Talk:International recognition of Israel/Archive 1

Belarus
Hmmm ... Belarus existed in 1949? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.26.48 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Turkey did not suspended relations
Turkey just lowered the sttus of relations, it's not suspended, any source on that? I have one which says; Low-level officials are allowed to stay but top envoys must leave by Wednesday please correct the article and the map also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.12.121 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree and have made the appropriate change, adding a note with cited source. The revised map, added a few days ago, is now correct. Davshul (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Recognition "de facto" or "de jure"
The present table is somewhat misleading as it does not indicate whether the date of recognition is for "de facto" and "de jure" recognition. I suggest that an additional column be added to enable the date being given for both de facto and de jure recognition in respect of each country. Davshul (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Albania has recognized Israel in April 16, 1949
http://www.jcpa.org/israel-europe/ier-guvrin-f05.htm --Irvi Hyka 19:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs)

All over the place
I've added a header tag because I'd like to see this article cleaned up a bit.
 * Under the first section heading: States which formally recognise Israel, some entries are listed by de facto recognition, which contradicts the heading. As a consequence of this, the table also lists states with do not formally recognise Israel, such as Iran.
 * There are obvious sourcing deficiencies. As an example, the source for Chad's recognition has clearly been read incorrectly. The entry for Malaya is attributed to a source which requires radical interpretation without verification. A substantial amount of entries are sourced on the presumption that the date of establishment of relations equals the date of recognition. ❌ working on it
 * Because other entries are (more appropriately) listed by de jure dates, the mixing of the two combined with the ordering of the entries by these mixed dates is confusing and useless.
 * Some entries are for states which no longer exist, which contradicts the section heading (these states no longer do anything in the present tense).
 * The second section heading: States which do not formally recognise Israel, is contradicted by the repeat presumption that recognition only comes when relations are established. If this were the case, then Bhutan only recognises a couple of dozen states, which is incorrect.   Night w   09:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another issue which has been introduced to the article since my tag was added is the shaded entries, which is to signify "countries that have suspended relations or withdrawn recognition". Certainly one can suspend relations, but recognition, by definition and under international law, is irrevocable.   Night w   10:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Chad
Conflicting reports on this case. Plenty of sources saying that it hasn't recognised (example), but others say the level of relations before 1972 were fully diplomatic. Can anyone confirm either?  Night w   06:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Cuba accepts Israeli passports
See here: So I suggest to change the Cuban section. Also Castro said he supports Israeli right to exist so the remark about Cuban's government position may be outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.37.199.19 (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay on the passports. But right to exist and recognition of existing now are two different things.  Night w   02:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If they recognize passports, that means they recognize Israel as a state.--77.37.199.248 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

many dates of begin/end of recognition or relations missing
There are some dark/light orange entries with missing dates. Also, some ping-ponging cases are not mentioned (with previous periods of recognition/relations going full circle from relations-no relations and back to relations - or vice versa). Japinderum (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The map needs a colour code
What do all those different colours on the map mean? I can't believe the article includes a map with different colours but no explanation of what they mean. It's amateurish and unencyclopaedic. Someone who knows the meaning of the map needs to get their act together and fix this dodgy article. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC))
 * ✅  Night w   14:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This page should be for "de jure" and "de facto" recognition only, not diplomatic relations.
This article is called "International recognition of Israel", not "diplomatic relations of Israel". We should have a chronological table for the countries that recognize Israel. Countries like South Sudan, Montenegro or Palau can not recognize Israel, only the other way around. We should change the table to this one: Both de jure and de facto recognition are represented here.

Responses
What about the countries that are listed as not recognising it (shaded orange)? I'm not sure what you mean when you say some countries can't recognise Israel. Can you explain further or provide a source that does?  Night w   13:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I mean like "newer" countries can't recognize "old" countries. For example that Kosovo can't recognize the US. So countries that received independence after Israel can't recognize it. About the orange countries. Remove them from the page. --Ahmetyal 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense. A new country, eg South Sudan, can recognise or not recognise who it wants (and is included in the table as recognising the 'old' country of Israel). The mystery is why Kosovo is not mentioned here at all. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Recognitions and relations
The inclusion of diplomatic relations confuses the topic of this article. Countries in the paler orange are recorded in the map as "Recognition of Palestine, with some relations to Israel", and in the table as "States that have severed or suspended relations." The first implies that they don't recognise Israel, which I've found no evidence for, and the second doesn't seem that important. Although diplomatic relations and diplomatic recognition are related, they are not one and the same. I doubt Bolivia no longer recognises Israel, and it seems that because Bhutan doesn't have relations with Israel it is listed here as not recognising it. If this was the case, Bhutan barely recognises anyone. There's no relations with Tuvalu either, but Tuvalu isn't listed in red. De facto recognition is also an issue. Recognition is by definition a de jure act.

If Bolivia or Bhutan actually don't recognise Israel, then we need sources and information about that, not about relations. We should only really have three colours, especially as informal relations could be anything. We should also remove de facto recognition, and just have the dates when a country recognised Israel. For cases where they became independent after Israel, and therefore have never offered a document of recognition, we can quite easily assume that they have recognised Israel unless they've made a protest. That they became independent after can be placed in the notes column. CMD (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with most of what you say. I'd suggest we do the following:
 * Replace the "severed or suspended relations" category with "withdrawn recognition" only for states who have recognized Israel in the past but have explicitly stated that they no longer recognize them (ie Cuba).
 * States who have merely suspend relations (ie Bolivia) won't be differentiated here. The details can be moved to Foreign relations of Israel.
 * Make a new map which only illustrates the the worlds position on Israel using three colours for recognition, withdrawn recogntion, no recognition. Hopefully we can use some colours that are easier on the eye.
 * Remove the de facto recognition column for the reasons you state.
 * What do you think? TDL (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There'll be far more clarity than the current situation. I take it that this means removing the comparison to the recognition of Palestine as well? CMD (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's my suggestion. I think that mixing up the two issues just complicates things, and really doesn't fall within the scope of this article.  A hybrid map would be a good summary of international reaction for Israeli–Palestinian conflict or some other more general article.  TDL (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case I agree, especially noting Recognition of Palestine has a map dealing only with Palestine. What colours would you suggest, so as to be pleasing to the eye? CMD (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something similar to File:Palestine_recognition_only.svg, but with states who have retracted recognition yellow? We could either colour the never-recognizers red, or leave them grey.  I just find that bright orange colour a bit much.  TDL (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Urgh, there's a lot of green and grey on wikipedia. Considering that the map more highlights those that don't recognise, rather than those that recognise, could we keep the current beige(yellowish?) background, keep red, and use yellow for the retractions like you suggest? CMD (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, that probably makes more sense. That way we don't have to fill up the table with colours to match.  I really don't care what colours we use, my only suggestion is that it's something a bit lighter than the current orange so it doesn't distract from the content.  We can always use brighter shades on the map versus the table for emphasis if need be.  How about for the table:


 * style="background:#EEEEEE;border:1px solid #aaa; width:2em;" |
 * = Recognize
 * style="background:#FFFFB5; border:1px solid #aaa; width:2em;" |
 * = Withdrawn recognition
 * style="background:#ffcccc; border:1px solid #aaa; width:2em;" |
 * = Never recognized
 * } TDL (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No objections from me, and I don't see why those colours can't be used on a map too. They can always be made brighter if there seems to be a problem. I'll create a new map then (unless you feel like doing it yourself!) . CMD (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that Bhutan hasn't not recognised. What about Mali, Guinea, and Niger? Our notes just say they have halted relations. CMD (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the Israeli MFA site doesn't list anything so I'd guess that they weren't full diplomatic relations that were suspended. And the Jewish Virtual Library lists them as having never recognized.  They claim that "Iran, Chad, Cuba, Morocco, Tunisia, Oman and Qatar recognized Israel on the above dates but have since rescinded that recognition"  though they don't differentiate between de jure and de facto recognition.
 * Just looking through the sources that he article cites, it would be really great if we could dig up some better sources to clarify some of these issues. As it stands, things are referenced in a very hodge-podge manner, and many dates aren't even sourced. Many of the ones that are don't matchup with the Israeli MFA.  Plus, we have the added confusion of trying to disentangle the de facto and de jure recognitions.  Unfortunately many of the cited sources are offline, so it's hard to verify them.  There could be some good stuff in the Israeli MFA archive, but it would take take a lot of time to dig through.  It might be a good idea to try to go through state-by-state to see if we can do a better job with the sourcing.  A few quick searches on, for instance, turned up a bunch of links that would be useful.  TDL (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that Bhutan hasn't not recognised. What about Mali, Guinea, and Niger? Our notes just say they have halted relations. CMD (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the Israeli MFA site doesn't list anything so I'd guess that they weren't full diplomatic relations that were suspended. And the Jewish Virtual Library lists them as having never recognized.  They claim that "Iran, Chad, Cuba, Morocco, Tunisia, Oman and Qatar recognized Israel on the above dates but have since rescinded that recognition"  though they don't differentiate between de jure and de facto recognition.
 * Just looking through the sources that he article cites, it would be really great if we could dig up some better sources to clarify some of these issues. As it stands, things are referenced in a very hodge-podge manner, and many dates aren't even sourced. Many of the ones that are don't matchup with the Israeli MFA.  Plus, we have the added confusion of trying to disentangle the de facto and de jure recognitions.  Unfortunately many of the cited sources are offline, so it's hard to verify them.  There could be some good stuff in the Israeli MFA archive, but it would take take a lot of time to dig through.  It might be a good idea to try to go through state-by-state to see if we can do a better job with the sourcing.  A few quick searches on, for instance, turned up a bunch of links that would be useful.  TDL (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, here's what I've made based on the information we have. Obviously it'll have to change as sources change. I'm also not entirely comfortable with the red colouring, due to the traditional red=bad idea, but it's what the Israel Palestine recognition picture uses. I'd much prefer a comparison using two neutral colours. It's also not easy to see Cuba. CMD (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks much better than the current map, though I agree that the yellow makes it tough to see Cuba. Maybe using the beige colour for Cuba/Chad, and grey for the rest of the countries would help.  Just a suggestion.  If you want to use more neutral colours, then go right ahead.  TDL (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried it all out using purple. It makes Cuba a bit easier to see, I think. CMD (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks much better, though I might fiddle with the colours used in the table when I get a chance to get a better match. TDL (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fiddle away, I was just trying to get lighter shades on the table so the text was easily readable. CMD (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not read all ofhte above but the first poster is correct. It's a highly inaccurate article presently. For example: Bhutan - having diplomatic relations is not the same as recognising, one can recognise without having diplomatic relations. Not sure people get that here but its a very basic distinction in diplomacy/international law, an example: the USA did not have diplomatic relations with Libya under Gadaffi much of the time...but it always recognised Libya as a country. Another example: the suggestion that countries that do have diplomatic relations with Israel only started to "recognise" it when they established diplomatic relations. This too is nonsense. Specific example, despite what the article says, Ireland (a UN member since 1955) recognised Israel before 1963 (that wasn't just "de facto" somehow) - diplomatic relations in 1963 did not have any affect at all on the question of "recognition". Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * However, the source (U.S. congressional resolution) clearly lists Bhutan as having not recognised. Without a source claiming that it has, it would be original research to presume it on an article describing Israel's recognition. Truth is secondary to verifiability.  Night w   09:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is a good enough source. It seems several references in the article (Bhutan, Cuba etc.) maybe hinged entirely on this little House motion that or resolution (having what legal effect?). I think some corroboration ought to be found before a country gets lumped into this list. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As many users have indicated in 2012, Bhutan has a unique foreign policy in which they limit their official diplomatic relationships to a few dozen countries. They choose not to have diplomatic relations with the United States, Russia and the People's Republic of China (as examples) but this does not imply that they do not recognize these countries as states. A recent September 2016 article in the Jerusalem Post indicates that Bhutan and Israel have informal ties, just as they do with the United States and other countries. Traditionally guided by the foreign policy of India, the Bhutanese have no reason not to "recognize" Israel. http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Environment/Bhutanese-minister-Diplomatic-relations-with-Israel-are-possible-466889 Adtran 09:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

De facto recognition - definition
If we want to improve this page, i believe we need to agree about what "de facto recognition" means. Is it limited to the cases when the country A explicitly states that it recognizes the country B "de facto"? Or we should consider some implicit actions like UN voting in favor, acceptance of the passports of the country B by the country A, trading or cultural treaties etc?

Another question: what's the meaning of the difference between situations where no de facto date given (like Argentina) or both dates are identical (like Albania)? Where we have "—" there or simply blank field? If there's no meaning i suppose it should be unified.

If only de facto date is given should we assume that the country has never recognized Israel de jure (e.g. Fiji or Iceland or even Italy)? I'm sure no so the situation should be rectified there.Alon 68 (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alon, not sure if this is helpful. May well be you know all about this already. "Recognition" needs no formal act; there is no sole legal act which creates recognition. Some countries will issue declarations recognising new countries (like in the Kosovo case). Others will simply treat it in the same way as any other country without making any statement as to the rights and wrongs or acceptance or non-acceptance of that country. Nonetheless, they may have equally "recognised" it through a course of action. "Recognition" is harder go fix on. Clearly, if a country comes out and says it does not recognise an entity as a country, then that's different. I think the article currently is seriously confused as between "recognition" and "diplomatic relations". Lots and lots of countries have historically not had diplomatic relations but they "recognised" each other as countries. The article presently is very badly referenced (some of the details are based on one US congressional resolution without any query as to whether or not the facts were accurately presented in the US congressional resolution. Presently, it would be better to scrap the article altogether if people can't be a bit more serious and academic about it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Coloring and numbering inconsistency?
The table numbering and coloring seem inconsistent with the legend (and the table coloring is out of sync with the map coloring).

The legend defines:
 * dark color - States that do not formally recognise Israel
 * light color - States that have withdrawn recognition

The table then mostly follows that (and any dark/light colored states are not numbered). But there are also the following cases.

With dark color (and not numbered) are the following:
 * Iran, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Tunisia, Comoros - defacto-only recongition, currently no recognition
 * Guinea - defacto-only recognition, relations later cut
 * Mali - full recognition, relations later cut
 * Niger - relations cut

With light color are the following:
 * Bolivia (numbered) - full recognition, relations later cut
 * Chad (not numbered) - defacto-only recognition, relations later cut, currently no recognition
 * Cuba (not numbered) - full recognition, currently no recognition

With no color (with numbers) are the following:
 * Mauritania, Nicaragua - full recognition, relations later cut
 * Venezuela - full recognition, nothing special mentioned


 * The discrepancies are the following (unless I'm missing the reasons):
 * Assuming that "withdrawn recognition" legend applies only to "dejure recognition" and not to "defacto recognition" (otherwise many more discrepancies have to be corrected)
 * Assuming that "relations cut/severed/suspended/broken" in case of "defacto recognition" is equalized (in color/number) with "no recognition"
 * Assuming that "relations cut/severed/suspended/broken" in case of "full/dejure recognition" is equalized (in color/number) with "withdrawn recognition" (but this should be mentioned in the legend)
 * Assuming that dark and light colored are not numbered and non-colored are numbered
 * Chad/Cuba and Bolivia should be with the same numbering (Bolivia to be changed to no number, assuming per fourth bullet)
 * Iran, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Tunisia, Comoros - no change
 * Niger should be with "when"-tag in the defacto column (like Guinea, Comoros)
 * Guinea/Niger and Chad should be with the same color (Chad to be changed to dark, assuming per first and second bullets)
 * Cuba and Mali should be with the same color (Mali to be changed to light, assuming per first and third bullets)
 * Venezuela - relations suspended (see source in foreign relations page) should be mentioned
 * Venezuela and Nicaragua/Mauritania and Bolivia and Mali should be with the same color and numbering (full recognition, relations later cut - light color, assuming per first and third bullets; number according to the color) Japinderum (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding numbering of former recognizers - please look at International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. At the talk page there I suggested removing the numbers (like in this article) or adding a separate column (with numbers only for the current recognizers) and one editor supported me, but other two disagreed and the proposal stalled. Japinderum (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Tabulary tagged as "dubious": true - to be fixed
Hello,

the combined data of

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel#Diplomatic_relations (diplomatic relations, recognition)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passport#Countries_that_do_not_accept_Israeli_passports (passport acceptance)

- http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/thread.jspa?threadID=1977291 (passport stamp acceptance)

do NOT MATCH with the – still so tagged – “dubious” tabulary/data of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel /

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_recognition_of_Israel

In that tabulary there are many inconsistencies within it plus within the general classification (“recognition withdrawn” (??? I have never heard about such a thing, and although inofficially it might be, technically there’s just no such thing, but just a break of relationship); “…broke relationship…” is marked as “no recognition” (???); sometimes the passport acceptance note is incomplete; the Bhutan note misses; the Taiwan note misses (+: unique here: Taiwan does recognize Israel, although Israel does not recognize Taiwan but China instead, so Taiwan has no official diplomatic relationship with Israel); there are two colons of receognition date, but no colon for the data of time period in which countries did/did not have official diplomatic relationships with Israel (see very first given link); etc. etc. etc.)

And even if data of the tabulary do match within it, they often do not match the data of the above given links, as said. So either data in the tabulary are wrong and have to be corrected(updated) or that one in the first given links. In addition, all the links should get cross-linked to each other, so that not one data set is changed by someone, who does not see that the data then also have to be altered at another wiki page.

I know all of you did a lot of work to the tabulary, but there’s really still a lot more to be done.

I haven’t compared the data sources of the tabulary with the sources of the first links, but as I had seen the first links more earlier and as they seemed accurate to me (contrary to the tabulary), I made of them my own tabulary according to them (before having seen the tabulary on wiki): (as as I said I haven’t checked the sources/actuality of the links, I can’t guarantee, that the data are right/more right than that one of the wiki tabulary, but for me it appears, that the single links data just make more sense, are clearer):

- REGION

- 1st colon: Countries that do not have diplomatic relationships with Israel (in brackets period of former relationship)

- 2nd colon: Countries that do not recognize Israel as a state

- 3rd colon: Countries that do not accept Israeli passports [= Countries that do not allow entry for Israelis]

- 4th colon: Countries that do not accept the Israeli stamp in passports [= Countries that do not allow entry for people [from the whole world] who visited Israel]

CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA

Cuba (1950-1973)	---	---	--- Nicaragua (1948-1982, 1992-2010)	---	---	--- Venezuela (1950-2009)	---	---	---

Bolivia (1950-2009)	---	---	---

WESTERN AFRICA

Guinea (1959-1967)	---	---	--- NORTHERN AFRICA

Morocco (1994-2000)	---	---	---

Algeria (---)	Algeria	Algeria	Algeria (most likely) Tunisia (1996-2000)	---	---	---

Libya (---)	Libya	Libya	Libya (definitively) Mauritania (2000-2009)	---	---	--- Mali (1960-1973)	---	---	---

Niger (1960-1973, 1996-2002)	---	---	--- Chad (1960-1972)	---	---	--- Sudan (---)	Sudan	Sudan	Sudan (definitively) EASTERN AFRICA

Comoros (---)	---	---	--- Djibouti (---)	---	---	--- Somalia (---)	Somalia	--- (?)	--- (?)

ARABIAN PENINSULA

Yemen (---)	Yemen	Yemen	Yemen (definitively) Oman (1996-2000)	---	Oman	--- United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) (---)	U.A.E. U.A.E.	--- Qatar (1996-2009)	---	---	---

Bahrain (1996-2000)	---	---	---

Saudi Arabia (---)	Saudi Arabia	Saudi Arabia	Saudi Arabia (definitively) Kuwait (---)	Kuwait	Kuwait	Kuwait (most likely)

LEVANT (Israel bordering/neighbouring countries)

Lebanon (---)	Lebanon	Lebanon	Lebanon (definitively) Syria (---)	Syria	Syria	Syria (definitively)

NEAR EAST [except Arabian Peninsula and Levant]

Iraq (---)	Iraq	Iraq	Iraq (most likely) Iran (1948-1951, 1953-1979)	Iran	Iran	Iran (definitively)

MIDDLE EAST / CENTRAL ASIA

Pakistan (---)	Pakistan	Pakistan	--- Afghanistan (---)	Afghanistan	---	--- Bangladesh (---)	Bangladesh	Bangladesh	--- Bhutan (---) [Bhutan has official diplomatic relationships with only 25 countries]	---	---	---

EAST ASIA

Taiwan (---) [no official relations: Taiwan does recognize Israel, although Israel does not recognize Taiwan but China instead]	---	---	---

North Korea (---)	North Korea	---	---

SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Malaysia (---)	Malaysia	Malaysia	--- Indonesia (---)	Indonesia	Indonesia	--- Brunei (---)	Brunei	Brunei	---

[ source:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel#Diplomatic_relations (diplomatic relations, recognition)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passport#Countries_that_do_not_accept_Israeli_passports (passport acceptance)

- http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/thread.jspa?threadID=1977291 (passport stamp acceptance)

] 46.142.12.113 (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Formatting Problem
The right-aligned images mess up with the tables in the International recognition of Israel section, causing a large block of nothing below the section's title and above the table itself (on a 15.6″ screen, anyway). Desdendelle (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone keeps adding those irrelevant images. I've gone ahead and removed them again.  TDL (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone has added strange text
I think you should remove the text: "NO COUNTRY NAMED ISRAEL, THERE IS PALESTINE" Looks like a hack from someone who hates Israel...

History Section
It is a bit confusing, and would be better as a timeline.Erik L&#39;Ensle :) (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

About Turkey
Hi guys. I think we should mention that Turkey was the first islamic country that recognize Israel. What do you think?

''The most formidable example of flourishing trade be tween Israel and a Muslim country is that of Turkey. It is probably no coinci dence that commercial relations with the first Muslim country to recognize Israel ( in 1949) are the best and most highly developed of all the relationships with the Muslim world. '' http://israel-indonesia-coc.org/Articles/03.pdf

Good idea? 188.107.4.24 (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Rearrange
I think the list of countries should be rearranged by date of recognition, just like the the Palestinian article. Charles Essie (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Serbia-date of de jure recognition
Part in the table that talks about the date of de jure recognition of Israel by Serbia is wrong. Serbia didn't establishe diplomatic relations with Israel in 1948 because it didn't existe as an independent state in that year. It was part of the Yugoslav Federation so according to this, as well as other 5 members of the Federation, didn't have independence in foreign policy. Yugoslav Federation, that doesn't exist anymore, actually established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1948, and also, what isn't mentioned here, it severed all diplomatic relations with it in 1967. As seen in parts that talks about other, now independant, states that emerged from the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990s, all of them, including Serbia, had to, in accordance with the requirements of the international community, gain international recognition and 'again' establish diplomatic relations, now as an independent states with full independence in foreign policy. Correct date on which Serbia and Israel established diplomatic relations is January 31, 1992. This is also confirmed by the given sources.United Union (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on International recognition of 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://foumanco.startlogic.com/history/Iranian_History_1963.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan has recognised Israel, please change the map
the ref is at the below || 1949-03-1 || 123.203.117.93 (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Something is amiss here. On this date there was no government on Taiwan. It was only later that the mainland government, the losers in the civil war, retreated to Taiwan. The only possible meaning here is that the former government (usually called Republic of China) recognised Israel. But what is the situation since then? This article says
 * Eugene Kogan, a defense-industry analyst, writes in the Jamestown Foundation's China Brief that while Israel has rebuffed Taiwan's repeated attempts to revive relations with it, "when it comes to contact with China, the Israeli Ministry of Defense (MOD) promotes a clear-cut policy. China is an extremely important trade partner for the Israeli defense industry. As a result, the MOD, which oversees the arms trade with China, has ensured that Israel maintains a positive relationship with the PRC [People's Republic of China], while avoiding any contact with Taiwan which might disrupt this partnership."
 * This article also suggests that Israel maintains a lesser relationship to Taiwan in order to have full relations with China. Meanwhile, Israel's mission in Taiwan is only an Economic and Cultural Office, and the same is true the other way around. This is a clear indication that these governments do not have full diplomatic relations. Zerotalk 08:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Chronological list
Why don't we make the list of countries recognising Israel chronological. Isn't it more preferable and logical? (like the Palestine and Kosovo page). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

i agree 123.203.117.93 (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union distinguished between "de facto" and "de jure" in their recognition of Israel as a STATE.

 * Firstly, it is not technically correct to state that the United States' recognition of the STATE of Israel on May 14, 1948 was defined as "de facto".
 * The American letter of recognition reads as follows: "This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel."
 * By contrast, the actual STATE of Israel is simply recognized, without mention of "de facto" or "de jure". As noted by President Truman on October 24 1948: "On May 14, 1948, this country recognized the existence of the independent State of Israel. I was informed by the Honorable Eliahu Epstein that a Provisional Government had been established in Israel. This country recognized the Provisional Government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel. When a permanent government is elected in Israel it will promptly be given de jure recognition."
 * http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13065
 * The switch to US recognition of Israel's government on January 31, 1949 as the "de jure" authority was based on the conclusion of the 1st Israeli elections and the establishment of a permanent government. This is duly noted in Truman's letter of de-jure recognition, that having been informed of the election results, "the United States Government is therefore pleased to extend de-jure recognition to the Government of Israel as of this date".
 * In both documents, the existence of Israel as a STATE is simply recognized by the US Government, without distinction made between between "de facto" and "de jure" recogntion of the State itself...only the government of that State.
 * As for the Soviet Union's recognition of Israel, its recognition of both the State and the Government of Israel on May 18 makes no mention of "de jure" or "de facto" recognition. Molotov's letter to Shertok states the following, "The government of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the State of Israel and its provisional government."
 * An article on that date in the San Francisco Chronicle notes the following: "“De facto” means that the government actually is in operation and is the ruling authority in the territory in question. “De facto” recognition usually is extended to provisional governments. “De Jure” recognition means recognition of a government as the legally constituted authority and ordinarily is followed by an exchange of diplomat representatives. Molotov’s letter made no mention of “de facto” or “de jure.”"
 * http://cojs.org/wp-content/uploads/SnFnChn5-18-48E.pdf
 * In short, the United States' recognition of the State of Israel preceded that of the Soviet Union by 4 days, and in neither case were the words "de facto" or "de jure" relevant to the recognition of Israel as a STATE.
 * Jacob D (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Jacob D
 * A further clarification of this point regarding the US position can be found in the monograph "Recognition of Governments in International Law", by Stefan Talmon (pg.62):
 * "With regard to US recognition of Israel, Dr Jessup, Deputy US Representative in the Security Council, informed the Security Council on 17 December 1948 that 'so far as the Provisional Government of Israel is concerned, the United States did extend de facto recognition to that Provisional Government of Israel.' In this connection it is also of interest to note Dr Jessup's telegram of 13 July 1948 to Secretary of State Marshall stating: 'it is our understanding that US recognition of State of Israel is unqualified, that is, de jure, while our recognition of PGI [Provisional Government of Israel] was a de facto recognition of government [of] that state. Is this interpretation correct?' The Department, on 15 July, stated its agreement with New York's understanding and set forth its belief that 'in case of recognition of new states as distinguished from new governments no question of de facto as against de jure recognition recognition is involved'."
 * The text of Jessup's telegram and the State Department's response can be found in the link below:
 * https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v05p2/d460
 * Jacob D (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Jacob D
 * https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v05p2/d460
 * Jacob D (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Jacob D

Map Updates Needed March 2017
With the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between Nicaragua and Israel on 29 March 2017, the map attached to this article needs to be updated. The map is also inaccurate as containing the following additional errors. Guinea had recognized Israel with diplomatic relations up to 1967, which were restored in 2016. Mali and Niger should be coded as countries which have severed or cut ties, not countries which never recognized Israel, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel and sources cited therein, as well as potentially Morocco and Tunisia as well.One-Off Contributor (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC) One-Off Contributor (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Moroccan 'de facto' Recognition of Israel - Citation
The current link to the source for the date of Moroccan de facto recognition of Israel is a dead link.

Currently is: Page not found, should be: israel_and_morocco_a_special_relationship.pdf.

« Cogito.Ergo.Sum »—«Talk to me» 13:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Table distinguishing between de-facto and de-jure recognition is erroneous, misleading, and shouldn't be included.
Instead, the manner and date of recognition for individual countries should be made on a case-by-case basis. For example, the United States did not make first a "de-facto" and later a "de-jure" recognition of the State of Israel. That is false and misleading. It acknowledged the State of Israel immediately, on May 15, 1948 (Israel time). It recognized the provisional governemnt of that State as the "de-facto authority" of the State that it was recognizing. On January 31, 1949, after the first Israeli elections and the establishment of an elected government, the United States recognized that governemnt as the "de-jure" authority of the State that it had already recognized. But the form of US recognition of the State itself did not change. As for the USSR, it did not at any time make any distinction between de-facto and de-jure recogntion of the State of Israel. It simply "officially" recognized the State of Israel, as made clear by the statement of Molotov to Shertok. Jacob D (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Jacob D