Talk:Israel/Archive 45

== Propose lead text such as "The claim is made within Jerusalem Law that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" but the validity of this legislation disputed both internationally and by Palestine." ==

Current text at the end of the first paragraph of the lead currently reads: This has three perceived problems. It presents Jerusalem as a single entity while international rulings have utterly rejected Israel's claim to East Jerusalem. It presents Jerusalem as "the country's most populous city" when, according to Palestinian and international opinion are concerned, at best only the population of West Jerusalem should be considered. It uses Wikipedia's voice to describe Jerusalem as "the country's ... designated capital" and presents "Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem", in my interpretation, of the text as merely being something that is not recognised. Israeli claims to East Jerusalem have been rejected with the footnote referencing connected legislation as being "Null and void".
 * Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv,[12] while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is not recognized internationally.[note 1][13]

Basically there are two leading references to Israeli possession of Jerusalem in entirety followed by one non representative half qualification. Propose text with similar content to: GregKaye 11:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv.[12] The claim is made within Jerusalem Law that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" but the validity of this legislation disputed both internationally and by Palestine.[note 1][13]
 * Britannica deals with the issue this way: "The following year [1949], Israel declared the city its capital....Although Israel's actions were repeatedly condemned by the UN and other bodies, Israel reaffirmed Jerusalem's standing as its capital by promulgating a special law in 1980." Wikipedia's sentence structure is quite tortured compared to this. NotUnusual (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are several statements made in this text:
 * Tel Aviv is Israel's financial center - seems to be fine with everybody
 * Jerusalem was designated [by Israel] as the capital - this would clarify who designated Jerusalem
 * Israel passed the Jerusalem Law in 1980, declaring the whole united city it's capital - this part is missing
 * United Jerusalem is Israel's most populous city - it is disputed that Jerusalem in its entirety is Israel's city, but assuming that it is, it is the most populous. Perhaps "Jerusalem is the most populous city populated by Israel citizens and permanent residents" ?
 * The Jerusalem law is disputed internationally
 * Britannica describes the history of Jerusalem, while here we are describing the current state of affairs. Does anyone object in general to the statements that I listed ? Can anyone phrase them in a short, clear and logical manner ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I find the phrasing about the city's "recognition" and "validity" as a capital inappropriate. If you see a statement in the RS to the effect that the Foo City is the capital of the Fooian Republic, it is assumed that this refers to Fooian domestic law. Countries don't normally recognize each others' capitals or borders. Britannica shows how you can describe the city's status without using problematic phrasing of this type. NotUnusual (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume the disagreement is with "undivided Jerusalem" belonging to Israel, not with it being the capital. Is there another historical example of a nation declaring a disputed city as its capital ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: This old bone again? I recall this argument having occurred two or three years ago. Why not simply say that Israel claims united Jerusalem as its capital, but Israeli sovereignty over the eastern portion of the city is not recognised by the international community? It's neutral, accurate, and doesn't encourage the ridiculous idea that capital choices need to be validated by other countries or the idea that Israel's claim on the whole city is recognised by anyone else. All I'm going to say on this matter as this talk page is probably my least favourite page on Wikipedia. Always has people trying to push one agenda or the other, using their own interpretation of common sense and the truth instead of just editing the article neutrally.... And sorry, but WP:AGF has its limits. Especially given this page's history. /rant Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 15 Shevat 5775 01:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NotUnusual, the mention of validity is a direct reflection of the content of UN documentation that declared Jerusalem Law "null and void". Encyclopaedically it would certainly be appropriate to reflect content of Jerusalem Law at the same time as it would be appropriate to reflect on responses to the claim.  WarKosign, the same can be said if the designation wording is used.  If we talk of the Israeli government designation then we should also clearly represent international rejection of this claim.
 * My quote talked of "claim" and "validity" being "disputed". Another way of doing things might be to talk of Israeli governement  "designation" and of something such as international "rejection".  Surely there has to be balance in the presentation of content of various sides if we are to attain NPOV.  GregKaye 01:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Flinders Petrie wording its about the best NPOV that can be achieved. How many wording sections are now being discussed this Talk page is is impossible to decipher without using edit difs. Cathar66 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have also edited references in the State of Palestine article here to Jerusalem being "designated" its capital as being claimed to be its capital. To me designation is something that is official in the effect of official recognition.  The designation has been officially made by Israel and officially rejected by many others.  GregKaye 18:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style specifically lists claim as one of the words to avoid. Claim is a loaded term that often implies that whatever follows is likely to be false. Claiming something may mean "formally request or demand" or "assert that one has gained or achieved".
 * In case of Jerusalem, you could say that IDF claimed east Jerusalem during the Six Days War, but the important point is that Israel announced that Jerusalem is its capital. It was not some claim or request that Israel filed with some organization, it simply declared/appointed/designated the city as the capital. This designation was not accepted internationally.
 * Palestinians also didn't submit a claim to receive Jerusalem, they simply declared that it is their capital, currently under military occupation. You could say that they claimed it in the meaning "A demand or request for something considered one’s due", but there are too many other meanings that it's best to avoid this word.
 * What is wrong with using the word "designated" in both cases? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll make the thing I said a lie and comment again as this looks worthwhile. I prefer "designated" actually as it's even more neutral than my use of claim and might lead to a happy resolution of this issue. I was writing the previous comment whilst on a metro north train heading out of GCT after having a particularly foul double G&T. You understand. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 16 Shevat 5775 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The country Infobox on State of Palestine has "Proclaimed capital" while Israel just has "Capital". A NPOV Wikipedia would use the same capital designation on both articles. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There was an ARBCOM-mandated, formal RFC about the "Jerusalem question", which is readable here: Requests for comment/Jerusalem. A change in the agreed wording should probably come through a similar process. I think that using a wording that more closely follows that now in the lead of Jerusalem would be well in-line with this RFC, but departing from it would, obviously, be much less so. --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign I think that there the use of claimed in this case is totally acceptable and, in this case, a preferable description. We are not talking here of a claim about some academic conclusion such as s/he claimed that 2 plus 2 equalled 5.  This is a claim to rights to something tangible and specific.  See searches on: claimed (fishing OR mining OR drilling) rights and "claimed rights to".  The claim is directly made as fact but, in the cases mentioned, the claims can be disputed and contested.  How can the Palestinians designate West Jerusalem as part of their capital when any territorial claim they may have on West jerusalem may be contested and how can Israel designate East Jerusalem as part of their capital when any territorial claim they may have on East jerusalem is even more strongly contested?  The designation is also a claim.  One side basically labels something as theirs and, in this case, both sides do this.  In effect, both are calling dibs and, as far a I can see, the situation is a mess.  I think that the best that we might do is present the claims that each side makes.  GregKaye 20:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

== RfC: What borders should be used as base for information presentation on Israel: the UN arranged borders of 1947, the Green Line borders of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the borders to which Israel established military control in areas named the West Bank, the Golan Heights and (possibly) Gaza or another option? ==

It is proposed here that photographic representation within various sections of the article should be in close proportion to the proportions of areas and populations within Israel's borders. This means that, if the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights contribute to a certain proportion of the area within the national boundaries of Israel and to a certain proportion of the population, then the representation of photographs within various sections of the article should reflect these proportions.

It is proposed that the sections of the article that should have the type of photographic representation mentioned above are: and possibly also being applied to: Thanks for your consideration. GregKaye 19:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel
 * Israel
 * Israel
 * Israel

What borders should be used as base for information presentation on Israel: the UN arranged borders of 1947, the Green Line borders of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the borders to which Israel established military control in areas named the West Bank, the Golan Heights and (possibly) Gaza or another option?

It is proposed that Wikipedia should present clear border defined content related to its presentation and that the article should not include some information and images from within one border defined area while discounting other information from within the same border defined area.

I think that it also needs to be decided/clarified which description of borders are to be used and to what extent reference should be made to other borders.

Parameters of the 1949 Armistice Agreements

I think that it should be noted that Armistice Demarcation Lines do not change borders. As noted by another editor in another discussion, the Armistice Agreements specifically say;
 * Egypt/Israel - Article 4. 3. "It is emphasized that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognize, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement, whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice."
 * Lebanon/Israel - Art 2. 2. "(a) The provisions of this agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations."
 * Syria/Israel - Art 2. 2. "It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military and not by political considerations."
 * Jordan/Israel - Art 2. "2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

GregKaye 13:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support either clear and consistent use of either the UN mandate borders as a base for a definition of the content of Israel or the use of green line boundaries. I think that whichever borders are used within the article then that set of borders should be applied consistently.  The UN mandate borders are those that contain an area that is most widely accepted to be Israel and I have a slight preference for this area to be used for a base description for what is Israel.  I think that the article would gain in informational content if it specified if a mentioned location is situated between the UN mandate demarkation and the green line if, indeed, this information on such locations is to be added at all.  I do not think that any information on locations on the Palestinian side of the green line should be added into the article and I believe that this would be a neutral approach to the presentation of information on these areas by Wikipedia.  GregKaye 12:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree similarly along those lines. However, I would want to make a special indication of East Jerusalem with it's borders to indicate that it is the most disputed part of the map and possibly indicate Israeli control of East Jerusalem. The Golan Heights should have lines noting the DMZ exists. West Bank and Gaza should also be labeled in the map as part of Palestine. I would want to have the map labeled with both Israel and Palestine because a discussion of the border of Israel will always involve a discussion of the border of Palestine. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The 1949-1950 armistice line, aka "Green line", was made into an international border by Resolution 242, adopted by the UN Security Council in 1967. The legalistic aspect is not relevant to the issue of how the map should be drawn. We should follow what other mapmakers are doing. See here and here for typical maps of Israel. Mapmakers seem to be living in the past. I don't see anyone showing the modern boundaries with areas A, B, and C. NotUnusual (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The 5 June 1967 borders were recognized by the U.N. Ykantor (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get the point in this RFC. Presentation of any information follows what sources say on that specific information, we can't make blanket judgement like this since we don't know what sources will say. I haven't heard that the Green line would have been made into an international border by Resolution 242. The Security Council doesn't, as far as I know, have the authority to draw international borders. Even the famous Partition plan from the General Assembly was only a recommendation, which didn't succeed since both parties didn't accept it. Resolution 242 stated Israel should withdraw to behind the Green Line, not that Israel would have title to land West of the Green Line. Therefore e.g. the Arab view that Israel has no sovereign territory whatsoever isn't contradicted by Resolution 242. --Dailycare (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral representation of the listing of the largest cities in Israel
Is there any reason why Arabic cities within the border region controlled by Israel are not represented in the Template:Largest cities of Israel? This template currently displays a limited selection of cities within Israel's borders as follows:

* This number includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas.

Other cites within Israel's borders include:
 * Gaza City 949,221
 * Hebron 563,146
 * Nablus	426,132
 * Jenin	260,004
 * Ramalla	197,092
 * al-Bireh	179,202
 * Tulkarm	171,941
 * Bethlehem	165,266

I propose that a listing of the largest cites in Israel should be inclusive of all of the largest cites within Israel's borders.

GregKaye 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article says that Israel borders the Palestinian territories, so clearly the consensus is that these territories are outside of Israel. Ignoring for a moment the question whether it should be changed, do you believe it can be changed ? If these territories are not a part of Israel, how can these cities be listed as cities in Israel ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On a side note, you're aware that no government, including that of the State of Israel, considers Gaza or any city in Gaza to be a part of Israel, right?ni believe this has been the case since 2003. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 28 Tevet 5775 00:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign I did not realise that this was the situation of the article. Am I right in saying that the "Old City of Jerusalem" and its 'holy' sites are all within the area described as Palestinian territories and that, by the reasoning presented by the article, these locations are not to be regarded as being in Israel?   In your opinion, in what way should areas within Palestinian Territories be represented.  Should they be included in the Israel article or not?  GregKaye 18:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel considers the whole city of Jerusalem, east and west, part of it. Palestinian National Authority considers east Jerusalem occupied. Because of this disagreement, the number in the template has a comment "* This number includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas.".
 * The rest of the cities in your list are in the Palestinian territories, so I see no reason to include them in the list of cities in Israel. Parts of Israel right wing might consider them part of Greater Israel, but this view is not mainstream. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign So what is it to be? The article can't have it both ways.  The article should either consider areas in Palestinian territories as part of Israel inclusive of locations such Hebron, Nablus etc. as well as occupied east Jerusalem or it should not consider these areas as part of Israel.  I can only consider that neutrality has, intentionally or not, departed.  The article is not here to advocate for either the Israeli government's interpretations and propaganda or that of the Palestinians.  However there are two sets of borders that can be considered in the cases of Gaza and West Bank/Golan regions - either Green Line (Israel) or the borders of occupation/control/military domination.  If the first option is chosen then East Jerusalem, the old city inclusive of its holy sites cannot be considered as part of the article's description of Israel and if the second option is chosen then, certainly, East Jerusalem et.al. should not be presented as being part of Israel.   GregKaye 09:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * East Jerusalem is not universally accepted as a part of Israel and it should not be presented as such. There are two options: either present no information at all on the population of Jerusalem, or provide it with the disclaimer that the inclusion of east Jerusalem is disputed. Clearly existing consensus is to use the second option. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This blatantly untrue and this is something that I think that anyone with the even rudimentary familiarity with topics such as the green line and Israeli/Palestinian history will clearly realise. The article can't have it both ways. It should either use one set of borders or another.  GregKaye 11:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that East Jerusalem is universally accepted as a part of Israel ? This claim needs an WP:EXCEPTIONAL source. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Inclusive I agree that all the cities in Israel should be included so long as a footnote, or other type of note, explains the unique problem such a list involves. This includes those cities in the occupied zones so occupied after the various wars. Again, the status of such cities should be accurately noted...drs (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose and support removal of Jerusalem. The rest of the West Bank is occupied. There is no dispute. Pretending there is a dispute, or taking the Zionist position and including all of the cities, is patently POV. In fact what I don't understand is why Jerusalem is in the template. All of Jerusalem - including West Jerusalem - is, according to the international community, not a part of Israel. East Jerusalem is specifically referred to as occupied Palestinian territory. It should be removed. Keep it strictly within the green line and strictly NPOV. JDiala (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose including cities in Israeli-occupied territories and support the removal of Jerusalem. I would add a note (ref group=note) to the "Largest cities or towns of Israel" title which explains this list does not include cities in the Israeli-occupied territories, and explains the special case of Jerusalem. Alternately, the list might include the city of “West Jerusalem” with a population of “unknown” (as no one has separate population numbers for West and East Jerusalem today), and then explain the West and East Jerusalem story in the note section. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support JDiala. West Jerusalem isn't recognized as being in Israel, otherwise the embassies would be there. We covered this in the Jerusalem RFC a while ago. If Gaza City was included, then Beijing could be included too. ---Dailycare (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose and comment I have to say GregKaye's proposal of including cities that not even Israel claims as part of its territory seems to me to be extremely odd. Israel has never passed laws purporting to annex either the West Bank or Gaza. I think the most NPOV way to deal with this controversial issue is essentially what we have now: we should limit the list to cities that Israel claims, while putting prominent footnotes and so on beside any that are disputed. Jerusalem, for example, should have a note concisely summarising the controversial situation, and making clear that any figures include occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas. So in my view all we need to do is expand the footnote. On this topic: West Jerusalem is so far as I know generally accepted as part of Israel proper; it is East Jerusalem, the part it conquered from Jordan in 1967, that is so controversial. The embassies being elsewhere is actually primarily because of the separate, albeit closely related, issue of the international community not accepting Israel's claim that "Jerusalem", single and united, is its capital (see Positions on Jerusalem and Jerusalem Law). There were foreign embassies in Jerusalem until Israel passed the law claiming to annex East Jerusalem in 1980. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  20:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See e.g. "Whither Jerusalem" by Hirsch, Housen-Couriel and Lapidot at page 17: "west Jerusalem (...) most states have not recognized its sovereignty there". --Dailycare (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps that can go in the footnote as well? Though so far as I know the Green Line is what is generally used to divide what the international community considers Israel proper from what it does not. West Jerusalem is on the western side of the Green Line and I have never heard anybody argue that Israel should pull out of it (apart from those who reject Israel's existence/legitimacy altogether, of course). Moreover I've never heard it argued that West Jerusalem is under military occupation—East Jerusalem yes, but West no. To get back to my original point: regardless of the international community's stance, the fact is that Israel claims Jerusalem and controls it in practice. So in my opinion the most neutral (and accurate) thing to do is to include it, but with a prominent note next to it explaining the controversy. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  19:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Countries have explicitly stated that they do not, at this time, consider any of Jerusalem to be a part of Israel. Have they changed their mind since 1980? I don't know. That's irrelevant, however. Moreover, we cannot include cities which Israel claims. Israel can also, as Dailycare noted, claim Beijing. What it unilaterally claims for itself we don't care. Its international status is what is relevant. If a thief steals something, after all, even if "in practice" he controls it, it does not become his. JDiala (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See Positions on Jerusalem: "The chief dispute revolves around Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem, while broader agreement exists regarding the Israeli presence in West Jerusalem". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is agreement, why are there no foreign embassies? Read the third sentence in the lead on the Jerusalem page, and this. "While the international community regards East Jerusalem, including the entire Old City, as part of the occupied Palestinian territories, neither part, West or East Jerusalem, is recognized as part of the territory of Israel or the State of Palestine". JDiala (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See West Jerusalem: "A number of western countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States acknowledged de facto Israeli authority, but withheld de jure recognition". Jerusalem Embassy Act "was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem". Jerusalem, east and west, is de-facto the largest city governed by Israel and settled by Israeli citizens/permanent residents. There is already a note in the template about the legal complications surrounding its international recognition status. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute regarding de facto authority. We are talking about the recognition of legitimate, legal sovereignty, however. This, so far as the evidence suggests, no country has accepted. The Jerusalem Embassy Act is irrelevant, because, in the United States, the executive branch [ie the president] has constitutional authority over foreign policy, not Congress. Thus the official US position does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. You don't need to try and obscure the issue and create some fictitious 'dispute' regarding Jerusalem. This is the unanimous opinion of the international community. JDiala (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The opinion is far from unanimous, therefore there is a dedicated article. This discussion is about a list of largest cities in Israel. Jerusalem is a city that is de-facto governed by Israel, whether it is internationally recognized or not, so it belongs on the list. Not having it in the list would misrepresent the reality. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * —Dailycare did not equate Israel's claiming of Jerusalem to a hypothetical claim to Beijing. He equated including Gaza City in this list of "cities in Israel" to including Beijing. In which he is correct, in my opinion, as neither the Israeli government nor any other government considers Gaza to be in Israel. If Israel were to establish de facto control over and lay claim to Beijing or any other city outside its borders, then pass laws purporting to annex it as Israeli territory (as it has done since 1967 regarding East Jerusalem) then my stance would be the same. It should be included with a very prominent note explaining the situation. Not simply omitted. You yourself said above "Keep it strictly within the green line and strictly NPOV". See City Line (Jerusalem). The Green Line goes through the middle of Jerusalem and what we now call "West Jerusalem" is on the western side of the line. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  11:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll concede I misread that. However, again, there is absolutely no consensus that Jerusalem - any of it- should be considered a part of Israel. This is hardly the first time the issue of Jerusalem has been raised. Does the Jerusalem article consider it to be the capital city of Israel, or indeed even a city in Israel(as opposed to a city claimed by Israel)? No. Why, then should the article on Israel include Jerusalem? Makes no sense. Again, this discussion is pointless; it's been raised many times, and an RfC in 2013. It is not compliant with NPOV to say that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel, or that it is a city in Israel. Regarding my point Keep it strictly within the green line, that was in response to the OP's absurd proposition to include occupied Palestinian territory in the largest cities. West Jerusalem, though it's exceptional in the fact that it is within the green line, is nevertheless, per, again, the unanimous international consensus, not legally Israeli territory. The Jerusalem article states, in unequivocal terms, that "while the international community regards East Jerusalem, including the entire Old City, as part of the occupied Palestinian territories, neither part, West or East Jerusalem, is recognized as part of the territory of Israel or the State of Palestine." I cannot stress enough the fact that this discussion is almost pointless. Debating an issue which has been debating non-stop for years now is meaningless. It's best to go by the already agreed upon consensus. JDiala (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a fair amount of sympathy with the core arguments presented by Cliftonian. Since the original UN mandate which constituted an area of Israel at an extent that gained the highest level of international support the green line demarcation also came into play. If the article is to use this line as Cliftonian suggests then it should be used consistently. This would mean that East Jerusalem, its population and its sites cannot be considered as part of Israel. As far as I am concerned then the claim of Israel is either most clearly substantiated by the borders of the original UN mandate or it may be defined by the area of military control/dominance which would include Gaza, Golan and the West Bank. GregKaye 11:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about the supposed consistency the green line demarcation has, or your somewhat binary attitude that the only borders of Israel that the article can represent are either the entire regions of military occupation or the 'original UN mandate' [do you mean the UN Resolution 181?] but, rather, what the consensus - both the international/legal/scholarly consensus, and the consensus reached by other editors - says which should dictate what this article says the borders of Israel are. JDiala (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * JDiala There is a big issue regarding the consistent use of borders in the article as the article, in I think flagarant disregard to neutrality, currently includes information on East Jerusalem, and not on other Palestinian locations. To me this looks like picking and choosing content.  I readily agree that other issues are of greater importance but consistency is still an issue and agree ( add: think) that the areas defined in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine should be the borders that are used within the article.  GregKaye 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you're bringing up the UN Partition Plan. Those are not the borders of Israel as internationally recognized. Moreover, the logical thing to do in order to maintain consistency would be to remove East Jerusalem, not add in all of the other Palestinian territories. JDiala (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You asked about "UN Resolution 181" and, in response, I commented on United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. My view is that this agreement showed "an area of Israel at an extent that gained the highest level of international support" and I cannot see what is wrong with that statement.  I agree that consistency would be achieved by removing references applying to East Jerusalem.  GregKaye 14:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just irrelevant though. The partition plan was never implemented, and, moreover, even if it had considerable support then, this article is concerned with Israel's borders right now. JDiala (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How about the following compromise—we include Jerusalem in the list as "Jerusalem (West)", accompanied by the population figure for West Jerusalem only, and put a footnote as I described above, but explaining the various points of view and giving the reported population figure for the "united" Jerusalem, East and West, as claimed by the Israeli government? (the district would still be listed as "Jerusalem"). My concern is primarily that both sides of the dispute should be represented. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  16:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this is not a "let's split the difference" discussion. Jerusalem is not a part of Israel. This is the international consensus. You have not addressed that point, which is the most relevant. It should be removed. JDiala (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem is administered by Israel, settled by Israeli citizens and is considered by Israel to be its capital, so you can't say as a plain fact that it's not a part of Israel. There is a dedicated article that begins with "There are differing legal and diplomatic positions on Jerusalem held within the international community", so clearly the matter is not as simple as you're trying to present. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea, if you can find a recent population figure for West Jerusalem. A source giving both total and east would also do, but WP:CALC can't be applied to numbers from two different sources. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because otherwise we need to change the population figures for the whole state and it'll just mess things here. East Jerusalemites usually have permanent residency, but are included in Israel's total population. So the numbers should stay but mention that it's for Jerusalem as a whole, or that the Eastern part is disputed. Yuvn86 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Done this way this discussion is idle. Should be at Template talk:Largest cities of Israel. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not moved this discussion to the right place? Are WikiProjects invited? How is Israel about West Bank? Could this be related to WP:PALESTINE? -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cliftonian, the source I cited said quite clearly: "west Jerusalem (...) most states have not recognized its sovereignty there". You can't try to dismiss this by saying that you haven't heard about it. FWIW, requests to withdraw and being under military occupation aren't the same thing. The technical term for West Jerusalem's current status is "armistice occupation". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It remains utterly contrary to NPOV to include information on East Jerusalem and perhaps any part of Jerusalem in the Israel article while not including information on all the other city areas in militarily controlled areas. Very clearly the information on East Jerusalem cannot be included if any conception of NPOV and consistency be applied.  GregKaye 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding your logic, nor, to be frank, much of anything you're saying. If it's a violation of NPOV to include East Jerusalem, wouldn't it be more of a violation to include the other occupied cities? JDiala (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's universally agreed that cities such as Haifa or Tel Aviv are in Israel. There is some disagreement over Jerusalem, more so over East Jerusalem, and much more (nearly complete) disagreement with the idea that cities such as Gaza city or Hebron should be considered to reside in Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem is part of Israel because Israel says it is and controls it. De facto control is all that matters. However, for the sake of NPOV, an asterisk should be added to the Jerusalem total noting that the city is disputed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the content of discussion as above I edited the template to, I believe, an NPOV form as follows:

* This number includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas.

My edit note was: | city_1 = West Jerusalem |div_1 = Jerusalem District|Jerusalem | pop_1 = (796,200)* | img_1 = Knesset Building (South Side).JPG changes as per Israel talk page. (Other pictures may also be used but the Knesset image seemed appropriate to me).

WarKosign reverted my edit stating "There is no consensus to rename the city." I did not rename the city. My edit brought content in line with comments such as those of Cliftonian: "Keep it strictly within the green line and strictly NPOV". See City Line (Jerusalem). The Green Line goes through the middle of Jerusalem and what we now call "West Jerusalem" is on the western side of the line. Other editors are clearly against any unqualified reference to Jerusalem being added at all. GregKaye 12:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edit changed the name of the city in the list, that is renaming a city. The name of the city that is (arguably) in Israel is Jerusalem, not "West Jerusalem". Disputed status of East Jerusalem is already noted. Moreover, renaming the city makes the comment absurd: "This number [of residents in West Jerusalem] includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas." Per WP:BRD, once your bold edit was reverted, you should go to the talk page to try and convince other editors that your edit is correct, not edit war over it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I object to the word "occupied." "Israeli controlled" is more neutral. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign given the content above, an option that you might have taken so as to pursue neutral content would have been to delete the entire content. Again the question is raised: how do we present content that is located to the east of the Green line?  Do we include all the content include information on other cities in Palestinian territories or do we remove all reference to content to the east of the Green line?  I was surprised by your revert which went directly against content of discussion presented here.  Given the discussion above there was nothing bold in the edit that I made which concurred with editor views.  Several editors support the view that all reference to Jerusalem should be removed as the whole region is far from the original area for the State of Israel as presented in the Partition Plan.  BRD does not apply and it seems to me that you are misrepresenting the situation.  Your edit so as to present information to the East of the Green line as being part of Israel against consensus here was disruptive.  GregKaye 13:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion was about your proposal to add Palestinian cities such as Hebron or Gaza city, and it's clear that the consensus is not to include them. Jerusalem was discussed, but all the comments made in the last week were that it's de-facto in Israel and therefore belongs to the list, with a comment clarifying the special status of East Jerusalem. Simply renaming it in the list is wrong for several reasons, and this option certainly was not agreed upon. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I support WarKosign. Wikipedia should reflect reality, and the city name is Jerusalem, and not "west jerusalem". Ykantor (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I think I jumped the gun here I think that my point is still valid. The Wikipedia content at: Annexation clearly presents the following: "... On June 27, 1967, Israel unilaterally extended its law and jurisdiction to East Jerusalem and some of the surrounding area, incorporating about 70 square kilometers of territory into the Jerusalem Municipality. Although at the time Israel informed the United Nations that its measures constituted administrative and municipal integration rather than annexation, later rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court indicated that East Jerusalem had become part of Israel. In 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law as part of its Basic Law, which declared Jerusalem the "complete and united" capital of Israel. In other words, Israel purported to annex East Jerusalem.[16][17][18] The annexation was declared null and void by UNSC Resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 465, 476[19] and 478.[20]"
 * It is not in Wikipedia's remit to WP:ADVOCATE for a POV of an Israeli government that has been declared null and void internationally. This seems to me to be partisan editing by the contributors involved and in contravention to Wikipedia's clear guidelines on NPOV.  The Israeli government have declared East Jerusalem as being part of Israel.  The Palestinians and the International community disputes this.  While I think it is fair to support the existence of a State of Israel.  We should not present any "fact" until that "fact" has been established by agreement.  GregKaye 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Israeli government has also declared West Jerusalem to be it's capital and part of its sovereign area, which has also not been accepted internationally. So the name of the city is "Jerusalem", and the view that it would be in Israel, in part or in whole, is fringe, since Israel is the only country to hold that view. See e.g. this document concerning U.S. efforts to dissuade countries from establishing embassies in Jerusalem prior to the 1967 (that is, in West Jerusalem). --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * De-facto Jerusalem is within internationally recognized borders of Israel. It is governed by no entity but Israel. It is settled by Israeli citizens or permanent residents. De-juro positions on Jerusalem are complicated enough to warrant a dedicated article, yet de-facto status is enough to say in laymen's term that the city is in Israel, with a big disclaimer about the complications, especially regarding East Jerusalem. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Largest urban areas of Israel

This, or similar, should be the rightful title of the template as this represents the content of the source material here. The content presents a list of "Urban localities". East Jerusalem is not internationally accepted as being in Israel. GregKaye 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between a city and an "urban locality" ?&#8220;WarKosign&#8221;
 * Urban is an adjective pertaining to the quality of towns and cities and it may, amongst other things it may be used to describe, for instance, a single "urban dwelling" or the entire city of New York. City, Town and -wikt-urban GregKaye 09:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The document uses "ישובים עירוניים" as the term translated to "urban locality", but it could be as well be translated to "urban settlement" or "urban area" which could mean "cities, towns or conurbations". Naturally state's largest urban areas are cities, so by renaming the list from cities to "urban localities/areas/settlements" we would loose precision. What is the gain ? Do you need references to the fact that Tel Aviv and Haifa are cities and not towns or villages ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "ישובים עירוניים" and "urban locality" are both used in the document but, with English being at least the predominant second language of many Israelis, there is every possibility that none of the wording was translated at all. Yeshooveem literally means places/locations sat in and 'i,roonieem is used as the correspondingly plural adjective to describe urban.  Other words, wording are more commonly used to describe cities, towns and conurbations while urban locality, amongst other things, can also cover these meanings.  In any case I think that the point is moot.  East Jerusalem is not recognised as being an annexed part of Israel either in Palestine or by the international community.
 * See also search on "ישוב בעיר", "settlement, in (the) city" 15:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)  comment placed out of chronological sequence GregKaye 16:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Only West Jerusalem is in ISrael, the rest is occupied. If Israel claims anything (+RSs), that can be a footnote. Small print. By the way, did you hear what Israel said about Mexico City last time? -DePiep (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think GregKaye's "West Jerusalem" solution above is a reasonable compromise. Given the wording of UN resolution 63/30, one could argue no mention of Jerusalem should be included, but I think the compromise is reasonable. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, in a situation in which Israel makes unilateral claim to Jerusalem while both Palestine, the UN and constituent nations reject this claim, inclusion of Jerusalem in this content seems utterly unfounded on the grounds of NPOV. This seems obvious to me and I hope that editors here can see this.  We can't just present content with no more than an asterisked note with incomplete content regarding the full situation.  If anything reference might be made to Jerusalem as being intended to be an international city with rights of access to all.  GregKaye 07:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see two problems with this solution:
 * The name of the city not "West Jerusalem". It can be easily solved by listing it as Jerusalem (west) or something like it.
 * As far as I know, there is no official source for population of west portion of Jerusalem alone. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * West Jerusalem is the Wikipedia designation for the "Urban area", "Urban locality" to the west of the Green line. WarKosign it you want to propose a change in designation of this then you should submit a RM as per normal procedure.  The original UN intention was for the whole of Jerusalem to be a separate entity under international regime.  War ensued and, at one interval, battle lines were drawn.  The resultant situation was reminiscent of a number of divided or otherwise partitioned cities such as East and West Berlin.  Berlin was united with the unification of Germany.  There has been no unification of Israel with the West Bank.  The lack of recognition of West Jerusalem is arguably shown in the prevalence of foreign embassies located in Tel-Aviv although I wouldn't be surprised if moderately better accessibility to the airport and, more importantly, much better access to the beach etc. were also factors.  This, however is my original research in acknowledgement that the beach is very nice but, all the same, I think there is valid call for the complete removal of Jerusalem from the listing.
 * I agree that there is a problem in regard to the lack of specific information on West Jerusalem but, if anything, this constitutes reasoning for a removal of West Jerusalem from the list. It is a problem raised by the Israeli authorities who make unilateral claim to Jerusalem in contradiction to UN mandates.  Wikipedia is not here to WP:ADVOCATE for political assertions made in Israel but to present NPOV content.  Both Palestine and elements in the International community variously reject Israeli claims to Jerusalem.  GregKaye 10:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of your posts are confusing, GregKaye. I don't see what the issue is, the article mentions more than once the disputed status of Jerusalem and the different views on control of the Eastern part and the city as a whole. Yuvn86 (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yuvn86 I have tried to be as clear as I can. Please specify which posts have you found confusing and how and I will be happy to try to clarify.  Put simply, the section presents population in/of Israel.  We can use any connecting wording that we like such as city, towns, urban locations or urban areas but the issue remains the same.  The populations are presented as being in/of Israel.  The Palestinians and several elements in the International community do not consider various parts of Jerusalem as rightfully being Israeli property.  Information regarding East Jerusalem certainly should not be included here or on pages like List of Israeli cities.
 * On another point I find the divisions of urban locations as used to be quite interesting interesting. The continuous urban area around Tel-Aviv carries into areas such as Petah Tikva, Bnei Brak, Holon, and Rishon LeZion.  I think that its quite curious that, despite a recent history of separation between East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem and the notable differences in ethnic populations, that Israeli authorities has chosen to view Jerusalem as a single entity while considering various areas in the Tel Aviv centred conurbation as being separate entities.  A great number of people I've known living in Holon worked in Tel Aviv centre.  I wouldn't be surprise, if Israel had an interest in making Tel-Aviv its capital, that all of its continuous urban area would be considered as one while Jerusalem might be considered to remain divided.  I find the description of Tel-Aviv as being the second city of Israel to be quite questionable and politically convenient but this is just personal opinion.  GregKaye 13:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tel Aviv is a single city. Gush Dan consists of Tel Aviv and its surrounding cities. There are many reasons they are not considered one city. History is one of these reasons: Petah Tikva and Rishon LeZion for example were founded decades before Tel Aviv. There are long-standing plans to unify the local authorities, yet there is very little progress, probably because official are afraid to loose their jobs as number of position for them would shrink. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I took a look how List of cities in Israel handles Jerusalem. It doesn't. It redirects to List of Israeli cities, which includes Israeli cities that are not properly in Israel, such as Ariel. Before the list, the article explains that it lists cities reported by Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) and that some of them are located at areas that are not recognized as being in Israel. I think this subtle distinction - between cities in Israel and Israeli cities solves the issue. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign I have also seen this article which, on the clear basis of the above discussion, is shown to be extremely flawed and shows extreme POV. How can Ariel, a small settlement rated to accommodate 18,638 people (who presumably presumably retain voting rights in Israel despite their living locations) and built relatively recently within Palestinian territories, be considered to be a "city" in Israel while Hebron and Nablus (with populations of 563,146 and 426,132 respectively who largely are not given the rights to vote) are not counted as cities in Israel.  WarKosign, it seems to me that you are argumentatively not getting the point that locations within the Palestinian territories are not, either by the Palestinian community or internationally, considered to be part of Israel.  According to NPOV, these places cannot be directly listed.  GregKaye 14:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it was a list of "Largest cities in Israel or Palestinian Territories" than clearly both Hebron and Nablus would belong there. Ariel is not a city in Israel, but it is a city (as defined by the CBC) and it is Israeli, therefore it is on the list of Israeli cities. It is an illegal settlement in the West Bank; the section before the list describes its status and it's location in the West Bank is clearly visible in the list.
 * Quite similarly, Jerusalem (east+west) is not legally a city in Israel, but it is a city de-facto managed by Israel and its population consists of Israeli citizens and permanent settlers. The difference between Jerusalem and Ariel is that nobody claims that Ariel (or parts of it) are/should be a Palestnian city, and this difference should be clearly noted. Removing Jerusalem from the list of Israeli cities is a misrepresentation of reality and sources. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another possibility to follow is List of cities administered by the Palestinian National Authority. Does anyone dispute the fact that Jerusalem as a whole is administered by Israel ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 22:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Israel geography
There is a historical error Look for "ATLAS historique et geographie" HACHETTE 1981 I.S.B.N. 2.01.007977.9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogl Noys (talk • contribs) 13:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would really help your request if you could be a bit more specific. It is highly unlikely anyone is going to actually go looking for that book simply because you said there is an undefined historical error. The talk page is rather chaotic as you can see. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 19 Shevat 5775 13:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

English as an official language
Please see this edit and this discussion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, might be the most widely known second language in Israel (not counting Arabic or Hebrew depending on the speaker) and many things might be written in English, but it's still not an official language. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 19 Shevat 5775 13:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)