West bank and Golan Heights? Meanwhile, location map excludes those "problematic areas". However, I hope Israeli census does not exclude Jewish in those areas. We need to correct all, especially location map that give error view. --AntanO 03:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, Israeli censuses cover all of the population in localities recognized by Israel. The entire Golan Heights are fully annexed along with the native population, as well as East Jerusalem. The rest of the West Bank is not annexed but the Israeli settlements there are recognized by Israel and counted as well. The Arab localities of the West Bank are not counted.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
What justification do they give for counting the settlements in these figures? —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you are trying to suggest here. Why wouldn't Israeli census cover Israeli settlements? --Wiking (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Because they're not in Israel, and not even Israel says they are. Jerusalem for example I can understand, as Israel has the Jerusalem Law, but the settlers in the West Bank are outside the country's borders even as Israel itself defines them. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It is a bit more complicated, becasue those people live in municipalities that are recognized by the Israeli government and under a direct-indirect kind of administration of it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
They are in disputed territories under Israeli control. It would be silly not to include them when Israeli census does, and Palestinian census does not. There is certainly some overlap concerning the parts of the West Bank which the Palestinian Authority does not control, yet includes their residents in their census data, but this is resolved in favor of the Palestinians despite their lack of control. However Israeli census includes all permanent residents of East Jerusalem, who are thus double counted, since the Palestinian census data includes them as well (sometimes even twice). --Wiking (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't give me this "disputed" nonsense. No country in the world says the West Bank is part of Israel, not even Israel. What you have there is an occupied territory outside the state. Anyway, my original question was: on what grounds are settlements counted in Israeli census figures when they are, even according to Israeli law, populated by Israeli citizens or residency-holders living outside the state's borders? How do they justify that? Aren't the census figures from the West Bank settlements recorded separately from the figures inside Israel's borders (as Israel defines them)? —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe that according official Israel's position currently the territory is "disputed", not a part of any country. Large parts of the territories will become the Palestinian state if it's ever established. Some parts of the territory, especially areas with many settlements near the green line, are expected to eventually become part of Israel, perhaps via territory exchange or any other solution agreed upon via negotiations. From this POV it makes sense to include Israeli citizen that reside in future Israel territories in census data. “WarKosign” 20:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Expected by whom? How do they decide what is "future Israeli territory" and what isn't? I find it hard to believe the Israeli state really does its censuses like this, it seems like such an extraordinary fudge. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Israel does not treat its citizens living in the settlements in the West Bank as 'living abroad'. Neither does Palestinian census data cover them. --Wiking (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Typo in Education section

"Maariv have describe the Christian Arabs sectors as "the most successful in education system"(...)" --95.222.63.14 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, fixed.“WarKosign” 18:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Mispresenting the text of the Mandate of Palestine document

In the "Zionism and British mandate" section, the article states the following:
"In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine under terms which included the Balfour Declaration with its promise to the Jews, and with similar provisions regarding the Arab Palestinians".
If one is going to use the Mandate document as a reference, one would do well to stick to the terms used in it, and not to twist its words and meaning.
The purpose of the Mandate of Palestine was to provide a "national home for the Jewish people", while not prejudicing the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". The latter is clearly not a "similar provision for Arab Palestinians" as for Jews, in that it does not mention national existence or independence as an objective for the Arabs of Palestine. Various provisions of the Mandate applied strictly to the building up of a National Home for the Jewish people:
"placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home" (Article 2)
The recognition and role of a Jewish agency as a "public body" in working with the Administration of Palestine to achieve that aim (Article 4).
The responsibility of the Administration of Palestine to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and...encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency...close settlement by Jews, on the land".
Enactment of a nationality law, to include "provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine".
Authorization for the Adminstration of Palestine to arrange with the Jewish agency "to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration".
At the same time, in the part of the Palestine Mandate territory east of the Jordan River (Transjordan), Article 25 enabled the Mandatory to "postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions". And indeed, the Transjordan Memorandum did just that, rendering the above-mentioned Jewish National Home provisions inapplicable east of the Jordan, while simultaneously keeping those provisions in force in the territory west of the Jordan.
Jacob D (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Jacob D
You are correct that "with similar provisions regarding the Arab Palestinians" is not an accurate description of the the terms of the mandate. The whole section reads like a Zionist coloring book. Zerotalk 23:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jacob D Feel free to improve that text in the article. Debresser (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to comment, the Mandate text doesn't say the Jewish National Home would/should be an independent country. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Israel's Land Borders

I would like to suggest a change to the description of Israel's land borders in the intro section. It is currently stated as: 

It has land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip[7] to the east and west, respectively, and Egypt to the southwest.

My suggestion is to change the part that says: 

"the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the east and west, respectively, ..."

to say: 

"the State of Palestine - comprised of the West Bank and Gaza Strip - to the east and west, respectively, ..."

Rather than providing a link to the Wikipedia article for "Palestinian territories", it would be more consistent to link to the Wikipedia article for "State of Palestine".

It may require some small grammatical tweaks, but this reading is much more consistent considering that there is a full article on the State of Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iproofreadwiki (talk • contribs) 20:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iproofreadwiki: Palestinian territories have defined geographical boundaries, State of Palestine has no definition of borders. If you think otherwise, please provide a source that defines borders of SoP. “WarKosign” 22:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Israel doesn't really have land borders with the PT anyway, this is just where Israeli sovereignty ends, but it isn't exactly a border, and it never was. The State of Palestine it self never existed on the borders it claims. Israel doesn't really have a border with the State of Palestine, becuase the State of Palestine doesn't physically exist in order for anyone to have a border with it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2016

41.78.74.19 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Official website

Recently a link was added to the infobox, saying that http://www.israel.org/ is the official website of Israel. That link redirects indeed to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Still, to say that countries have official websites, sounds strange to me. Opinions, please? Debresser (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit odd, but the WHOIS database says that the domain is registered by "Israel Foreign Ministry". So I guess it is legit. Zerotalk 11:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like MFA got a new catchy domain. However, what makes it "official" site of all of Israel ? “WarKosign” 20:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
That is precisely my question. I understand it is legit, but so what? Does that now mean Israel has an official website? The idea makes me laugh. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"official_website" is a parameter name in wikicode. It appears in the infobox as "Website", not "Official website" --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The Wikidata:Q801 entry has a similar entry, but uses gov.il Oncenawhile (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
gov.il is e-government website providing public services to Israelis, and it isn't available in English.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Krav Maga

In this article it listed Krav Maga as a martial art while practitioners and the founder identify it as a self-defense system. It has no relation to sport nor art as is the case with martial arts. It is purely a method for fighting with priority on surviving and crippling your opponent. It also does not rely on specific techniques as is the case with most martial arts yet trains people to rely on their natural movements in accordance with their instincts in a dangerous situation to perform effective combat maneuvers. So in respect to the origin and the country's relation to the topic, please change Krav Maga to be labeled as a self-defense system and not as a martial art.

"Krav Maga, a martial art developed by Jewish ghetto defenders during the struggle against fascism in Europe, is used by the Israeli security forces and police. Its effectiveness and practical approach to self-defense, have won it widespread admiration and adherence around the world."

On the wikipedia page for Krav Maga, the opening is "Krav Maga (/krɑːv məˈɡɑː/; Hebrew: קְרַב מַגָּע‎ [ˈkʁav maˈɡa], lit. "contact-combat") is a self-defense system developed for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that consists of a wide combination of techniques sourced from aikido, judo, boxing and wrestling, along with realistic fight training." I made this account just to fix this, I do not know the proper writing methods for this talk section but please make the necessary edits. Thank you.Soulsearchhk (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

At Krav Maga it is described mostly as self-defence system, but there are many sources that call it a martial art, including IDF blog and Krav Maga federation. Martial arts says that "a number of martial arts were adapted for self-defense purposes", including Krav Maga. “WarKosign” 08:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no contradiction between "self-defence" and "martial art" according to the common usage of those phrases. Actually the practitioners of most martial arts will tell you they are for self-defence. Zerotalk 08:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Zero. In general, I think "martial art" is the fuller description. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Debresser edit warring

User:Debresser, the article already has information about Israel's ranking in the Global Competitiveness Report. World Competitiveness Yearbook has the same scope, result, is redundant and less notable. Stop adding it back. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I already warned you on your talkpage. That is another report and another result, 21st instead of 24th. Ergo, we must have both. Now please stop edit warring, and per WP:BRD discuss first! Debresser (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
21st and 24th is the same. Regardless, it's not a lists collection. The sentence you add back doesn't add anything in this article which is already too big. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Triggerhippie4 and Debresser: you are both over 3RR for this article. Is it so hard to just stop reverting when there's a dispute? clpo13(talk) 22:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Why you point me to WP:BRD when you broke WP:3RR and I'm the one who took it to the talk page? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
See my post in the section below.
As to the edit itself, I maintain my position that there were two rankings in the article that are independent and reached different results, both sourced, and that Triggerhippie4's removal of one of them is simply removal of relevant and sourced information, and that in such cases Wikipedia rules say we should have both. I therefore ask to revert Triggerhippie4's last removal. Debresser (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, the latest update to WP:ARBPIA specifically enforces WP:BRD (a reverted edit may not be repeated without prior discussion and consensus) and therefore User:WNYY98 was right in undoing Triggerhippie4's edit. Debresser (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

In accordance with a template merge request, please replace the single instance of {{wayback}} in the article to the following:

{{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509230619/http://www.nyjtimes.com/Heritage/News/2003/Aug/InvestinginIsrael.htm |date=9 May 2013}}

Or optionally replace the whole ref with a {{cite web}} using |archiveurl=, |archivedate=, |deadurl=.

-- GreenC 04:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Fully protected indefinitely

Per Requests for page protection, I have changed the indefinite protection on this article to Admin access only. This is a high profile article, with an ongoing edit war. The indefinite Extended Confirmed Protection was having no effect on the continual edit war here. All future edits will require a request here for Admin assistance. Editors are welcome to request a change in this protection at any time on the above link. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, User:Debresser. You are here only once in a while making silly reverts out of spite resulted in editor who actually improve the article can't do it now. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just noticed that almost all of Debresser's edits here are reverts of my edits. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia this morning before work to undo my last edit, as I suddenly remembered that this page is under WP:ARBPIA (even though the specific edit has nothing to do with that). I appreciate the decision by EdJohnston to protect rather than block us. I will not continue the edit war, and as far as I am concerned, the protection can be lifted. Debresser (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am responding here to a request on my talk page from Triggerhippie4 that I lift the indefinite full protection, based on the above comment from Debresser to stop edit warring. The protection level has now been returned to indefinite Extended Confirmed level. — Maile (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Maile66, You should fully protect it from move, how it was. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. — Maile (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Maile66 It takes two to edit war. If your lifting of the full protection was only because of my comment to refrain from edit warring, what about the edit warring done by Triggerhippie4? Debresser (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I took into consideration the block histories of both of you, and restored he ECP on good faith. I am not assuming either of you was correct or incorrect about the individual edits that led to this. The protection history is there to show the length of the full protection, and the next admin who gives it full protection will most likely make it a longer duration. In this specific case, both the request for protection and the edit warring report were filed by editors other than either of you. Should this situation erupt again and is unresolved on this talk page, I would suggest that you both ask for Arbitration before the article gets full protection again. — Maile (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing sources

Hi. Could an administrator put the following sources next to the sentence "In May 1967, Egypt massed its army near the border with Israel, expelled UN peacekeepers, stationed in the Sinai Peninsula since 1957, and blocked Israel's access to the Red Sea[citation needed]"? (in the "Early years of the State of Israel" section):

[1][2][3]

And also this source next to "Israeli tennis champion Shahar Pe'er ranked 11th in the world on 31 January 2011.[citation needed]":

[4]

Thanks--Yschilov (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gat, Moshe (2003). Britain and the Conflict in the Middle East, 1964-1967: The Coming of the Six-Day War. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 202. ISBN 0275975142.
  2. ^ John Quigley, The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. 32.
  3. ^ Samir A. Mutawi (18 July 2002). Jordan in the 1967 War. Cambridge University Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-521-52858-0. Although Eshkol denounced the Egyptians, his response to this development was a model of moderation. His speech on 21 May demanded that Nasser withdraw his forces from Sinai but made no mention of the removal of UNEF from the Straits nor of what Israel would do if they were closed to Israeli shipping. The next day Nasser announced to an astonished world that henceforth the Straits were, indeed, closed to all Israeli ships
  4. ^ "The Best Tennis Players from Israel". Ranker.
Done. El_C 09:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

Please update the address of the website of Beit Hatfutsot from http://www.bh.org.il/about-us.aspx to http://www.bh.org.il/ (the current link does re-direct to the new about page, but it is an old and non-existing URL). Also, please change the description "is an interactive museum devoted to the history of Jewish communities around the world" to "is an interactive museum devoted to telling the story of the Jewish people". Thank you very much. 132.66.56.200 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done. The link to BH is only from within a citation, and there it points specifically to the about page since it specifically quotes the Beit Hatfutsot Law that defines Beit Hatfutsot as “the National Center for Jewish communities in Israel and around the world”, hence the description in this article. I could update the citation to point to current about page but since the redirect works fine I see no point. “WarKosign” 08:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

In the administrative divisions, the last sentence says Tel Aviv and Haifa rank as Israel's next most populous cities, with populations of and 278,903, respectively. Obviously there's a number missing, which is 432,892 according to given source. Therefore, the sentence should say Tel Aviv and Haifa rank as Israel's next most populous cities, with populations of 432,892 and 278,903, respectively. Please somebody add the population of Tel Aviv. Thanks.--Yschilov (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. El_C 14:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2017

Truthfuleditor (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Israel was an illegally erected state which continues to oppress the Palestinian people native to the region for over 2000 years.

please insert the truth in order to present the full story

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It does not matter what you consider truth, it matters what reliable sources say. If you want to get your "truth" straight, see Palestinians#Palestinian_history_and_nationalism: there were no "Palestinians" before 1834 or maybe even 1920. See History of ancient Israel and Judah: Israelites populated the area about 3000 years ago. “WarKosign” 07:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Truthfuleditor: Please also note (in addition to the above) that a request for edit protection is not the place for discussion of this sort. Page edit protection is where a request is made to protect the page from editing of non confirmed users (typically due to frequent vandalism). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This POV bullshit can and should be removed from this page per WP:ARBPIA3. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Israel's sovereignty over West Bank/Jerusalem partly recognized internationally

Israel's Prime Minister said that Jerusalem is undivided capital of Israel. He, as well as several other MP's of Israel said most of, and sometimes All of West Bank will be part of Israel forever. For example Naftali Bennett said era of Palestinian State is over.[1]. These should be noted in this article.

Also, this article is not neutral when it says Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem is not internationally recognized. PM Benjamin Netanyahu said he does not care what biased UN says, and similarly, US congress said all of Jerusalem and most of West Bank belongs to Israel, and also disregarded what UN said [2]. So Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem and West Bank is partly recognized internationally.--Trepcost (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In the United States, the House of Representatives does not set foreign policy; the president does. Netanyahu can "welcome" a House vote, but the vote doesn't mean diddly-squat. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Whether the House of Representatives does or does not set foreign policy is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it is true to say that Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem is not internationally recognized. It is important to remember that Jerusalem is treated differently from the West Bank. West Jerusalem was part of Israel's pre-67 boundaries but neither that nor Jordanian sovereignty over East Jerusalem was widely recognized. However foreign policy is also shaped by nations' interests and so it would be more accurate to say that "Israel's claim of sovereignty over Jerusalem is not officially recognized." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:BBA0:2A00:84D1:A791:77A2:212C (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
There's no point in arguing about whether the U.S. president sets foreign policy (he does), or whether the West Bank and Jerusalem are different (only in Israel's eye's). A month after Trump took office, the United States still doesn't recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, despite Trump's promise that he would move the U.S. embassy hours after his inauguration.
We can quibble over the wording of the sentence, but the phrase "officially recognized" is a pleonasm. The only way states recognize things is officially, so like "Jewish religious law", the phrase "officially recognized" has an unnecessary word. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz: Well, if that's the case, then the US president-elect Donald Trump, who will take office on Jan.20th, said the same. And he also is in the process of relocating US embassy in Israel, to Jerusalem. Trump: 'Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people.'[3]--Trepcost (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. Every U.S. presidential candidate in recent decades has promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but it's still in Tel Aviv. Talk is cheap. When the facts on the ground change, we should update the article to reflect them. Until then, there's no reason to. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that many presidents said it, But if that's the case, then US recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital a decade ago, and therefore Israel's sovereignty over West Bank/Jerusalem PARTLY recognized internationally.--Trepcost (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say presidents, I said presidential candidates. Here's what The Forward said in an editorial last month:
During the campaign, Trump promised to move the United States embassy from ... Tel Aviv to somewhere in West Jerusalem, but so do most candidates. Then they get into office and realize how ridiculously complex the issue is — how such a move would inflame the Arab world by implying that Jerusalem’s status was already settled when it is not; how difficult it would be to secure embassy personnel in a relatively small, contested city; how the new location would reward what many see as an Israeli occupation of Palestinian land soon to enter its 50th year.
The New York Times wrote: "An Embassy in Jerusalem? Trump Promises, but So Did Predecessors". As the Times article points out, every six months over the past decade, the U.S. president has chosen not to move the embassy to Jerusalem. If it ever happens, it will be news. The fact that somebody talks about it isn't. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
However, now it's different. The elected president Donald Trump said: 'Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people.'[4]--Trepcost (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
That's nice. He also said he didn't know who David Duke was, and he likes to associate with a man who stomped somebody to death.
As I wrote, talk is cheap, especially with Carrot-Top. When he actually becomes president (on January 20), we'll see whether anything changes. If it does, we should update the article. But don't hold your breath. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Malik is right, there is no international recognition for Jerusalem as Israel's capital. There is, in fact, some recognition (e.g. Russia and China, I think) as East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. If Tramp recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, then still the Palestinian claim would have more recognition since Trump will only set US foreign policy. --Dailycare (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Golan Heights

PM Netanyahu said already ANNEXED Golan Heights forever part of Israel. Many noted authority, such as senator Ted Cruz, said the Golan Heights is part of Israel's sovereign territory.[5]. At least some of these should be noted in the article.--Trepcost (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ted Cruz, a "noted authority"? ROFL — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This is fairly well covered already in the article. Israel occupies the Golan and has, in a move condemned internationally and ruled null and void by the UNSC, applied its civil law to that territory. It continues to be considered Syrian territory held under military occupation by Israel by the overwhelming majority of states and sources. If your expectation is that we include as fact minority positions, such as the Golan Heights is Israeli sovereign territory, you will be disappointed. nableezy - 17:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It's inconceivable that the Golan Heights will ever be returned to Syria or to anyone else considering its strategic importance to Israel. And I know of no poll taken in Israel that supports returning the Golan Heights to Syria, so when referring to the Golan Heights I have no objection to it being treated as de facto Israeli territory. Jtpaladin (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It should be treated as de-facto territory of Israel for the simple fact it is de-facto territory of Israel, more than the West Bank. Unlike the West Bank however, there is no dispute whatsoever that the Golan Heights are an occupied-territory according to international law.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It should be treated the way reliable sources treat it, that being as Syrian territory occupied by Israel and in which Israel, in an internationally condemned move, has applied its civil law to. Israeli polls or Israeli political leaders intentions arent exactly whats relevant here. Nor are the conceptions, or limits thereof, of people on Wikipedia. nableezy - 18:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
And what I meant about Netanyahu's statements is to include the content of his comments but not as quotes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Israel annexed West Bank

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In February 2017, Israel passed a law retroactively legalizing about 4,000 settler homes built on privately owned so-called Palestinian land in the West Bank.[6] Golan forever part of Israel as it's inconceivable for anyone with right mind that the Golan Heights will ever be returned anyone. Israeli PM Netanyahu also said this. Finally Donald Trump and Netanyahu, as well as MP's both in Israel and USA, such as Naftali Bennett of Israel, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cuz of USA and the list goes on and on, said Jerusalem is undivided capital of Israel. In summary, Palestine does not exist, and shouldn't be mentioned in this article as a state--Samoa Rusev (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that conclusion is taking things a bit too far. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Palestine is an imaginary made-up virtual state, without actually existing as it does not have any land. Maybe refer it as a virtual state here? Even President Donald Trump said he doesn't want to create this new Palestinian state[7]--Samoa Rusev (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually it does have land. The question is more how much of a state is it. According to international law, including the Montevideo Convention, not much. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This is not a forum. What specific passage are you referring to? El_C 20:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Debresser: If you are referring to Gaza, even Palestinians themselves say it's still part of Israel[8]--Samoa Rusev (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless you have specific suggestions to improve the article (refer to actual passages), I will be removing this entire discussion as offtopic. Thanks. El_C 21:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

In summary, Israel passed law to annex West Bank in February 2017. Reliable source:[9] Since Palestine does not have land, it should be referred to as "virtual state" here. ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED--Samoa Rusev (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the article about the law, but unless you can cite reliable sources (with due weight), this is original research. El_C 21:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Samoa Rusev needs to stop this immediately, Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. I strongly encourage established users who know WP policies inside and out to revert policy violations rather than feeding them. Jeppiz (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Proclaimed" should be "constitutional"

blocked as a sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the lead there is a part that reads: "....and proclaimed capital is Jerusalem." The statement should instead say "....and constitutional capital is Jerusalem." There should also possibly be a wikilink to the Constitution of Israel with the word "constitutional". It's me again (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The propose of the statement is to clarify that while Jerusalem is considered capital by Israel, officially there is no recognition by other states. Jerusalem Law is a basic law and thus is considered a draft for the future constitution, but I don't think it's very important to mention here. If you can think of a way to add it to this statement without losing the more important point (dispute over Jerusalem's status) - please suggest it here. “WarKosign” 12:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Early years of the State of Israel: picture

Under the picture of the occupied lands from the Six days war, you should mention also the return of Gaza strip to a full palestinian control. Further information can be reached under the Article: Israeli disengagement from Gaza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.133.54 (talk • contribs)

Thank you.

What full Palestinian control are you talking about? Zerotalk 03:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The control isn't full, it's nominal. El_C 03:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Inside Gaza there is no Israeli control or even one Israeli soldier. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I hope you never have to live in such an uncontrolled environment. Zerotalk 02:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
This is what I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza
This land called "Gaza strip" although has not formally held by any country, since 2004 is under the authorize of the
Palestinian National Authority/Hamas and not by Israel for sure. Israel has gave up this land by any aspect you want to examine it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.133.54 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
This is explained and sourced in the article at note 2: Israel#cite_note-note2-23.
Oncenawhile (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Zero, my friend. I wish the same for you and yours. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

History in the lead

Currently, the paragraph about history in the lead section starts with this:

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine. This specified borders for new Arab and Jewish states and an area of Jerusalem which was to be administered by the UN under an international regime. The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, David Ben-Gurion, the executive head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel", which would start to function from the termination of the mandate. The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration. Neighboring Arab armies invaded the former British mandate on the next day and fought the Israeli forces.

1. It fails to mention that Jews accepted the plan and Arabs rejected it.

2. It describes borders in the plan and mention of Eretz Israel in the Declaration without specific borders. This is WP:CHERRYPICKING to imply that the Declaration contradicts the plan, which is not true because "in Eretz Israel" doesn't mean "in all of Eretz Israel", and declarations of independence, to my knowledge, do not specify borders.

All this creates an image as if the UN set up borders, next year Israel violated it, so Arabs responded with war. I suggest removing all mentions of borders and the UN plan, because not only it's deceiving but overly detailed for the lead anyway (look at other countries). Or, at least, information about initial Arab rejection of the plan should be added. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

1. The Arabs accepted partition and invaded?
2. The declaration avoided mention of borders because of an explicit decision made after a debate on the subject. It wasn't a default position but an intentional act. If the Jewish Agency thought it was worth arguing about for hours as they wrote the declaration, it is worth a mention by us. Zerotalk 11:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The plan was rejected, and forcefully so, by the Arabs. That was a very important, I'd even say fateful, step from their side, and should definitely be in the lead. Debresser (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd remove "and fought the Israeli forces". I have two reasons, although they are contradictory. 1. Obviously they fought the Israeli forces, whom else? The English had left. 2. They would have slaughtered all Jews in Israel, had the Israeli forces let them, so their purpose was not fighting Israeli forces, rather all Jews. Debresser (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with both points. It's best to shorten the lead and make it more neutral by removing mention of the borders, but if there is strong objection - Arab rejection of the partition plan must be added. “WarKosign” 16:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
So, any objection to this shortened version:

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine which specified borders for new Arab and Jewish states. The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, David Ben-Gurion, the executive head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel", which would start to function from the termination of the mandate. Neighboring Arab armies invaded the former British mandate on the next day.

“WarKosign” 09:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that borders are not relevant. The below redraft will explain why.

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine which specified borders for new Arab and Jewish states and an internationalized Jerusalem. The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. In April, Jewish forces launched an offensive, crossing into the allotted Arab and International territories. As the mandate terminated, David Ben-Gurion, the executive head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel", without specifying its borders. Neighboring Arab armies invaded the former British mandate on the next day.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
This is biased to the extreme. It mentions borders in the plan, doesn't explain complete Arab rejection, and then you pick one episode of civil war implying crossing territory means annexation.
If we mention the plan at all, we should mention Arab rejection. They never accepted the idea of partition, not specific borders, so mention of borders should be dropped altogether.
It's the lead, not history section. Other sentences are too detailed and redundant, and could be merged and shortened. Exact dates are also unnecessary:

In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states. It was accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and rejected by Arab leaders. At the end of the British Mandate in 1948, David Ben-Gurion, president of the Jewish Agency, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel". Neighboring Arab armies invaded the former British mandate on the next day.

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd support that proposal, with "The plan was accepted" instead of "It was accepted", for clarity. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I see where you are coming from. The danger of simplifying is that we lose important nuance which allows for an NPOV. What we can't accept is something that reads too much like the standard propaganda narrative. Below builds on your version but tries to maintain the required balance.

In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states and an internationalized Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and rejected by most Arab leaders. At the end of the British Mandate in 1948, the Jewish Agency declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel", neighboring Arab armies invaded and took control of the Arab areas, and the Arab–Israeli War was triggered.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It was rejected by all Arab leaders, not most.
What "took control of the Arab areas" mean and what does it add? Did they took control of all Arab areas? Did they not go into Jewish areas? Is it important?
Last part may be dropped because right after this portion there's already following sentence in the article: "Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states ..."
+minor reduction:

In 1947, the United Nations adopted a Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states and an internationalized Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and rejected by Arab leaders. Next year, the Jewish Agency declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel". Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied territories including the West Bank, Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip (still considered occupied after 2005 disengagement).

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead section lists territories occupied in the past

Not lead-worthy. I suggest changing this:

Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (1956–57, 1967–82), part of Southern Lebanon (1982–2000), Gaza Strip (1967–2005; still considered occupied after 2005 disengagement) and the Golan Heights.

to this:

Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied territories including the West Bank, Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip (still considered occupied after 2005 disengagement).

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Mild support as removing details from the lead. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
We can add dates to each in an explanatory note, maybe. El_C 16:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess this discussion now can be moved to #History in the lead.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel/Archive_59&oldid=1136828404"