Talk:Israel/Archive 51

Longest military occupation - session 3
This section is a continuation of "Longest military occupation - session 2". see also:

According to the following quote, the longest modern military occupation is in Kashmir: "If we consider the postwar legal regime that established the international laws that regulate and administer occupation, Kashmir is the first site of contemporary military occupation, yet its history remains comparatively less known than that of Palestine or Iraq, even though the number of Indian troops posted in Kashmir approaches 700,000 more than twice the US. forces in Iraq at the height of the military occupation there". Hence the article sentence: "Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times" is incorrect. Ykantor (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something, Ykantor, but can you bold the part of the sentence that says the occupation of Kashmir is the longest military occupation in modern times? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * -, : I would like to have your opinion. Thanks. Ykantor (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the bold portion of the quote above as "Kashmir is the earliest site of military occupation that is still in force today", which must mean that it began earlier than any other occupation, which must mean that it's the longest. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment the cited references for the "longest military occupation" statement present:

"See for example: * * *  *  *  *"

This is not an issue that I have greatly followed but I had gathered that the issue was clear. GregKaye 16:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The theory that Kashmir is under military occupation is WP:Fringe. Several POV pushers have tried to include it in the Kashmir article, but have (thankfully) been unsuccessful to date. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. This is why: Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir). Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the longest-this, biggest-that, style of writing, but the extraordinary length of this occupation is one of its most notably features so it absolutely must be mentioned. Not just the length of it, but the extraordinary nature of that length. It would be easy to add additional excellent references that it is the longest. Zerotalk 23:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article should impart factual description of its subject. It should not approach the subject with a polemical attack. The BDS movement disapproves not merely of the "occupation," (itself a charged term despite its adoption by foreign diplomats) but of the existence of Israel as a Jewish State altogether. (This point of view is also implicit in the Palestinian Authority's refusal to agree to recognize Israel as a "Jewish State" during last year's framework negotiations with Israel mediated by John Kerry and the Obama administration.) Inasmuch as the word "occupation" has been adopted by the BDS movement some years ago now as a code-phrase for attacks on the integrity, security, and sovereignty of the State of Israel, I personally am motivated to again bring the question the prominence of its use in a Wikipedia article about Israel to this page. Would the BDS movement prefer the article to be renamed "The Fascist Occupying State of Israel?" That would be highly improper regardless of the number of Wikipedia Editors or Administrators who might like to see that! In short, it is inappropriate to demonize the subject of any Wikipedia article. The Israeli authorities, indeed, might prefer that Wikipedia simply excise any article entitled "Israel," preferring to separate its fortunes from a Wikipedia that is so implacably opposed to its existence as a Jewish State. The idea that Israel is "occupying" territory that is part and parcel of the historic Land of Israel, and indeed that was contemplated in the San Remo agreement as part of a modern Jewish State, is highly questionable, prima facie. Israel conquered the West Bank, a.k.a., Judea and Samaria, in 1967 at its peril. To the victors go the spoils. As far as voting rights for Arabs there are concerned, the establishment of areas under Palestinian Arab authority as contemplated by the Oslo accords has provided a measure of self-determination which could be further expanded for those indigenous Moslems. The Arab-Israeli conflict is highly unique. Attempting to frame it in terms of, e.g., colonialism, or, e.g., terms analogous to South African Apartheid or other struggles for self-determination is to perpetuate a serious miscarriage of justice. Hence, "I would like to see the phrase Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times.[note 3][28]" removed, per se, from this article and placed in a separate article that covers the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian question.Jabeles (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you find this fact inconvenient. I note that your post implies you have extreme right-wing tendencies: (1) siege mentality (implying that "the world is against us"), (2) irredentist statements like "part and parcel of the historic Land of Israel" and "To the victors go the spoils", and (3) characterising Palestinians as "Moslems" (which is as facile as suggesting all Israelis are Jews). Genuinely well-balanced supporters of Israel do not try to hide inconvenient facts - they embrace them and work to make Israel better. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Attacking my point-of-view ("extreme," "mentality," "irredentist," "Moslems") is not a legitimate form of discourse. Further your phrase "Genuinely well-balanced supporters" does not address the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is not to support one or another POV but rather to provided information. The term "occupation" is politically charged and must be taken as advancing a political agenda. It should only be used with careful qualification. As it stands this Wikipedia article is biased.Jabeles (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This sentence is also a wp:pov since it implies that it is Israel's fault, without mentioning the Israeli generous peace proposal at year 2000 (p.m Barak) and 2008 (p.m. Olmert ) and the Mahmud Abbas refusal to negotiate. The main problem is the right of return of the Palestinian refugees. The public in Israel will never accept it, as the meaning is the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Should not the Jews have rights for their own little country? Since the Palestinians has rights for their own country as well, I am personally for an immediate and unilateral retreat of Israel from the West bank, while keeping what is needed to avoid smuggling heavy rockets into the Palestinian state. The situation is rather similar to the Egyptian peace proposal of 1971. The Egyptians caused the 1967 war, including public speeches that Israel will be destroyed this time. They lost the war and then in 1971 they proposed (sort of cold) peace, provided Israel would immediately give away her playing cards (the territories ) before starting negotiations (indirect only).! I propose to remove this sentence for both reasons: because the occupation of Kashmir started at 1947, and because this sentence is a wp:pov. Ykantor (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence most certainly does not imply fault. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As mentioned, that Kashmir is occupied is fringe with only the involved parties in the dispute viewing it as such. You can also find sources that say Tibet or Hawaii is occupied but it doesn't mean it is true. There are many territorial disputes but they don't necessarily involve occupied territory. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean that Tibet is not occupied? so the U.S senate and congress voted for a fringe view ? " On 28 October 1991 both the Senate and the House of Representatives legislated perhaps the most important legal pronouncement on Tibet. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal year 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138 (H..1415) declared Tibet, including those areas: incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai, is an occupied country under the established principles of international law; (2) Tibets true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile as recognized by the Tibetan people, and finally calls for Tibetan peoples right to self-determination " Norbu2012p275 Ykantor (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is technically "annexed". We have discussed this distinction previously. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't see that is the US position (meaning the goverment's) nor have I seen any state view it as occupied (if there are it is still vast consensus it is not) though others does view it as such. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir is not recognized as occupied in any international fora, certainly not with anything approaching the consensus on Palestine. It is of course true that there are a huge number of Indian troops there, and there is widespread separatist sentiment. Tibet is not occupied either, there is no country in the world that recognizes it as occupied. There were and remain border disputes, and problems with autonomy and repression, but that is not the same as occupation technically. International law can be crazy and inconsistent, but that's the way it is. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - "Tibet is not occupied either, there is no country in the world that recognizes it as occupied". Correct, and the reason is simple- no country dares to encounter China. If hypothetically, China would have occupied the West bank, It would have been the same- no country would have dares to encounter China and recognize it as an occupied territory. The International laws are not really applied to the big powers. But if you look at the definition of "occupied" in a dictionary, Tibet is 100% occupied. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we just not mention the longest occupation line since it is not npov and is not necessarily even true. The US is technically occupying Native American land, Tibet and Kashmir are both occupied, as well as similar occupations elsewhere. This line will just inflame tensions further for this article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The length of the occupation of the Palestinian territories is very significant (48 years now) so it belongs here. Giving examples of other territories you think is occupied too when they are not seen as that is not either a reason to not mention this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not going to accept with equanimity the pejorative/polemic tone of the subject statement (regarding longest military occupation). Neither should any Wikipedia Editor or Administrator with a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. To wit, the statement clearly is meant to calumnify Israel, the only Jewish State in the middle east. Clearly, the implication is that the occupation is a bad thing because it deprives certain individuals of self-determination and imposes inconveniences or hardships upon them! But the question is, who is responsible for the undesired state-of-affairs? That is the key point, and it is implicit. The clear and extremely biased insinuation is that the responsibility falls upon the occupying power, i.e., upon the State of Israel. But is this so? That isn't addressed in these talk pages. If the main page describing the State of Israel implicitly criticizes Israel savagely without justification, that is not a neutral point of view. The main page, to satisfy neutrality concerns, needs to touch upon the question of whose fault it is that this occupation has lasted since 1967 (48 years), and moreover acknowledge de minimus that there is honest disagreement among well-intentioned individuals as to (indeed) which side may be responsible. FURTHERMORE, the citation of scholarly and journalistic works claiming to justify a one-sided point of view (regarding the "occupation" being solely the responsibility of Israel) is fundamentally flawed since OBVIOUSLY one could find competing journalistic or scholarly works, or both, that would take an opposing point-of-view. So please dispense with that silliness.Jabeles (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * - : yours:"The sentence most certainly does not imply fault." The occupying force is seen as the "bad guy" and rightly so. But:


 * 1) In this case,Israel, the occupying force, captured the west bank from Jordan after an Jordanian attack. Moreover, even after this attack started, Israel told Jordan that Israel was not interested in a war with Jordan and if this attack would be stopped, Israel won't fight against Jordan. The Jordanian king did not bulge and continued his attack.
 * 2) Israel proposed a peace agreement to the Palestinians at year 2000, a proposal that the American president considered as a generous offer, but the Palestinians refused. Another generous agreement was offered at 2008 and the Palestinians refused again.
 * In my opinion those facts should be mentioned together with the "long occupation" sentence, in order to avoid the current POV situation. Ykantor (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Both narratives in 1 and 2 above represent pro-Israel propagandistic summaries. Pro-Palestinian propagandistic summaries of the same questions are well known, so I am not going to repeat them here. The middle ground scholarly position is highly complex on both points, as it attempts to retain the facts but remove the hyperbole from both narratives. We are not going to solve this in half a sentence here. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are facts only. Will you please show where there is a propaganda? Ykantor (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , the propaganda statements are: (1) "after an Jordanian attack" (Egypt and Jordan has a mutual defence pact, and Israel attacked first), (2) "The Jordanian king did not bulge and continued his attack" the message was received by Hussein after the Israeli attack on Egypt, and after Hussein's army has started their retaliation; he could not have unwound his mutual defence treaty on the basis of that message, (3) "the American president considered as a generous offer" - see the debate at 2000_Camp_David_Summit. I don't want to debate who is right or wrong here - I am just making the point that what you wrote down were memes formulated by Israeli PR which should not be taken at face value. We are not going to resolve these here, so let's move on. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're the one attempting to engage in PR memes. The fact there was a mutual defense pact between Egypt and Jordan doesn't change the fact Jordan attacked Israel. Maybe they had a reason, but they initiated hostilities between themselves and Israel. And saying that the American president considered the Israeli offer generous is an undisputed fact. There's perhaps a debate if it was a generous offer or not, but not about the fact that this is what the American president said multiple times. Do move on if you want to, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , the above suggests you don't understand how propaganda works. Most propaganda is based on facts which are themselves correct, but these facts are propagated without a reasonable level of context, thereby giving a misleading impression of the overall picture. A modus operandi that you are very familiar with. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think part of the issue, here and globally, is that Israel annexed the West Bank from Jordan as a result of the Six-Day War (after an occupation in 1948, which, ironically, many nations recognized as legal). The terms of the current situation rest on whether or not it is truly an "occupation." If the "occupation" of the The West Bank can be considered a legal annexation after war and not an occupation, why can the Israeli annexation after war not also be considered a legal annexation? Territories are annexed as a result of wars. That is a statement of fact. Whether it is termed occupation, however, can be POV. Goalie1998 (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

After all the verbiage here, we still have the undeniable fact that a large number of highly respectable sources state that this is the longest modern occupation. That makes it available for addition according to the rules, and nobody has provided a rule-based argument for its omission. Nor any logically valid argument, in my opinion. So add it already and think of something else to argue about. Zerotalk 10:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, as per List of military occupations, the occupation of Namibia and German South West Africa was longer (1915-1994). That is certainly still modern times. Goalie1998 (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For more details, see Namibia. "South Africa occupied the colony in 1915" and "... but it was not until 1988 that South Africa agreed to end its occupation ". It makes this occupation 73 years long, compared with 47 here.
 * In case of a contradiction between reliable sources, per WP:NPOV we report both opinions. Undobtedly many people called the situation on the disputed territories "longest occupation", but here we see another event that was also called occupation and certainly was longer, therefore we can write something like "it was referred to as the longest occupation in the modern times, however Namibia was under South African occupation between 1915 and 1988". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems that the word "longest" is unnecessary to begin with. Wouldn't it be more factually accurate to state that Israel has been occupying the West bank since 1967? Goalie1998 (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * - The West bank is indeed occupied by Israel, but this sentence is a wp:pov as I wrote here, in my post of 13:28, 20 June 2015.
 * - Concerning "a large number of highly respectable sources state that this", this large number indicates no more than that the Arab Israeli conflict is popular among researchers. It does not mean that the situation in the west bank is worse than in western Sahara, Tibet etc. Those conflicts' involved population suffer because they are not sufficiently attractive for the researchers.
 * - : As said, my claims of 13:28, 20 June 2015 are facts only and should not be called propaganda:
 * The fact that Jordan was a member of allied countries against Israel, does not change the situation: Jordan was the first to attack Israel. Also, "Jordan ignored Israel's appeals to stay out of the war - King Hussein later admitted that he had been misled by Egyptian propaganda claims to be winning a stunning victory"
 * "the American president considered as a generous offer"- this is a fact. Independently, for the Palestinians it was not sufficiently generous proposal. In fact, according to the Palestinian leaders, any peace proposal should include the right of return, but for Israel it means the end of Israel as a Jewish state. In my opinion the only solution is immediate and unilateral withdraw of Israel without an agreement, while holding what is needed to block possible import of heavy rockets. Unfortunately, as happened after Israel withdrew from Gaza, the result may be shooting of light rockets into Israel. In that scenario, will Israel re-occupy it ? Ykantor (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Beside engaging in soapboxing, many editors here are engaging in original research. Our aim is to summarize what the sources say, not to invent a narrative to defend our country against a perceived slight. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call using other wikipedia sources as original research. It is not disputed that South-West Africa was occupied militarily from 1915-1994 . Simply because sources use the word "longest" does not make them correct. And unless you (royal you, not any editor specifically) dispute that, the occupation of the West Bank is not the longest. It is simple math. Goalie1998 (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Other wikipedia articles are not RS, but their sources normally are, and I found them. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * WarKosign, Shame on you for bringing such rubbish here. Namibia was a League of Nations mandated territory starting in 1920, which was a legal status under international law.  It was not occupied then, just as Palestine was occupied by Britain from 1917 to 1923 but not from 1923 to 1948. Even into the 1960s, the International Court of Justice treated South Africa's presence there as legal.  So it isn't even close to an example. Zerotalk 14:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, if you look at the source referenced above, http://www.sahistory.org.za/places/namibia, South-West Africa was under military occupation from 1915 to 1994. Goalie1998 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify, I am not debating here that Israel has been occupying the West Bank since 1967. What I am positing, however, is that based on my source (which uses actual years, not just the phrase "longest military occupation"), and other wikipedia articles (which I know are not really RS, but other articles referencing the "longest military occupation" use them as well, which I will attempt to correct based on the outcome of this), South-West Africa was under military occupation from 1915 to 1994. Therefore, it is still a longer occupation (79 years vs 48). I suggest we change the sentence to read "Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest current military occupation." Or Israel has been occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967." Both options are factually correct, and they both retain the fact that, yes, it is a long occupation. Goalie1998 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but either you don't know what "occupation" means or you aren't reading correctly. A country can't occupy another and hold it as a League of Nations mandate at the same time.  It is a contradiction.  It is true that Namibia was occupied in 1915, and it is true (or at least reasonable) that an occupation ceased there in 1994.  But that doesn't mean it was occupied from 1915 to 1994. From 1920 until the mid-1960s (by the International Court of Justice) it was not occupied. Zerotalk 18:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Zero is right. The reason we keep coming back to this is that the term "occupied" is used loosely in common speak, thereby causing confusion. But we follow the highest quality sources, and the situation is very clear. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am just interpreting the sources differently. As I am clearly in the minority on this one, even though I don't see an issue with removing the word "longest" and adding something more along the lines of "since 1967," I will no longer dispute it. There is no point. Goalie1998 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cold War in Southern Africa: White Power, Black Liberation: "As the regional military and political hegemon, South Africa was of key importance in the events of 1988. It had occupied South-West africa/Namibia since 1915 and long hoped to incorporate the territoriy into South Africa itself. Under increasing international pressure from the internationa community from the early 1970s, however, Pretoria had abandoned attempts at incorporation and instead accepted that Namibia must be led to independence and black majority rule."
 * Crucible of Fire: The Church Confronts Apartheid: Essays by Leading South African Christians: "NAMIBIA - The country which South Africa's military has occupied since 1915. In december 1988, a peace treaty was signed that called for the removal os South African troops from this country."
 * &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is colloquial not technical usage. For a technical discussion, see:
 * "The nature of South Africa's Legal Title", in:
 * I find personally find this world history interesting, and am happy to discuss this for as long as you wish. But frankly this is all WP:OR, unless you can find an WP:RS specifically naming the longest military occupation in modern times to be a situation other than I/P.
 * Instead of fighting reality, I suggest you accept it for what it is and figure out how to help. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Deciding that one use is technical and another is colloquial is WP:OR. Even if you can find sources that support your claim of two different meanings of the word, unless they specifically mention Israel and Namibia - it would be WP:SYNTH. You can't ignore reliable sources only because they do not fit your POV. We have contradiction between sources, so per WP:NPOV we report both versions. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. We identify the highest quality sources focused on the specific question at hand. Your sources use the word "occupied" in passing, and it is unclear whether they are intending to use the word in its technical sense. They are not worthy of consideration for this specific question - there are many books on the legal nature of South Africa's time in Namibia, and any judgement should be based on those. Either way, as I said, "unless you can find an WP:RS specifically naming the longest military occupation in modern times to be a situation other than I/P", then this is all just academic. But please, continue. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The question shouldn't be whether it's the longest occupation or not, but whether mentioning that factoid on this page would be undue. I argue it would. Notice for example that on the Turkey page, they don't say even once that Turkey is currently occupying Northern Cyprus, and that occupation is only about 15% shorter than Israel's occupation of the West Bank. It's not like this occupation is 5x longer than the next runner up, or even twice as long. There are many other articles where this factoid can go without being UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting - since the fact has been established as incontrovertible, let's try another route to get rid of it, perhaps a tenuous WP:OTHERSTUFF argument?
 * Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has been its no.1 geopolitical issue for almost 50 years. Its unprecedented duration is of the highest notability. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't true, so I'm not sure who you were addressing your first sentence to. Your second sentence on the other hand consists entirely of your personal opinion. This factoid is sometimes mentioned when talking about Israeli occupation, which is sometimes mentioned when talking about Israel. Calling it "unprecedented" is ridiculous since we have already established it's only about 15% longer than Turkey's occupation of Northern Cyprus or Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara, not to mention that historically occupations of 100s of years are not unheard of. It's amply precedented. This is a top level country page, not one focused solely or mainly on the occupation or even Israel's geopolitical issues. Try again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel is occupying a population of 4.5m people, equivalent to 56% of Israel's own 8m, of which a further 1.7m (20%) identify with the occupied people. Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus have populations of 0.5m and 0.3m respectively, equivalent to about 1.5% and 0.4% respectively of Morocco's and Turkey's populations. This is a much much bigger issue for Israel than it is for either Morocco or Turkey. Hence comparing the leads of these articles is a red herring, even if WP:OTHERSTUFF didn't tell you that already. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - Yours: "Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has been its no.1 geopolitical issue for almost 50 years". It is true that this issue is highly popular, but the real issue is not the occupation but the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinians saying clearly that a final agreement must include the right of return for the refugees, which is another name for the end of Israel as a Jewish state. This is a sort of absurd theater where the occupying state proposed (at years 2000 and 2008) to end the occupation but the occupied people do not accept such a final agreement unless the occupying state is sort of committing suicide i.e ceasing to be a Jewish state. Ykantor (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Others would say that the "real issue" is the settlements and irredentism. Combining this with your point, we can conclude that the "real issue" is the right wing on both sides.
 * Either way, the issue that major international governments have been working to resolve, is the occupation. The question of "what is the real issue" is another way of saying "why has the occupation not ended yet". Which brings us back to the occupation. You're dreaming if you think a reasonable consensus here would ever conclude that the occupation was not a lead-level topic for Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox: Language
Question on the language in the infobox... There has been a distinction made between Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew, but not between Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic. Modern Hebrew is not a different language than Biblical Hebrew, just an updated version - if you can speak/read/write one, you can speak/read/write the other with some minor stylistic differences. Biblical Hebrew is not spoken now. Is that not the same difference as Classical vs Modern Standard Arabic? Classical Arabic is what is used in the Quran, while Modern Standard Arabic is what is spoken now. While there is no named difference between the two variants, they are in fact variants. I just noticed there was a few edits regarding this and wanted some clarification. Goalie1998 (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First official language of Israel is Modern Hebrew, colloquially referred to as simply Hebrew. Technically Modern Hebrew is considered a distinct form of Hebrew  that was developed in 19th century. Unless a distinction is needed, Modern Hebrew is referred to as simply Hebrew, and this is what I think we should show in the infobox. It should link to the correct article.
 * It seems that it's the same for Arabic - while colloquially the language spoken by the Arab minority in Israel is called Arabic, second official language in Israel is Modern Standard Arabic or Literary Arabic, so we should show Arabic in the infobox and link to Modern Standard Arabic. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No Universal Sufferage
A large portion of the population of Israel are not citizens and cannot vote, which violates the definition of universal sufferage. Also apparently my opinions are "misconceptions" which apparently must be fixed. Scientus (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The only non-citizens in Israel who cannot vote are foreign workers, and the "permanent residents", mostly Arab residents of East-Jerusalem, who can become citizens if they wish and more and more are doing it. This is not a "large portion" of the population of Israel. But of course I guess you are speaking about the Palestinian population in the "disputed" territories. Since these territories are not part of Israel (and they can vote to their own autonomous Palestinian Authority when it deigns organizing elections, they are not part of "the population of Israel". If and when Israel decides to annex the territories, we will speak about it. Benjil (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of universal suffrage defines it as "the extension of the right to vote to adult citizens". As you acknowledge in your statement, Scientus, "a large portion of the population of Israel are not citizens and cannot vote". That seems entirely consistent with the definition of universal suffrage. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The US also has a similar situation in Washington DC, where citizens do not have federal representation. "If and when Israel decides to annex the territories" The wall has already been built.Scientus (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The future (or lack thereof) of a Palestinian state is irrelevant. As it stands now, all Israeli citizens have the right to vote, so there is universal suffrage. Goalie1998 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense for two reasons. First, universal suffrage means all citizens can vote. Second, the overwhelming majority living in Israel are Israeli citizens.Jeppiz (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, *you* are nonsense. Israel clearly does not recognize any Palestinian state (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/us-vatican-palestinians-idUSKBN0P618120150626 -statements *today*), and thus to them there no logical conclusion but them having annexed it (no the mention the existence of a wall), and if these people are not citizens of Israel then they general are not citizens of any country, which doesn't make any sense at all. No matter what bizarre definitions of citizenship Israel has with its Right of Return, the Israel is not a country of its people and thus does not have Universal Suffrage.Scientus (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel recognizes PNA as the representative of the people in the disputed territories. Your personal conclusion is irrelevant. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe Israel has annexed the West Bank, you might want to go ahead and attempt to edit this and the other articles on the subject to reflect that fact. It is a little bit of a double standard to suggest that non-Israelis living in the West Bank must have the right to vote in a country that the international community claims they aren't part of. The West Bank isn't legally Israel, but the ones living there must have the right to vote in Israel? Goalie1998 (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Israel recognizes PNA as the representative of the people in the disputed territories." *disputed* implies that Israel *has* annexed it, and having two classes of people is *an* apartheid, not democracy.Scientus (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at Palestinian territories. It says "occupied" and not "annexed" everywhere. Since you know better, perhaps you can present your evidence on their talk page, and see if they agree with you. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Demographics
Is it necessary or useful to the article have a picture of a generic child (I am aware it is Bar Rafaeli, and that she is Israeli) in the Demographics section? Maybe remove it, or replace it with something that more appropriately depicts the demographics of Israel? Goalie1998 (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here we go again...&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't involved in that discussion, but after a quick read through it appears that consensus at the time was to remove it? Goalie1998 (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like the consensus was to replace it with a picture of soldiers around Peres and Netanyahu, don't know why it didn't happen.
 * I'll make the change? Goalie1998 (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Goalie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.70.42 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

POV Reference to Jerusalem
The statement that "Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed" is misleading and I believe biased. It suggests that Jerusalem is Israeli territory, but that some dispute this. The reality is that few countries recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. A more accurate statement would be "Israel annexed occupied Jerusalem, an act which is not recognized internationally".122.59.167.152 (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem is Israeli territory. Quit trolling. 58.168.196.22 (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 58.168.196.22 RE: "Jerusalem is Israeli territory" can you please cite that? GregKaye 16:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem will remain in Israel no matter how many times you'll try to question this simple fact. Jerusalem is in Israel because it is controlled by Israel, administered by Israel, populated by Israeli citizens and permanent residents, and the only way you have to enter Jerusalem is by crossing the border into Israel. Legality of this situation is disputed internationally, and both facts are described in the lead as well as in the article. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that statement implies Jerusalem would be in Israel. To the contrary, it says Jerusalem is not considered Israeli, which is in line with what the best sources say on this. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The statement just describes the situation: Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem (the de facto situation on the ground) is disputed (not recognized de jure by most countries). This is as neutral as it can get. Benjil (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --JBL (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't imply that Jerusalem is entirely in Israeli territory, if that's what you're thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.70.42 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2015
I wanted to ask why Israel is recognised as a 'state' when it is infact an illegal occupation... Yet Palestine is not recognised at all as a state...

Muzaffariqbal1 (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources supporting your opinion ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Really ? I understand what you are doing but at the same time this kind of nonsense should not even be answered. Benjil (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming good faith. See WP:DNB. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC Lead sentence clutter
The first line of the lead of the Israel article notes the English, Arabic, and Hebrew transliterations of the name along with their IPAs. Consequently, the first line is heavily cluttered. About three quarters of the line is text that most of our readership will not be able to understand. Most of our readers do not speak Arabic or Hebrew or understand IPA. I submitted a motion to clear the first line of this text, perhaps moving the material to some other section of the article. I noticed that the infobox in the top-right of the article already has the Hebrew and Arabic translations of "State of Israel", so I see no need for them to be in the first sentence of the lead.

It was pointed out to me that this is a problem that appears across many articles concerning countries with multiple official languages, such as Switzerland. Since the issue is widespread, I would like some external comments. These articles all seem to be in violation of WP:LEADCLUTTER.Kurzon (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The current site-wide consensus and de facto status quo is that country articles feature official and common names of the country in that country's official languages, in addition to Latin romanisations. However, in many cases a country has multiple official languages, and often the case there is talk page consensus on those articles to move the information to an infobox or language template. Take China, for example, which has many official languages (Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian, Uyghur and Zhuang) - the lead paragraph only shows the name in Chinese, and the rest of the languages are placed in a template on the right hand side, below the country infobox. Ultimately, a solution for lead paragraph clutter should be decided by community consensus on that particular article's talk page; I personally would be opposed to forming a Wikipedia-wide "rule" or "guideline" which firmly dictates in stone what editors can and cannot do, per WP:KUDZU. -- benlisquare T•C•E 09:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose removal of the native name, for the reasons stated by . "Most of the readers don't understand Hebrew or Arabic" is an invalid reason to delete material. Per the MoS, IPA should be provided when pronunciation is non-obvious, which is the case here. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose removal of the native name, for the mentioned reasons. Ykantor (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I really do not see how the p&g of WP:LEADCLUTTER as per the example of Ghengis Khan (with its two and a half lines of text inclusive of three citations and a section of vertically aligned text) applies. The sequence in the text of the Israel article is that we read "Israel ( or ), officially the State of Israel"; then there is a bracket; then there is the text at issue which contains a very significant changes of formating styles and which, if anything, is consistent in its variation; then there is a close bracket; then, after less than one line of text (at least on display on my screen) we get back to a more expected presentation of text in Latin script.  Once finding the beginning of the bracketed section, it is relatively easy to find the end.   by extension of the rationale that you have presented we could also remove the first three pictures from the article as they all present otherwise unexplained symbols and scripts.   GregKaye 06:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My main argument is that the Hebrew and Arabic translations are redundant when we have them in the infobox.Kurzon (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal of the text per GregKaye, it doesn't look like it's violating LEADCLUTTER. Moreover, this kind of text is common and appears in almost every single country article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)