Talk:Criticism of Israel/Archive 1

Proposed summary in Israel article
See discussion here. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Why is there an article on criticism of the Israeli government? This is a very broad topic, and not suitable for one article. I am not aware of articles on criticism of any other government, from America, Russia through to Nazi Germany. So why the article on Israel?203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While it is a natural impulse to argue for deletion of an article (or for the keeping of an article) based on precedents set elsewhere in WP, the precedent approach does not appear to be favoured in Wikipedia. The essay WP:Other stuff exists argues against using WP precedent to argue for deletion or keeping of articles. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism at the United Nations
"Criticism at the United Nations" was all synth. The sources do not discuss this as criticism. Please find sources before readding.Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your deletion has been undone - you must read the quotes in the first three references before any synth claims please. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The image in that section is OR (the uploader even says so on the file's page). Also, its use is misleading in relation to the section, because it charts UN Resolutions about the Middle East, which is not the same thing as Resolutions critical of Israel. The reasons why the Middle East would have had a lot of Resolutions passed in relation to it are obvious, but not directly connected to what is being discussed. --FormerIP (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead section needs improvement
I added a "Lead rewrite" tag because the lead section does not summarize the body of the article. The lead is not bad, but it needs to be updated and streamlined to parallel the article's body. The purpose of the tag is to draw attention of editors to the lead, with the hope that they will improve it. Also, I think the lead is a bit too long. --Noleander (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And I removed it, because templating is supposed to be a last resort, when editors can't agree, not just something you do immediately. I don't see a problem with the lead, myself. Did you have some specific proposal or proposals you want to discuss? –  OhioStandard  (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, read my comments immediately above. --Noleander (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen no consensus that the lead needs to be rewritten, it's just you saying so, at this point. Further, you added the "lead rewrite" template on 15 January unilaterally and boldly, i.e. without discussion or consensus. I reverted that around twelve hours ago. My doing so put us at the "discuss" stage of the "bold / revert / discuss" cycle. But instead of discussing to try to gain consensus that the lead needs to be rewritten, or proposing an alternative lead section here, you just reinstated the template. I'm sure you just weren't thinking about it, but that does violate our WP:BRD norm. I'd appreciate it if you'd undo your reinstatement and, perhaps over the next couple of days, present here the text of an alternate lead section that you'd prefer or, at the very least, be patient and see if consensus develops that the template is called for. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead paragraph does not conform to WP:Lead. See detailed discussion below in in this talk page in section named "Lead re-write".  It explains the problems.  I dont have time to fix them now.  A tag is an appropriate and sensible way to draw the attention of other editors to outstanding tasks.  --Noleander (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd forgotten you'd broken out another section about the lead, so thanks for reminding me. But I think you're missing my point: that I don't see consensus that the lead needs to be re-written. Without that consensus, it's not "an outstanding task" at all, one that justifies a template, but only an item on a personal wish list. For that reason, and because of where we are (or should be) in WP:BRD, I do think you need to undo your reinstatement of the template, for now, and then, when you have time to get to it, draft a new lead section and present it for comments here. Concisely: "No consensus that the lead needs to be rewritten" means "no template saying it does." –  OhioStandard  (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, tags serve to notify drive-by editors that work remains to be done, in the hope that one of them will have time and interest to finish the job. Dont forget that this article is virtually brand new .. it reasonable at this immature stage that it would have some significant shortcomings.  About 50% of the article's content is not even hinted at in the lead.   If you want to start an RFC to see if the lead complies with WP:Lead go ahead, but the outcome will be that it does not. Rather than wasting time adding comments into the Talk page, why dont you spend time editing the lead so it follows WP:Lead?   --Noleander (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Incubate section on "criticism from Israelis"
I've moved the section on "criticism from israelis" from the article to here (Talk page) since it is very much a rough draft. The section's content is/was merely a bulletized list of sources: I have no objection to the section, but it needs to be encycloped-ized before it goes into the article. --Noleander (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Prophets Outcast: A Century of Dissident Jewish Writing about Zionism and Israel by Adam Shatz, 2004
 * Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers: Conversations with Jewish Critics of Israel by Seth Farber, 2005
 * With Friends Like These: The Jewish Critics of Israel by Edward Alexander, 1992
 * Jewish Peace Activists: Noam Chomsky, Gerald Kaufman, Norman Finkelstein, Martin Buber, Refusal to Serve in the Israeli Military
 * Is It Good for the Jews?: The Crisis of America's Israel Lobby by Stephen Schwartz, 2006
 * The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand and Yael Lotan

Criticism of Israel as antisemitism
I propose to generalize the existing "Singling out" section to be "Criticism of Israel regarded as antisemitism". I think there is a large amount of material on that topic, and the notion of "singling out" is just one facet of that topic (another facet is "double standards"). WP already has the article New antisemitism which touches on the topic of "criticism of Israel regarded as antisemitism", but that article is limited to sources/material that expressly use the term "new antisemitism". There are many other sources that discuss the topic, but do not do so within the context of "new antisemitism". I propose to include the "criticism of Israel regarded as antisemitism, but not within the context of new antisemitism" material in this article. --Noleander (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Am fine with your move, but I separated out the "singling out" topic. Looking at Sharansky's explanation, I think there are really only two categories:
 * 1) Delegitimization = Anti-zionism
 * 2) Singling Out = Both Demonization ("out of proportion") and Double Standards ("criticized soundly for thing any other government would be viewed as justified in doing"). The concepts of proportion and comparisons vs other governments are flexible, often impossible to prove/disprove and importantly to this discussion overlap quite considerably in their scope - as such the term singling out is often used interchangeably to apply to both of these topics and feels like a cleaner umbrella categorisation to use for this article.
 * The Anti-Zionism question fits only tangentially in the scope of this article, but the singling out debate is very widespread and is a complex topic so needs space to be dealt with properly. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead re-write
I think the lead needs improvement: it does not summarize the body of the article very well, and seems to be overly detailed. I propose to improve it by: About my only misgiving is removing some detail that is not in the body: I hate the thought of losing a citation that someone worked hard to find. So I'll make sure those are replicated in the article body. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Structuring it to summarize the body, in the same order that the body is laid-out.
 * 2) Remove footnotes
 * 3) Remove excessive detail (example:  according to a survey more than half of Israelis believe "the whole world is against us", and three quarters of Israelis believe "that no matter what Israel does or how far it goes towards resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, the world will continue to criticize Israel")
 * Hi Noleander, I agree with your idea. I think some of the sources will need to stay in the lead because they refer to topics widely spread across the article as a whole. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I may not get to this for awhile, so if anyone else wants to undertake this job, go ahead. --Noleander (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I also dislike footnotes/refs in the lead of an article, but they seem inevitable in every controversial article I've seen. The moment you remove them, people will immediately start removing material they don't like, as "unsourced", or will at least start adding "citation needed" tags. Also, I'd be sorry to see the text of the "excessive detail" that you describe as your third point disappear, as it illustrates a reactionary response to the topic of this article, which seems relevant to me. It doesn't belong in the lead, but I think it should be kept in the body of the article. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohio: Re "... I think it should be kept in the body of the article" ; of course.  My point was simply that the lead is missing lots of info from the body, and it is already at max size, so something has to go.  But everything should be in the body. --Noleander (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I didn't read your original post carefully enough. That was really careless of me; sorry! I still oppose the idea of removing the refs from the lead, as ugly as they are there, for the reasons I mentioned already. But if other editors agree that's okay, and you still want to do that, I'd appreciate it if you'd consider using hidden text to inform editors that everything in the lead, as of a certain date, anyway, is cited in the body of the article... And perhaps to request that the same "it has to be cited in the body of the article" protocol be used subsequently by anyone who wants to add to the lead? Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, footnotes in the lead are permitted (see WP:LEADCITE). Personally, I think they are ugly and detract from a good "first experience" for the reader.  But WP:Lead guideline does permit them.   --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism at the UN
I removed this section because it was just pure OR based on one questionable primary source (eyeontheun.org). --FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a new development. On 30 March, 2011, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said:


 * U.N. Secretary-General: "The occupation that started in 1967 is morally and politically unsustainable, and must end."
 * Here's another article on the same topic, by JTA.
 * Ditto, from Haaretz.
 * And a related one, from the AP, via Google Hosted News

I'm not sure, but I've read that links to Google Hosted News break after they've had their article up for 30 days. – OhioStandard  (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not UN criticism, but I'm too lazy to break out a new section: Hillary Clinton, on behalf of the U.S., expressed very strong condemnation of Israel's plans to build 1,600 Israeli homes in East Jerusalem, saying among other things, "...we want to stop this Israeli policy that is useless and destructive for the peace process, especially for the US administration’s honest efforts to relaunch real and serious negotiations.” she also said, “The announcement of the settlements, the very day that the vice president was there, was insulting,” she told CNN in an interview. Palestinians hail rare US condemnation of Israel, in Saudi Gazette. Other sources probably available; I haven't looked. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Appearance in search results.
Hi. I searched wikipedia for anti-semitism and no mention of this page popped up. Shouldn't it, as anti-semitism is discrimination/hatred/verbal or physical attacks on Jewish people and Israel is the Jewish state so therefore an attack on one is an attack on the other? Or maybe the page anti-semitism should have a small section with a summary or just a link to this page? Wouldn't the public looking for information on anti-Semitism be well served with knowing that there's a huge page of notable information relating to anti-Semitism v.v. the Israeli gov't? I won't be doing any edits of either page. Reasons why see talk page over at the other page. Input from knowledgeable people for and against would be appreciated. Cheers. Pär Larsson (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Editorial comment removed
User:Florian Blaschke added the following comment after a quote from Jose Saramago:
 * (Note the difference between concentration camps and extermination camps, which the question disregarded, but Saramago failed to observe himself.)

The comment is original research because it advances a position that has not been made by a reliable source. If a source can be found that criticizes Saramago for failing to distinguish between concentration camps and extermination camps, add it. Until then, the sentence must be removed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We need a source for stuff like this. Besides, I can think of at least one concentration camp that did have a gas chamber. --Dailycare (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

biased and repetitive, and also major coatrack problems
This page is extremely unbalanced.

A page on "criticism of the Israeli government" should logically include most discussion on what the criticisms are about and what they consist of, and smaller sections devoted to responses and counter-responses.

But in reality, the vast majority consists of meta-criticisms in regards to the issue of new anti-Semitism. In other words, there's an enormous amount of stuff consisting largely of overlong and extremely repetitive sections devoted to various critics of Israel making the (IMO largely strawman) argument that supporters of Israel are trying to suppress criticism of Israel by equating it with anti-Semitism. (I say "IMO largely strawman" because I can't name a single supporter of Israel who has ever equated criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, but I can think of innumerable cases of supporters of Israel who very explicitly make the point that they are not claiming this.) This is clearly a WP:COATRACK problem, and this stuff shouldn't be here at all -- it should be on the page about New anti-Semitism, which is devoted to this actual issue. It should be briefly mentioned because it's tangentially relevant, but that is all. This stuff is three levels deep (i.e. there's criticism by Israeli critics; then there's criticism of that criticism by supporters, who claim that some of the criticism is excessive and unreasonable and may be veiled anti-Semitism; then there's criticism of the criticism of criticism, and this is 80% or more of this entire article), and none of it helps the user understand what the criticisms of Israel actually are or even what the counter-criticisms are.

I see above that someone tried to delete some of it but it got restored. I don't have time now to do the thankless cleanup work but I hope some people who edit this page and have more time than me (including critics of Israel), start trimming down the fat. Some obvious examples: I often see the same person quoted multiple times saying essentially the same thing, often even multiple times in the same section. Even better, just move the whole lot of detailed discussion (after the first few paragraphs) into the New anti-Semitism article, where hopefully it will get cleaned up more naturally. Benwing (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't read through the whole article, so I don't know if this characterisation is accurate or not. But I find it grimly amusing, because I previously supported the deletion of this article against editors who (I believe) wanted it to be diatribe on criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. I had a feeling, at that time, that they would get the opposite of what they wanted. Wikipedia should really purge itself of all articles beginning with the words "Criticism of...". They're a recipe for badly skewed content. Formerip (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Double standard?
A similar article about Iran was recently deleted.--JellWaffle (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bernard-Henri Lévy
I did some copyediting and removed content from the "Comparisons with Nazi Germany" section discussing Levy. The content was unsourced and it was unclear that Levy had said anything about Nazi Germany. The paragraph quoted at length from a book of his, then said "In this sense, Lévy is suggesting that comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany are a form of Holocaust denial". This is not a very obvious conclusion and seems like original thought. However, I don't have access to Levy's book, so anyone who does should feel free to provide something else from it that is not original research. Formerip (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie and Criticism of the IDF

 * 
 * 

The reprehensible behaviour by IDF soldiers highlights a hole missing in our article on criticism of certain acts by the IDF:
 * Killings of Western activists: Rachel Corrie, Iain Hook, Tom Hurndall, James Miller (filmmaker) plus those aboard the Gaza flotilla
 * Killings of journalists - e.g. Nazeh Darwazi, Fadel Shana'a
 * Behaviour of IDF soldiers including reported / accused atrocities or war crimes - e.g.

Secondly, the facebook response from "Ben Packer, the director and rabbi of Heritage House" to the criticism of the "Rachel Corrie Pancakes", as quoted in the above Electronic Intifada article, is a perfect archetype illustration for our article section "Criticism stifled by accusations of antisemitism".

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What about criticism of the Arab states involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict
Given this extensive article and in order for Wikipedia to maintain its NPOV stance, it seems necessary for wiki-articles to be created/or incorporated into this one that deal with criticism of the Arab nations involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Jordan, for instance, revoked Jordanian citizenship to Palestinians. The refugee camps in Lebanon are allegedly terrible. Most Arab nations have refused citizenship to Palestinians. At the very least, these points should be incorporated into the "response to criticism" section. PizzaMeLove (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe the Israeli response to much of the criticism is that:
 * 1) Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries: Israel views the expulsion of Palestinians as a population exchange between the Arab nations and Israel where Israel took in ~1 million Jewish refugees, while the Arab nations intentionally didn't accept most of the Palestinians as a way to destabilize Israel.
 * 2) Arab-Israelis currently have more rights than elsewhere in the Middle East.
 * 3) The real apartheid of Palestinians is currently occurring in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.

I currently need to look up more scholarly sources (perhaps David Horowitz? I know he's an active defender of Israel) for these, but please let me know what you think about their incorporation into the "response to criticism" section. There are probably more points, but it really does seem that this section needs expanding to create an NPOV. I am going to go ahead and place an expansion box in the "response to criticism" section. PizzaMeLove (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:N. We don't start article X as a reaction to article Y, rather both article X and article Y have to separately be notable and covered in reliable sources. Note though that I'm not here expressing an opinion on whether the subject you mention is notable or no. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Most definitely! I believe the criticism of the Arab treatment of Palestinians has been notable and is covered by reliable sources (News orgs. like Economist, JPost, etc. and pro-Israel academics, think tank people, etc.), which is why I thought its absence on Wikipedia to be of concern. Apparently, this type of article had previously been started and deleted. Its absence from Wikipedia has been mentioned elsewhere . Since this criticism of Arab nations and these points are most frequently published in Israeli newspapers, as well as used in arguments to address criticism of Israel by avid Israeli supporters, I suggested adding it to the "response to criticism" section of this article. PizzaMeLove (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , I think that a lot of what you say makes sense. For me the bottom line is that if someone is born somewhere then they should have the right to equal opportunities within the environment where they are raised.  And if that individual chooses to move then fine.  The problem though is that the world is overpopulated and, yes, Israel is of special concern.  It ranks third in the world on the Population Matter's overshoot index.  The problem though is that no country wants to take more people.
 * I also think that it can be worth differentiating between rights and well being. On the plus side the Palestinians can vote for their local government or whatever.  On the minus side there were, when I was there, uneven rules that had a bias away from the Palestinians.  There aren't many countries in the world where one of the entries on compulsory identity cards is religion.
 * all the same it sounds like you have some great ideas for content.
 * The thing that interests me is that Israel can pretty much end conflict with neighbouring states. Its just the people that Israelis deal with everyday that they don't get on with.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  19:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I strongly feel that criticism should where possible be constructive. I think the point is often to build for positive change> Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  19:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I personally think people should have legal rights either where they are born or where their parents originated. I would never ever be in favor of population exchanges and think this policy should be relegated to last century. However, I do think the pro-Israeli response to the criticism should be presented as it is very notable and occasionally comes up in formal speeches . If I do put together a subsection for the "response to criticism" on this topic, I'd use people like David Horowitz and his arguments as representative since he is fairly well-known for this type of activism and frequently gives talks at colleges on this topic. But I wouldn't want to go through the trouble of starting the subsection if it was going to be deleted and if other editors were not in agreement of its inclusion in this article. PizzaMeLove (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When you start the article, please enter the name here so I can watchlist it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Second paragraph: "Palestinian Arabs" is a POV term.
The purpose of the term is to imply that the Palestinian people are essentially Arabs (from Arabia) with the adjective "Palestinian" to imply that they just happen to be living in Palestine. This runs contrary to historical fact and the Palestinians' own desired self-presentation. The Wikipedia article on the Palestinian people refers to them as the Palestinian people or Palestinians. It should be standard Wikipedia policy to consistently refer to them as such.68.191.148.45 (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Arab" does not mean "from Arabia." The POV connotation that you claim does not exist in English as far as I know. VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case it seems to be used to distinguish mainstream Israeli mistreatment of Arab Palestinians vs their mistreatment of Arab Israelis. Hcobb (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The term "Palestinian Arab" is 100% exclusively used by dedicated English-speaking supporters of Israel, much like the term "Judea and Samaria" in reference to the occupied West Bank, which makes it extremely suspect. I maintain that the term is partisan language.68.191.148.45 (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot depends on the way that individuals perceive themselves. Its POV not to respect such views without v good reason.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect; we care how reliable sources identify a subject, not how subjects identify themselves. The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies is quoted in the article using the term "Palestinian Arabs"; IP are you saying that they are "dedicated English-speaking supporters of Israel?" VQuakr (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't find it particularly POV. If they were solely referred to as Arab, that would be an issue, yes, as would be referring to the West Bank as "Judea and Samaria". However, the fact that they're called "Palestinian Arab" essentially implies that they are a distinct Arab subgroup with a unique identity, which runs contrary to the commonly heard pro-Israel claim that "Palestinians don't exist". Nevertheless, "Palestinian" by itself would be preferred, since it's the more commonly used term. JDiala (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What term should Wikistan use for Israeli citizens of Arabic descent? Hcobb (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons with Nazi Germany
The Comparisons with Nazi Germany states: "Israel is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany, directly or by allusion, such as equating the Gaza Strip with concentration camps in Nazi-occupied Europe or Ariel Sharon with Joseph Goebbels. The Anti-Defamation League considers such comparisons to be anti-Semitic." As far as I can see, none of the cited sources actually verify those statements.

Searching the ADL.com site, the closest match I can find to what the article currently states is: "Another common anti-Semitic theme has become the comparison of Israelis to Nazis and Israeli leaders to Hitler. This comparison between the Jewish state and those who perpetrated the greatest act of anti-Semitism in world history is not an impartial or dispassionate accusation. This is a charge that is purposefully directed at Jews in an effort to associate the victims of the Nazi crimes with the Nazi perpetrators and serves to diminish the significance and uniqueness of the Holocaust; making such a comparison is an act of blatant hostility toward Jews and Jewish history." 

Curiously, an article about criticisms of the Israeli government, seems to have largely become an article about criticisms of critics of the Israeli government.

   ←   ZScarpia  16:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple editors have removed this material. Can the editors wishing to include it show consensus for its inclusion, per WP:ONUS? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Multiple editors have also restored this material, for the mean time, someone should restore it per WP:NOCON. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I find your comment about WP:ONUS rather breathtaking. The section has been in the article for years. You made literally the exact argument for the inclusion of the content here literally 15 minutes after commenting here. Care to explain this cognitive dissonance? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * you should just take a deep breath, then. A section named "Comparisons with Nazi Germany" may have been in the article for years, but it is not the version that is currently being objected to. As a samll hint to the differences between the two versions, one doesn't need to go further than  the first line: the versions you linked to said "A specific form of criticism of Israel that is often considered anti-Semitic is comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany. ".  When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if you have a problem with a specific version, it is permissible to just delete the whole thing? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am certainly willing to look at alternative formulations, that's why I initiated the discussion here, If you want to restore that older version you linked to, that might be a good starting point. But this current version, in the words of the editor mentoring , was "designed as heap of POV crap. ". When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect it originally was designed as a strongly anti-Israeli POV section, which was and is deeply problematic. Subsequent counter sources appear to have restored some balance, But I do not enjoy being quoted out of context. I strongly advised MM (and everybody else), that deletion is unacceptable. We improve sections and articles by adding counter sources to create an (ideally} NPOV version. Derision by good sourcing not wholesale deletion was my clear message to MM. Irondome (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This WP:ONUS rationale which you conjured up is pure diversion. I have no intention of restoring the older version, which is 4 years old. The version which was improperly removed should be restored and that should be the starting point. People who object are free to give their opinions and edit, but not to remove it wholesale. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The version being restored clearly does not  have consensus. You of course know this, or you would be restoring it yourself. Per WP:ONUS, editors wishing to include material which has been contested need to show that there is consensus for inclusion. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous argument. I have now restored the version. Criticize it and make changes, nobody is stopping you. Wholesale removal is not permissible. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get assertive in reverting your edit but I'd like to go on the record to say it's blatantly unenyclopedic, and also frankly racist. It's existence violates NPOV. To make a comparison this would be live having a section on "Chemtrails" in the page about criticism of the united states. Just because you can quote people talking about it, doesn't mean it should be give undue weight. That would be indiscriminate. Why not also have a criticism of Israelis drinking the blood of Arab children? Many Arab officials have spoken of this practice. --Monochrome _ Monitor  01:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in the article and in the section. My own viewpoint is that the section should be reduced by at least 75%; a lot of it is junk. I have no interest in doing it myself though. If you think the whole section should be removed, make an argument, open an RfC etc. Disruptive edit-warring to force your own interpretation isn't permissible. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is clearly antisemitic - according to materials/expertise provided in another section of this page. Actually, I think this whole page should be deleted. We do not have a similar "criticism" page even for Nazi Germany, and for a good reason: such page is simply not needed and not encyclopedic. My very best wishes (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Honey" ? Why? Not every sourced text belong to encyclopedia. My very best wishes (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes honey, your disruptive behaviour provoked a sarcastic reaction. Its true that not every sourced content belongs to an encyclopedia, however, this one does. Assuming it doesn't, as said before you can't just blank sections not to your liking.Makeandtoss (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The repetitive, flippant WP:IDONTLIKEIT labelling of this as racist and/or anti-Semitic is unhelpful and not a valid argument or grounds for removing the content as per WP:NOTCENSORED. The section is reliable, well-sourced and appropriate for the article. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the actual problem is not just this section, but the whole page. It should be nominated for deletion as POV fork of article Israel and a textbook example of WP:SOAP. My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is simple. If one thinks the section should be removed, open an RfC proposing that. I see that has cowboy-removed the section with no consensus and nary a comment on the talk page. Restore it and start an RfC. Nothing's going to happen by arguing with people who are not going to change their mind. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I would rather make an AfD. This is for two reasons. First, this is a POV fork of three articles: Anti-Israeli sentiment, Israel, and Arab–Israeli conflict. Such POV fork does not exist for any other country. Whatever valid content can be found here must go to these other pages. Second, this page is actively used for soapboxing of the worst nationalist variety (softly speaking). It is not that it could be used for soapboxing. It is used right now, and the section about "Nazi" (see Godwin's Law) is an excellent illustration. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The article has been full-protected for 3 days. Please start some form of dispute resolution WP:RfC, WP:AfD whatever. If one feels the section should be cut down or rewritten etc. you can also give drafts on the talk page and ask people for comment. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 17:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Violation of Neutral Point of View
From Criticism: Under Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive. Best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. I feel that the current article is heavily biased toward the viewpoint of critics of Israel, and very little work has been done to balance the included opinions with alternate viewpoints. Marokwitz (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. This whole article serves as a violation of WP:NPOV. It should be renamed to something like Views of Israel or Positions on Israli government, and all the positions, criticising and supporting, should be covered equally. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair representation means representation of viewpoints in relation to their prevalence in reliable sources, not giving all viewpoints equal weight. --Dailycare (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Positive opinions about Israel may be in minority, but as you can see here it's definitely not WP:FRINGE and can't be discarded. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is relevant to Israel, but not here since this article is entitled criticism. It isn't surprising that most criticism has a negative tone. Of course, to responses to criticism should be included but again in proportion to their weight with respect to the criticism itself. --Dailycare (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly - Dailycare is spot on. This article describes the criticism and provides responses, exactly as for other articles in Category:Criticisms. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see in this category a single state or government that is criticized, except Israel. What could that be the reason ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is actually a good point. Do we have a page with criticism of any other government? Criticism of Nazi Germany? Criticism of North Korea? Do we need such pages? I do not think so. This whole page should be deleted, renamed, or at very least not be a "coatrack". My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Article is lengthy and different viewpoints are discussed. This discussion hasn't brought up specific missing viewpoints. Whether article is at all necessary is not a NPOV question. Removing the template. --Sigmundur (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD request
Since this page (Criticism of the Israeli government) has been protected, I can not nominate it for deletion. Can someone nominate it for deletion please (on my behalf), with the following justification:

This is POV fork and a "coatrack" page. It does nor serve any good purpose except to disparage the subject. This is a content fork of the following pages:


 * 1) Israel. Please note that none of other countries, including even Nazi Germany has a similar "criticism of the country" content fork. This is because all significant "negative" information about any country should be included in the page about that country.
 * 2) Anti-Israeli sentiment. Not only this page is mostly about the anti-Israeli sentiment, but it is currently used as a soapbox to promote the anti-Israeli sentiment through Wikipedia, as one can see from this section. This is explicitly forbidden by our policies.
 * 3) Human rights in Israel - this section
 * 4) Arab–Israeli conflict - for example, this section
 * Yes, this page includes a lot of significant and well-sourced content. However, most of this content can be found on other pages mentioned above. If not, it should be moved to these other pages.

Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 December 2015
I would like to ask to nominate this page for deletion as justified in the corresponding section of talk page above

My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, see Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Israeli government &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Huge removal of 75,000 bytes of data in October
This edit seems to have removed a significant amount of information and references without adequate explanation or discussion. can you explain? Oncenawhile (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I beg of you, please tell me these things at most a month after I post them. I do not usually remember details of old edits, and (being young), I am a different person in many ways from when I made them. --Monochrome _ Monitor  07:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Most of the deletion was criticism of criticism because I thought it was silly. The rest was just for accuracy, ie "500 checkpoints" is outdated, "Jewish-only" roads is misleading.--Monochrome _ Monitor  07:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Re your first sentence, it should have been discussed. You can't go round cutting huge swathes of text out of articles without discussing it on talk. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for a minor edit due to redundancy
I realize this article is one of a politically charged nature which is why it is protected. However, the edit I am requesting is apolitical and largely touches on a matter of semantics that I hope few if any will disagree with. Therefore, it is my hope that the edit will be made expeditiously by one qualified to do so within its currently protected status.

Second paragraph, second line: “…with accusations of real or perceived failures to meet obligations….”  “real or perceived” should be eliminated as redundant as “accusations of failures” alone makes the point as intended. “Accusations” used by itself implies charges that might or might not be true. Therefore, the redundancy and superfluous intermediate words. As I said, I don’t see what I am suggesting is in any way controversial, and if I were able to make the edit myself, I would have done so without a Talk Page note, simply noting “redundancy” as the reason. Redundancies are never acceptable in language.

Secondly, including "real” [failures] smacks of POV as it implies that at least some of the charges are indeed true (thus taking a position from the outset which is POV) whereas omitting the word would not imply that none of the charges are true.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Note that "perceived" is also POV, implying that at least some of the charges are not true. I agree that it's better to remove both - I went ahead to WP:BOLDly remove them.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I agree with your point about "perceived" as well.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this edit, but not the reasoning ;) Surely, most actual failures are both real and perceived. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Criticism of the Israeli government. 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5j0sy4bPE to http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2008/02/benny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090512141943/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130822190807/http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf to http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516223818/http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3270 to http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3270
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101207122412/http://counterpunch.org/ali03042004.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/ali03042004.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625165331/http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5104 to http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5104

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Criticism of the Israeli government. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110207175611/https://www.icrc.org:80/eng/resources/documents/misc/5fldpj.htm to http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/5fldpj.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Criticism of the Israeli government. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131617331800/http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=13419 to http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=13419
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810122713/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151432002?open&of=ENG-PSE to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151432002?open&of=ENG-PSE
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206051930/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_4_51/ai_106730943 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_4_51/ai_106730943
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224162758/http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/bignewlie.html to http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/bignewlie.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707020003/http://www.counterpunch.org/nader10162004.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/nader10162004.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Criticism of the Israeli government. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/pryce-jones_11_06.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713154515/http://www.adc.org/issue_papers/ror/issuepaper30.PDF to http://www.adc.org/issue_papers/ror/issuepaper30.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529104222/http://www.counterpunch.org/cloud04302009.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cloud04302009.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403165405/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/porat.htm to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/porat.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.thejusticeonline.com/news/2002/10/29/News/Divestment.Forum.Held.At.Harvard-309328.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724065207/http://www.counterpunch.org/tutu1017.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/tutu1017.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720160249/http://www.eisca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/nazicard.pdf to http://www.eisca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/nazicard.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720160249/http://www.eisca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/nazicard.pdf to http://www.eisca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/nazicard.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad sentences

 * At one end of the spectrum are attempts to delegitimize Israel's right to exist.[13][14][15] This has led to an ongoing debate regarding at what point criticism of Israel crosses the line to antisemitism.

This is leading the reader. Delegitimize means to "withdraw legitimate status" from something. Implicit in the verb is the supposition that "legitimate status" exist. It is also problematic that the sentence talks about a spectra, as if there is some kind of continuum that begins with Israel criticism and ends with antisemitism! The last sentence also links to "New antisemitism" which is a highly contentious article. ImTheIP (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 161 UN countries recognize Israel, therefore they believe it is legitimate for it to exist. Some people disagree with it, and attempt to delegitimize this right. If you want to change the phrasing of this simple fact, suggest a different sentence.
 * Do you need a source saying that there is a wide range (a.k.a a continuum) of opinions regarding Israel ? Seems like a case of WP:FACTS. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The sentences needs to be attributed. Now I have tried to add fair attributions to them. The article needs to state who are accused of trying to delegitimize Israel and from whom the accusation comes. A wide range is not the same thing as a continuum. A spectrum or continuum implies that there is no tangible difference between say, Antizionism, and Antisemitism and that the former can turn into the latter. This argument is commonly used by Zionists, so the article should mention it. But it should not claim that it is not contested. ImTheIP (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * IceWhiz, perhaps you can try and improve upon edits or discuss them instead of blanket reverting them? Because I'm making comment after comment, but you don't want to discuss anything with me? And I don't understand your objection "Does not match sources. Not all critics of Israel have called for deligitimzation or placed Israel's right to exist in question." The sentence did not say that all critics of Israel have called for it's delegitimization or questioned its supposed right to exist. ImTheIP (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You changed the meaning completely. Instead of specifying this is a position at the far end of the spectrum, your text implies this is something Israel supporters say of every criticism.Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously it needs to be reworded - perhaps an RfC should be proposed. The original wording highlighted states as an objective fact what is an accusation made by some controversial sources - as such it is an inherently controversial position stated as a neutral and objective fact in violation of core policies. That critics of Israel are "attempting" to "delegitimize" Israel is a propaganda argument that is often repeated by Pro-Israel sources, it is not an objective encyclopedic fact and critics of Israel have denied this characterization of their positions. Seraphim System ( talk ) 06:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 06:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm allergic to RFCs. But how about this "Some Israeli supporters have accused critics of Israel of trying to delegitimize it. According to them, harsh criticism of Israel is a form of antisemitism." That covers Icewhiz complaint too. Fwiw, I think the sentences does not belong in the article at all. It is "criticism of the criticism" and as such should not be inserted in the intro text (according to some Wikipedia policy). ImTheIP (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably, this article should either be moved to an appropriate title (we are not supposed to have POV-fork articles like this) or the content merged into existing articles. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. "Criticism of the Israeli government" is not a particularly encyclopedic topic. I suppose it was written because one side wanted an article like this so "the other side" got an article like this. But now that exists, it is impossible to nuke it, so the best that can be done is to fix the biggest faults in it. ImTheIP (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Both articles promote anti-Israeli agenda - one critisizes Israel and the other questions its legitimacy. Both are WP:POVFORK of Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Descendents
You are incorrect Icewhiz. Refugees includes descendents. ImTheIP (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Only applies to "palestinain refuges" and that the reason the clarification is needed--Shrike (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As Shrike says - Generally not - as a dictionary word, and in general legal work. In the very particular case of Palestinian refugees as defined by UNRWA, yes, descendants of Palestinian male refugees are eligible for registration as refugees. This should be made clear in some manner in the lead, as assuming the reader is familiar with the anomalous Palestinian refugee definition is problematic.Icewhiz (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See this: http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=592.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * See https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/features/exploding-myths-unrwa-unhcr-and-palestine-refugees:


 * This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed. ... As made clear in the criteria for derivative status above, in all cases, refugees and their descendants retain the status of refugees until that status lapses through the achievement of a just and lasting solution. Again, I will allow published UNHCR documents to speak for themselves.


 * Note that the text is published on UNRWA:s own web site. See also this blog. ImTheIP (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Scholarly literature on this matter doesn't agree with you --Shrike (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * UNWRA is about the only organization that defines refugees this way. Wordpress is a blog site, not a WP:RS &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not in doubt that UNWRA uses this unique definition, however it conflicts with even a simple dictionary lookup - "one that flees; especially :a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution" - requiring elaboration.Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That refugee status is not inherited is a common myth. Unfortunately the myth lives on because Wikipedia keeps repeating the false claim. Please read the footnote on this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNRWA#cite_note-FOOTNOTEChris_Gunness2011-10 Consider for example the Syrian civil war. If a pregnant Syrian woman gives birth to a child in a refugee camp in Turkey, then that child would, by UNHCR:s definition, be counted as a refugee. This is completely uncontroversial. If you really want to argue otherwise, then you need to find an authoritative source that claims that refugee status is not inherited by UNHCR:s definition. ImTheIP (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I already gave you the link.--Shrike (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ImTheIP, you are making a claim, so it is up to you to find an authoritative source that supports it. You can check UNHCR definition here, pages 18 and 19. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Shrike, while that source appear to support your position, it contains errors and I'm not sure what I can do about that. But one can, for example, not that his footnote number 20 reads: 'See "Who is a Palestinian Refugee", www.wikipedia.org' Using Wikipedia as a source in a scholarly work is a grave error and the author deserves a spanking on the buttocks. The author admits that "Though the UNHCR also provides support for children of refugees in many cases." but he somehow makes the claim that that is not the norm.


 * But examples from refugee camps run by the UNHCR contradicts him. Sahrawi refugee camps describes camps for Sahrawi people that were set up in 1975-76 and undoubtedly must contain descendants to the people who fled (though one can quibble about if they are IDP:s or refugees). The situation is similar with the Tamil refugees in Tamil Nadu. Those camps lasted for two decades and obviously contained children born in the camps. The Nakivale Refugee Settlement setup in Uganda in 1958 is a third example.


 * WarKosign, the document you link to describe the Refugee Status Determination procedures for descendants: "Family members and dependants seeking reunification with a resettled refugee may be considered for derivative status in accordance with their right to family unity.8 Claims for derivative refugee status should be assessed by protection or eligibility staff, as they involve a detailed examination of all available documents and other information regarding the applicant’s identity and dependency. 6 UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 1979, re-edited version January 1992, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3314.html 7 UNHCR, UNHCR RSD Assessment Form (Annotated), 2011, (Internal) http://swigea56.hcrnet.ch/ refworld/docid/4acf37b72.html 8 For further guidance on derivative status, see UNHCR, Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination Under UNHCR’s Mandate, 20 November 2003, Unit 5, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ docid/42d66dd84.html 80 Although individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognized refugees, family members who are determined to fall within the criteria for refugee status in their own right should be granted refugee status rather than derivative refugee status." As written, children are granted refugee status as a matter of routine. ImTheIP (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you just proved that UNHCR does not grant refugee status to descendants. There is assessment and presumably not everyone requesting this status is granted, otherwise the whole procedure would be pointless. Derivative refugee status is not the same as refugee status - otherwise the last sentence wouldn't make the distinction. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All persons seeking UNHCR assistance are assessed. Otherwise the agency would be opening up for excessive amounts of fraud in, for example, poor African countries where non-refugees often are destitute. Therefore the agency has developed these "Refugee Status Determination" guidelines to determine which persons to include and exclude. Derivative refugee status differs from "normal" refugee status only in how it is obtained. From the document Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR's Mandate: "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority." In particular, children of persons who obtained derivative refugee status are also eligible for derivative refugee status. It's almost like a recursive function in a programming language. ImTheIP (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the Palestinian case where we have 4th (maybe even 5th) generation refugees (great grandsons of original refugees), it is programmatically recursive. In other cases, it requires oversight and is no extended more than 1 generation (and even that at times not).Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Nakivale camp also contains (or used to, the situation is improving in Rwanda) refugees from the Rwandan Revolution that began in 1958. It must have contained almost as many generations. What sets the Palestinian refugee population out is the protractedness of the situation -- not the principle of hereditary refugee status. ImTheIP (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Criticism of the Israeli government."
This article is called "Criticism of the Israeli government"; there is absolutely zero point in quoting certain people (like Mitchell Bard) who never, ever criticise the Israeli government! Huldra (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense to add the opposite point of view per balance and NPOV. Also you removed necessary attribution without explanation.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol, "It makes perfect sense to add the opposite point of view per balance and NPOV": Is this supposed to be an argument? Why not start an article "Praise of the Israeli government"? Huldra (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only an argument, but a reality, which is the case in all articles describing controversies and political opinions. And if we started an article called "Praise of the Israeli government", it will be probably not as bad as this one.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would usually (okay, always) anticipate the the article, in this case one on criticism, to describe what the subject is -- not its total opposite. It is in fact perfectly neutral for this article to include strictly criticisms because the title literally tells you that is the point. Enough of this "per balance" bullshit that only applies to anything even slightly critical of Israel. It is getting old.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, most of this "criticism" IS the actual bullshit. The entire article should be deleted, it looks like a propaganda blog with random quotes and libels against Israel. It doesn't belong to an encyclopedia, specially when we don't have such articles to criticize much worse governments, including Iran, China, North Korea, Burma, Saudi Arabia, etc. But unfortunately the article remains, so perhaps we could add some responses to these accusations.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Per NPOV the article should be called something like "Views on Israeli Government". Currently it is a WP:POVFORK of Foreign relations of Israel or Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support deletion. This article is a mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Try reading the article. Citations 1 through 6 show beyond doubt that this is a topic of significant academic notability and relevance. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is a WP:POVFORK of Israel (and other Israel related pages).Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Latest revert
....by User:יניב הורון, here:


 * Firstly, this reintroduce http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com ...which is not a RS, AFAIK, (if you doubt this, then I will take it to WP:RS/N) and, furthermore: the quote is not even in the source!!!


 * Secondly, you remove John Pilger with edit line "unreliable, unrelated, irrelevant quote by Pilger". Well, whatever ones opinion about Pilger is, he clearly is a RS. Therefor we cannot remove him, just giving our own POV as reason! I would have thought this was obvious. So please self revert,  Huldra (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are selectively removing material supported by problematic sources but leaving all the crap against Israel. Well, let's start removing other unreliable sources as well...--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Glub quote
Without giving proper contest by secondary sources the quote is a WP:POV violation.Morris clearly writes that the writing of Glub were anti-semitic. We can use this quote to show his hypocrisy of course Shrike (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added Morris’s view as you propose. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this quote is needed at all.And if anything it should trimmed and the commentary rewritten as per WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s a particularly notable example because it has been quoted by a number of scholars and it is 62 years old - if you can find an older notable one, I am happy to replace it. By the way, our article currently suggests this is a modern phenomenon post 1967, which is patently incorrect. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2018
 * The quote is WP:PRIMARY its too large and given too much space.We should write according to secondary WP:RS accordingly I have trimmed the quote. --Shrike (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not. It's quoted in a secondary source.  Volunteer Marek   03:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine - I have put the remainder in the footnote. By the way it obviously is not wp:primary given Morris’s commentary (and others). Onceinawhile (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Glubb's quotation is primary. The analysis of it is secondary. We shouldn't give undue weight to statements by figures who are widely described as antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, your revert deleted from the footnote – how is “weight” a concern down there? I object because you deleted the exact words which Morris quotes, where Glubb tries to explain his position. Other scholars such as Jelenko do the same. By deleting the explanation you are contravening WP:PRIMARY by giving a different picture than the secondary sources.
 * As to our ability to call him anti-semitic in wikipedia’s neutral voice, I am not convinced that we have enough evidence. That numerous scholars made the claim is obvious (Glubb wouldn’t have had to write the paragraph otherwise), but the claim is not made in the four other biographies I am aware of:
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reasonable RS rejecting the label? Silence is not opposition.Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not how this works.  Volunteer Marek   03:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also usage of WP:CLAIM is discouraged.Also its not in wiki voice but clearly attributed to Morris Shrike (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It also discourages “noted”. Let’s just go with “said”. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reasonable RS rejecting the label? Silence is not opposition.Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not how this works.  Volunteer Marek   03:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also usage of WP:CLAIM is discouraged.Also its not in wiki voice but clearly attributed to Morris Shrike (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It also discourages “noted”. Let’s just go with “said”. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That was actually a pretty blatant misrepresentation of what Morris writes.  Volunteer Marek  03:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Weird sentence in the top part
"Since 2003, the UN has issued 232 resolutions with respect to Israel, 40% of all resolutions issued by the UN over the period and more than six times that of the second placed country, Sudan." This sentence just doesn't work — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonDays64 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Minor suggested edits and typos
Under "Occupation and annexation of neighboring territories", there seems to be a missing word. The sentence is "There are two interpretations of international law this matter:" Suggest adding the word "on", i.e. "There are two interpretations of international law on this matter:"
 * ✅, along with a couple of other minor fixes nearby. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2020
Under 3.2, "Comparisons with Nazi Germany", I believe the first paragraph should end with "considers such comparisons antisemitic" or "regards such comparisons as antisemitic" rather than "consider such comparisons as antisemitic". GreenWeasel11 (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – "consider" → "defines". Thank you very much!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2020
Where the article states: "Israel's status as a representative democracy has also been questioned because Israeli residents of the occupied territories are allowed to vote in Israel's elections while Palestinian residents are not."

My concern: The sentence is inaccurate in such a manner as to hide bias against Israel, for the following reasoning: In most countries: A "resident" does not have the right to vote. A "citizen" does have the right to vote. Israeli citizens do have the right to vote, which include Arabs (aka Palestinians aka Palestinian Arabs). There are Arab "MKs" Israeli lawmakers.

- - - - Start of extract: - - - - “Every citizen of the State of Israel over the age of 18 years has the right to participate in elections.” https://www.knesset.gov.il/elections16/eng/about/about_elections_eng.htm - - - - End of extract - - - -

- - - - Start of extract: - - - - National and local elections in Israel are by universal, direct suffrage, with secret balloting. All resident Israeli citizens are enfranchised from age 18, regardless of religion or ethnicity, [...] https://www.britannica.com/place/Israel/Government - - - - End of extract - - - -

Wherever the article states: "the occupied territories"

My concern: The term "occupied" when applied to Israeli control of disputed land, is controversial for the following reasons, and this should be pointed out to the reader to avoid bias.

Israel cannot logically nor in law be validly-accused of illegal “occupation” for the following three reasons. It is not possible to illegally-occupy a region, that was: 1) LAST under the illegal-occupation of a third party: This means prior to the 1967 war, the illegal-occupation by Jordan of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and by Egypt of Gaza. 2) Where all the land in question can be validly claimed (as ancestral lands) by the party, here Israel, accused of the alleged “occupation”: All the land upon which the “Palestinian” Arabs reside, is of previous Jewish indigenous sovereign states of the Kingdoms of Israel / Judah. 3) Where the claim of “occupation” is made by an entity, here “Palestine”, which never existed as an indigenous sovereign state. There has never been any “Palestine” indigenous sovereign state upon which the “Palestinian” Arabs could either”: > Base any claim to the land of Israel.  > Claim any alleged illegal “occupation”.

The United Nations validation of the term "occupied" against Israel is political NOT legal. It can be sourced to the political-bias against Israel in the U.N., where the Palestinians enjoy what amounts to a block-vote in their favor. For example it can be comprised of those countries strictly-applying to their U.N. voting-pattern, the policies of the “Organization of Islamic Cooperation”.

The article makes citations where the expert in question asserts their own personal view without sufficient substantiation. Citations should only be applied to the article where the expert in question brings sufficient proof for their comment. An example of where to draw the line, is in law: When (in the law of England and Wales) a judge makes a judgment so constituting law, the judge must do so based in existing law. Where their comment is not based in existing law, this is not regarded as law, but is referred to as "obiter dicta" ("matters by the way") - an expression of opinion. FactsOrOpinion (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC) FactsOrOpinion (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this contravenes WP:OR. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

“Belligerent Occupation” is a matter of fact resting on the assertion of authority and control not sanctioned by international agreement. The International laws on occupation are complex and lacking in clarity:

The currently unclear-definition of “Occupation” fails to consider a verifiable-claim to the land by the alleged-Occupier. In Israel's case: Map of Jewish Hasmonean Kingdom of Judah (aka Judea) including the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights, with its capital of (what is now EAST) Jerusalem / “Old City”; between 110 BCE / 754 BH and 63 BCE / 706 BH: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Hasmonean_kingdom.jpg

Map Jewish Kingdom of Israel-Samaria, incl. part West Bank, and Golan Heights, capital Samaria; between 930 BCE / 1599 BH and 720 BCE / 1383 BH: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(Samaria)#/media/File:Kingdoms_of_Israel_and_Judah_map_830.svg

Map Jewish Kingdom of Judah, incl. rest of West Bank, capital of (what is now EAST) Jerusalem / “Old City”; between 930 BCE / 1599 BH and 586 BCE / 1244 BH (same map as latter): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Judah#/media/File:Kingdoms_of_Israel_and_Judah_map_830.svg

Any country recovering land by force to which it has verifiable-claim, may under the currently unclear definition of "Occupation", be considered an “illegal occupier” where political-allegiance is against it in the United Nations. In Israel’s case the political allegiance against it in the United Nations comprises up to 56 U.N. members who are also members of the “Organization of Islamic Cooperation” (“OIC”), being U.N. members applying the OIC’s policies on Israel to their voting-pattern within the U.N. In other words, the “Palestinian” Arabs start off in U.N. votes, by enjoying a U.N. block-vote in their favor of up to 56 countries, compared to Israel’s one vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation

Further, if it is considered a U.N. vote could go in favor of Israel, a U.N. rule is typically-invoked requiring a two-thirds majority: https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/12/1027881

I hope my concerns will be re-considered.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FactsOrOpinion (talk • contribs)


 * This is even more “original research” than the first post. It cannot be used, as it is your thesis rather than something published by a reliable source. See WP:SYNTH: you can’t piece together reliable facts and come up with your own idea. We only use ideas reliably published by others.
 * This is not to mention that your thesis is nonsense. No sensible person actually claims Jewish legal rights are based on the Bible. Only ultra-nationalists do that, and people who have no understanding of history or law. These are also the kind of people that think Palestinians came from Saudi Arabia. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)