Talk:Israel/Archive 69

Pronunciation
Concerning your. The source you provided uses a standard different from Wikipedia, see MOS:IPA. Dictionary.com separates syllables with space, with alternative spelling of one of the syllables given separately. You added a syllable next to Wiki-style IPA, which makes no sense. Show a Wikipedia guideline or article example with pronunciation given as you did it here. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While it is not in any guideline, there's also no guideline against it, and indicating only the changed syllable in alternate pronunciations has become commonplace in articles. Dictionary.com separates syllables by space, yes, but take note of the hyphens before and after the alternate syllable. That indicates where the alternate syllable is placed. That's why the hyphen is defined in Template:IPAc-en, not to be confused with the syllable break.


 * --maczkopeti (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Provide an example article. There can't be alternative syllable if IPA does not separate them in the first place. Look at your revision. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Came here from WT:LINGUISTICS. Maybe I'm not fully understanding, but I don't see an issue to use hyphens as has done to separate out the part where there's variation, it just saves space from transcribing the word twice instead of just the part with variation. One sees hyphens to do this in many Wikipedia examples, see: Vancouver, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Austria, Hawaii, Kazakstan (in the notes), Tottenham Hotspur F.C., and plenty of others. Umimmak (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We should simply write . Not only would that be far more intuitive for readers (each hyphen saves only one or two characters anyway), but is varysyllabic, meaning  may be pronounced, , or  (see the note at Help:IPA/English), so abbreviating certain syllables with hyphens is not appropriate in this case.
 * On a side note, the number of syllables in is also a bit ambiguous, as for some speakers there is no phonemic contrast between  and  (see ). This is why the latest editions of Longman Pronunciation Dictionary and Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary, for example, transcribe it  and  respectively, indicating by superscript or italic schwa that the presence of the schwa is optional or ambiguous. This means  would also be inappropriate. Nardog (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit-conflict) Now it's . If syllables are not separated, a reader can think the alternative spelling is supposed to be, for example. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay sure, if it's ambiguous for this particular pronunciation, then perhaps it shouldn't be abbreviated as such. (I suppose one could have to be more explicit, but then there's less benefit from using the hyphen.) But it seemed that there was an implication that this practise was proscribed by house style across the board, which isn't the case. Umimmak (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's not an implicit problem with using a truncated transcription to highlight the portion of a word that is variable. But that's better used for longer words where the variation might not be as apparent with two full transcriptions. Israel is such a short word that two full transcriptions would be ideal, rather than a full transcription and a partial one. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement that a magnitude 7.4 earthquake would have dire consequences for world peace - marked as cn and Dubious
I have marked this as citation needed, and because it seems highly contentious and not a statement that should be made as a "fact" in the voice of Wikipedia, also marked it as dubious.

The quote in the footnote just talks about the risk of the earthquake - this is the quote cited: "": The major ones were recorded along the Jordan Valley in the years 31 B.C.E., 363 C.E., 749 C.E., and 1033 C.E. "So roughly, we are talking about an interval of every 400 years. If we follow the patterns of nature, a major quake should be expected any time because almost a whole millennium has passed since the last strong earthquake of 1033."""

It needs to be cited to someone, e.g. such and such a politician said that an earthquake there would have dire consequences for world peace.

The idea behind it presumably is that if an earthquake was to damage one of the buildings in the holy sites such as the Temple Mount, that for some reason Israel would go to war with Jordan over it or vice versa. But why would they? Over an earthquake that is not the responsibility of Israel? And why would that be a matter for a global war (dire consequences for world peace suggests a global rather than a regional war).

It is especially contentious because the Temple Mount is the subject of a modern recently invented prophecy which is believed by some Christians in the Bible belt in the US - a sequence of events during which something happens to cause the Jews to build a third temple on the mount, then the Muslims go to war over this with Israel then this builds up to a global war and then according to this prophecy Jesus appears in the clouds, levitates a billion Christians into the clouds where they go straight to heaven without dying first, then converts most Jews and Muslims to Christianity and issues in an era of a Christian dominated peaceful world that lasts for a thousand years. Some Bible belt Christians believe this prophecy which has been the subject of some novels and of a TV series there.

I get contacted regularly by scared people in the Bible belt US who believe this prophecy and are scared of the predicted war. Amongst other things, they are scared that anything that happens to damage Muslim buidlings in the holy site would lead to Israel building a third temple there and then to the rest of the prophecy. That is despite all the chief rabbis saying that the third temple should not be built and the Israel government passing rules that prohibit Jews from even praying on the Temple mount, where only Muslim worship is permitted.

So - this innocuous seeming statement with a bit of hyperbole about dire consequences for world peace - it's hard to see how it could be anything else but something to do with this prophecy. There is no reason at all why even unrest amongst the Palestinians would result from an earthquake damaging the ancient Muislim mosques on the Temple Mount (which must also have been through the previous earthquakes there since they were built), an "act of God" as they put it that is nothing to do with the Israel government. As for war - Jordan has withdrawn from the West Bank completely - it has authority indirectly over the Temple Mount and its Muslim buidings, but it has no political control over the West Bank and Egypt has withdrawn political control from Gaza. Though of course they have sympathy with the Palestinians, neither of them claim either as territory and have no cause to go to war with Israel.

There is just no way that a 7.4 earthquake, which could damage some poorly constructed buildings is going to lead to a war. It makes no sense at all unless you are a fanatical believer in that evengelical Christian fictional prophecy. I think it is reasonable to call it a fiction since it origins in fictional novels and in TV scripts and believing it describes reality is a bit like the people who think that real world Vulcans will land on Earth some time this century as a result of watching Star Trek.

Whatever, whatever you make of the prophecy - it is not the place to have a statement like thhis in an article about Israel. Not unless someone has a cite to a WP:RS saying that a magnitude 7.4 earthquake that damages buildings in the holy sites of Israel could have a serious effect on world peace. I'd be astonished if anyone who counts as a WP:RS in this topic area has said so. If someone has and I've made a mistake there must also be those who say they are wrong and both should be cited and their views attributed to them and not to wikipedia. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed that sentence. It is the opinion of one geologist and UNDUE here. Zerotalk 23:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh great, thanks so much for fixing it! Robert Walker (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Israel's status
Israel is a partially recognised state and should be mentioned as such. Either that or the infobox in the page Palestine should emulate Israel's completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.193.13.49 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There were countless discussion on this, such as this: . The current state of each article represents the consensus. If you want to make a change for either, state your reasons. As a rule, there is no reason to necessarily use the same terms for both states, given their widely different circumstances. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing against consensus in Request for Comment – parenthetical comment on the status of Jerusalem in the infobox for Israel
In light of recent developments, we recently ran this rather long RfC here. The RfC explicitly rejected "internationally unrecognized" as the international status of Israel's claim over Jerusalem, settling on "limited recognition". Restoring in this diff text saying "the state's sovereignty over Jerusalem is not recognised internationally" run contrary to a recently achieved consensus. It is also not factual, as we list (in footnote1) at least four states that have recognized Jerusalem as being Israel's capital. Modifying the lede so that it contains this language that was rejected in a widely participated (around 30 !voters in a rough count) RfC is WP:SOMEACRONYM.Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The RfC was specifically about the infobox. I agree with your edit and believe it was in the spirit of the consensus reached with the RfC, but it needs a separate consensus. The main question is of course what the lead should say about recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly "not recognised internationally" was rejected by the RfC. While I agree that longer text would, possibly, require consensus - reinstating text was rejected for the infobox and placing it somewhere else (which is what was being done here) - is against the consensus - as well as being internally inconsistent (we're currently stating (following this POV editing) - "not reconginsed internationally" in the first paragraph of the lead, "limited recognition" in the infobox, and in footnote1 we're listing states that have recognized Jerusalem). As long as the text (prior to this POV editing) was about East Jerusalem (though Trump's statement in ambiguous on the matter) - it was a separate issue for a separate RfC - changing this to Jerusalem - is the same exact issue that was already discussed ad nauseam.Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The RFC was not closed by an admin and it seems as the user that closed it saw it as a vote, which it isn't, so it was closed incorrectly Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Arabs under martial law 1948-1966
The facts I introduced are, honestly, not debatable. I agree that one could add more "context", that former enemies becoming full-fledged citizens within weeks or months after losing the fight, are a difficult issue, but that does not mean the basic facts can be removed, as it's been promptly done. Anyone can add details, so go ahead. Just make sure you offer good sources. And don't overdo, the story of the 1947-49 war is right there, users can see much of the context w/o much extra editing. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a question of WP:UNDUE (for inclusion on the Israel article) and context (which is omitted - both of the conflict and the transfer of Arab population and land into Israel as part of the 1949 armistice in the Triangle (Israel)). Beyond this - you are factually inaccurate. Martial law in October 1948 - 1966 was performed regionally - for instance there was never martial law in Haifa - including the many Arab citizens. In some mixed cities - Ramla, Lod, Jaffa - martial rule was cancelled in July 1949 (at the end of war - this was when the last armistice was signed), and in Acre in 1951. See for instance here - . Martial law did remain in most of the 100% Arab villages and towns until 1966 - presenting this solely on the base of ethnicity as a blanket stmt is incorrect - even if it were DUE for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The text in dispute: "Arabs remaining in Israel were granted immediate suffrage rights and later, through the 1952 'Citizenship Law', formal citizenship, but the 1948 and 1952 registration and application requirements were harder to fulfill by Arabs than by Jews, and Arab citizens were subject to harsh martial law conditions between May 1949-November 1966.."

&#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  15:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been removed per WP:EXCEPTIONAL before as well. Certainly, regarding the sources, there are issues. For example, source 2's description is "For the next two decades Palestinians held a paradoxical status in Israel, as citizens of a formally liberal state and subjects of a colonial regime." Hardly unbiased language (and such applies to the title of source 1). Note that this is referring to the whole of Israel as settlers and colonial. I'll get back to you on my assessment of source 3, when I cycle to the library that has a copy. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  15:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The quotiation in ref 3 is "Arabs were under martial law, restricted in their movements to their own districts, and without passports." It then goes to say "If these restrictions should seem severe, it should be kept in mind... 1979 [peace treaty]... fedayeen... in 1942 all Americans of Japanese descent, whether American citizens ornot, were rounded up and interred". I would disagree with the definition of settler used, but context is important. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  16:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All 4 cited sources are quite polemical (as may be seen in referring to Israel as a colonial power and to Israeli Arabs as Palestinians) - they certainly are not the best sources to cover the military administration of 1949-1966 - for instance the harsh qualifier is stretching it (at least in comparison to other areas in which martial law was applied throughout history - the military adminstration in force only made use of 5 (109, 110, 111, 124, 125) ordinances out of 162 ordinances from the mandatory Defence (Emergency) Regulations - and even these 5 were not fully utilized). The citizenship bit is also stretching matters somewhat. The nature of the military administration also changed through the years - when it was cancelled in 1966 provisions in force were much different than in 1949 (e.g. the need for permits to move from one's place of residence were gradually reduced). However - I would argue this is all UNDUE in this article - and should be covered in Arab citizens of Israel (where it is covered briefly).Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - regarding your recent edit of Arabs becoming citizens only in 1952 - you seem to be confused. The citizenship law of Israel did indeed pass in 1952. However prior to its passage Mandatory, Ottoman, and temporary legislation were in place - and both Jews and Arabs were citizens. In fact in the first Knesset election in Jan 1949 (during the war!) - 3 Arab MKs were elected (1 communist, and 2 in an Arab specific Mapai affilate). The appropriate place to place the section is during the war.Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There are issues with the precise description of the facts and with the sources, both of which can be fixed. But the military government controlled the lives of a large fraction of Israel's Arabs for about 18 years and it is completely impossible to argue that mention of it is UNDUE. The part "registration and application requirements were harder to fulfill by Arabs than by Jews", though not great English, also refers to real history that can be sorted out and assessed with the help of good sources. Zerotalk 00:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Zero, thanks. That is all that mattered. As always, I needed an essential bit of information, it wasn't where it should have been, I put it in, and instead of amending it, it was fully removed and I was "put in my place" - first by smb. "pro-Palestinian", then after trying to please them by others, "pro-Israeli". Nobody seems to be pro-WP user. See you, maybe on some other platform. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Leaving aside your euphemistic description of the Military Government, you forgot Article 137 but more importantly you forgot the military courts (including, until 1963, the lack of any appeal procedure: Article 30). As for citizenship, the situation is more complicated than you write. Arabs allowed to vote in the first election were those included in the census at the end of 1948, which used various devices to reduce their number (such as excluding any Arab not at their normal place of residence on that particular day). Arabs granted citizenship by the 1952 law also faced restrictions that didn't apply to Jews; in particular they had to have registered within 30 days of the 1949 Registration of Inhabitants Ordinance. Incidentally, though it is little more than a technical issue for the lawyers to debate, many experts maintain that Israel had no citizens at all until 1952. Here is an example. Zerotalk 06:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but much of the technical complications of Israeli citizenship in the post Mandate transitory law framework were universal and not specific to ethnicity. Voting by place of residence is still in force today for both Jews and Arabs. And lest we forget, this was still wartime with two opposing sides. Some of the Arabs had crossed into enemy lines, which was not an issue for Jews (with the exception of a small bumber of captives who were held), and some of those who had crossed over to enemy states attempted to infiltrate, undeclared, into Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is unrecognized"
This is mentioned in the lead, and has been the stable version from at least January 2016 until mid-2017, at which point this material has become unstable as various editors have made edits to the effect Israel's sovereignty over "East Jerusalem" would be unrecognized. However, there are a number of sources for the plain statement sovereignty over Jerusalem as such is unrecognized.

Jeppiz asked me to start a section on Talk (perhaps he doesn't know how this is done), the text in question is this:

although the state's sovereignty over Jerusalem is not recognised internationally. --Dailycare (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In light of the recent RfC (due to recent developments), this should be update to partially recognized. Some of the cited sources are highly polemic (e.g. Kattan, who also misrepresents the history of recognition (which has changed over the years) at the time he was writing (2010)) and in any event - out of date in light of more recent developments. At present, a number of countries recognize Israel sovereignty over Jerusalem (or parts thereof) and the lede should reflect this, just as we updated the infobox.Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Dailycare, I know perfectly well how to start a discussion and if you keep up your current behavior, I'll be happy to start one on WP:ANI. However, it's not my job to start a discussion here when you're the one edit warring. As Icewhiz already said, "unrecognized" was correct at one point in time. Today, "partially recognized" is correct. Any source prior to 2017 saying "unrecognized" is void, as it does not take into account the partial recognition that has since followed. Jeppiz (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You would both be right if you weren't wrong. The RfC was specifically about the infobox, not the article text. Outside of a few fringes, all of Jerusalem remains unrecognized as Israel's capital, as it has for nearly 70 years. And any source that I don't like is invalid, as it does not take into account reality. (Doesn't that seem silly? It's no less silly when you say it.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Running another RfC would be silly. At the very least, parts of Jerusalem are quite obviously partially recognized.Icewhiz (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The RFC (which apparently was incorrectly closed, see above) was about Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital, not about sovereignty over the area. Tramp explicitly ruled out that his "proclamation" (which, at any rate, may soon be history anyway) would have anything to do with sovereignty. As to Kattan, he is not "polemic" because he holds a position somewhere, just as he wouldn't be "polemic" if he held a position in the Reut Institute. He is a scholar who has published widely in the field, see Google Scholar. And see the four other sources as well :) Jeppiz, since you're suggesting to change the stable consensus text, it would in fact be your task to initiate discussion on the talkpage, but never mind. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is that your refs do not support the text you are pushing. There is an old UN document, Kattan who is an activist and Al-Shabka employee and not a reknowned scholar, Lapidot who is out of date and more accurately says most, and refs covering the old US position which has obviously been updated. Your personal opinions rgarding Trump, the Czech republic and other countries is immaterial. The RfC above has bern closed with clear consensus; if you want to challenge it then AN is that way.Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect as even the US position has not been changed. The State Department stated "the president . . . did not indicate any final status for Jerusalem,” he said. “He was very clear that the final status, including the borders, would be left to the two parties to negotiate and decide." Likewise the passports will not be labeled as "Jerusalem, Israel". Even if the US were to change its view, that would be one country. If one recognition would merit change in the lead, then there would also be a meed to mention quite prominently that Israel itself is not recognized by a large number of countries. You shouldn't have double standards. --Dailycare (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Change of font in infobox (Hebrew)?
I always find the standard lang-he font a bit dry and hard to read, and much prefer the hebrew font. As such, should we change the infobox to the following?

As opposed to:

&#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  13:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

New source - NPOV issue?
The by  strikes me as a NPOV issue - the citation used is in the lead. However, it says "unlawful", and, more concerning still, "belligerent". The statement already has plenty of sources, I don't think we need to link to an article by an author who is based in Turkey - hardly a neutral voice recently, especially in the lead. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  00:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There’s nothing unusual: Unlawful reflects the international consensus for the last 50 years, and Belligerent is just a technical way of describing military occupation. I added it because the ECFR is an influential think tank (see for example Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed edit, in "Antiquity" section 2.2, concerning the speculative statement of the "histrocity of the narrative in the Torah"
Modify the following sentence, in "Antiquity" specifically section 2.2, from:

"Modern archaeology has largely discarded the historicity of the narrative in the Torah concerning the patriarchs, The Exodus, and the conquest described in the Book of Joshua, and instead views the narrative as constituting the Israelites' inspiring national myth."

to:

"Some modern archaeologists, mostly anti-Zionist, have largely discarded the historicity of the narrative in the Torah concerning the patriarchs, The Exodus, and the conquest described in the Book of Joshua, and instead views the narrative as constituting the Israelites' inspiring national myth. There exists, however, strong conflicting evidence, most specifically concerning the location of the Ark of The Covenant, as cited in specific passages of archaelogical records attributed to the Assyrian king Sennacherib in 701 BC, and as recorded in Hebrew Bible, Book Of Isaiah, passages 37:14-16:

"...and Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it; and Hezekiah went up to the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord. Then Hezekiah prayed to the Lord, saying: 'O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, the One who dwells between the cherubim . . .'"

Dboba (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Bible Archaeology, Search & Exploration (BASE) Institute is dedicated to the quest for archaeological evidence to help validate to the world that the Bible is true, and that it represents an accurate, non-fictional account of God’s will to bring the people of this world back into a relationship with Him". Hardly an objective and independent source. Is there any source for the "anti-Zionist" assessment ? Please see WP:FRINGE. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Israel heading for civil war?
Former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo said that Israel’s internal problems are more worrisome, to him, than external threats. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-at-risk-of-civil-war-says-ex-mossad-chief/. It got a lot of other press.

Now I am totally unqualified to comment on this or add to the article. But the basis for him to rightly or wrongly make that statement are not treated at all. The words ”religious Jews” do not appear in the article, and “secular Jews” only in notes 358 and 359. The serious tensions between religious and secular Jews are not treated at all. The debate about whether Judea and Samaria should be annexed is not discussed at all either, and in the Judea and Samaria Area article it gets pretty brief treatment, with nothing since 2012.

This seems to me a serious shortcoming of the article.

And it’s pretty misleading to only count the Israeli citizens in Judea and Samaria, which leads to the convenient figure of 0% Arabs in Judea and Samaria.

This isn’t NPOV. deisenbe (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a ROUTINEish stmt by retired security figures in the past 20-30 years or so. How is this relevant to the article?Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Deisenbe, you seem to be raising several different issues. (1) Internal debate and dissent in Israel has always been strong, much stronger in my opinion than in the U.S. Is Israel heading toward a civil war? Not likely. (2) Does this article appropriately describe the tension in some areas of Israeli society between the religious authorities (who enjoy the power of the state) and secular Israelis? Probably not, but it's a very difficult subject to summarize neutrally and do justice to both sides. Still, we could do better. (3) Why are Israelis who live in the West Bank counted and not Arabs? Israelis are Israeli, regardless of where they live -- Tel Aviv, Ariel, or New York. Arabs are only Israeli if they live in Israel. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But why are Arabs counted if they live in Israel and are Israeli citizens, but on the West Bank (as you surely know, "Judea and Samaria" is a name with a message) they don’t count? They're zeros. They don’t exist. That table never says it is only a count of Israeli citizens. And even if it did, or is to be understood that way, to say there are no Arabs in “Judea and Samaria" because they’re not Israeli citizens, is pretty misleading, perhaps intentionally misleading. Hardly NPOV.
 * That Israel is heading for a civil war is a "ROUTINEish" statement? News to me, but I’m no expert. I’d appreciate references to other such routine statements. deisenbe (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are there any Israeli Arabs living in Israeli settlements in the disputed territories ? I'm sure that if there were any, they would be counted. Arabs in the territories who are not Israeli are not counted as Israeli, what is surprising about it ?
 * Israel heading for a civil war is not a fact, it is an opinion of a single person. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 22:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Israeli Arabs residing in Judea and Samaria - typically, for a number of reasons, retain their pre 1967 home address. The two major classes here are marriage to Palestinians (in which casee they usualy want their spouse and children to eventually achieve Israeli status) and students in Palestinian universities. Israeli citizen residents in Judea and Sameria (area C) are treated as Israeli residents in terms off most if not all Israeli law.Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * raises an important point re population counts. The population of the United States does not include the 9 million American citizens living outside the USA. Nor does the population of Turkey include the estimated >100,000 Turkish settlers in Northern Cyprus.
 * If an area has been annexed (e.g. East Jerusalem or Golan Heights, or Western Sahara to Morocco), whether recognized internationally or not, it is usual to include the population of that region in the country’s population. But this article is the only country article in the world to include an expat population living in an un-annexed territory in its country’s population. Israel should not be singled out here. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They are counted by the Israeli census beauru, are able to vote (unlike Israeli expats who generally can not) inside towns in the West Bank, pay taxes as Israeli residents (the tax code explicitely includes them), and are regarded in Israeli law as Israeli residents. The analouge here would not be US expats, but if at all US citizens in Unincorporated territories of the United States (in the past, much of the mainland in various pre statehood units). Most, if not all, reputable statistical sources include these citizens inmthe population of Israel (at times denoting this with an astrick or note).Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Pardo a reliable analyst? I see from the article on him he got the Israel Security Prize three times.

Can anyone cite a reliable source disagreeing with him, or even leaving him out of it, saying that Israel is _not_ headed toward civil war?

I'm well aware that public discourse, or Israeli politics, is "rougher" than in the U.S. deisenbe (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"Does this article appropriately describe the tension in some areas of Israeli society between the religious authorities (who enjoy the power of the state) and secular Israelis? Probably not, but it's a very difficult subject to summarize neutrally and do justice to both sides. Still, we could do better."

So is anything going to be done?

I’m impressed that when this page has 1983 watchers, 227 of whom have visited recent edits, and despite three days going by (including Shabat), not one person has pointed to any writing saying Pardo is wrong, that Israel is not headed for civil war. In fact, I’d be happy with anyone writing that Israel has a future. These are glaring omissions. you’ve not provided any support for what you allege. It seems to me it's time to post this on the NPOV noticeboard and have some non-Jews look at it. deisenbe (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For any other country, can you find a reliable sources saying that the country is not headed for civil war and has a future ? A google search for "is headed for civil war" yields results mostly concerned with USA, some of them probably written by notable people. Does it mean it's true ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

All sorts of people have said the U.S. is headed for civil war. Pardo did so too. But can you cite an example where a public figure of Pardo’s stature has a press conference where he discusses it? Not in the U.S.

The more important question is why there is no mention of religious-secular Jew conflict. I did find it treated at Jewish state or a state of Jews?. But there's no link. I put one in, see if it stays. It's barely mentioned under Politics of Israel, but there is a link. deisenbe (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You know, Deisenbe, section headings and subheadings are free. There's no need to use a single thread to discuss three different issues.
 * In meatspace, and in the lives of family members who live in Israel, the role of the (Orthodox) rabbinate in the Israeli government and the role of the Israeli government in religion, including the fact that over the course of nearly 70 years, every one of its more than 30 governments has included the so-called religious parties, and their ability to demand ever-more-outrageous extortion from their coalition partners at the expense of the majority of Israelis, who would like them to mind their own business—yes, it concerns me very much. But it's not one of the issues I find most pressing on Wikipedia, so I generally don't waste my time edit-warring about it (because editing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict sometimes feels like a picnic compared to editing articles controlled by religious zealots) although I do edit some articles on its periphery such as Women of the Wall.
 * As far as citing a source that says Pardo is wrong and Israel isn't heading toward a civil war, it's a waste of time. It's like finding sources that say the sky isn't falling—the sky isn't falling, but nobody feels the need to write newspaper columns saying so, even if there are occasional Chicken Littles who insist loudly that it is. During the past 20 years, the U.S. has seemed more divided politically than it previously did and many columnists and commentators suggest the country may break apart because of the gulf between red states and blue states. Try to find sources that say it isn't so. Is the U.S. heading toward a civil war? No, but it sells newspapers and keeps eyes on the TV screens. And it keeps your party members from defecting. Same thing in Israel. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2018
Change the following text in the lead section "although the state's sovereignty over Jerusalem is not recognised internationally" to "although the state's sovereignty over East Jerusalem is enjoys limited international recognition".

Reasons: 1) The UN recognized Israel's new borders when they were admitted as a member in 1949, which means Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem is vitrually undisputed internationally. 2) In the infobox, it says Jerusalem enjoys "limited recognition" as Israel's capital. The current phrasing in the lead "not recognized internationally" is incorrect and even contradictory to this very same article. Backarn (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Both reasons are WP:OR. Try to find a WP:RS that explicitly says that some countr(ies) recognize Israel's sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first reason is factually incorrect. The UN did not recognise any particular borders for Israel in 1949 (and how could it, given that Israel had not defined its borders?). The UN position now and then is that Resolution 181 still applies. Note that most countries assume Israel will keep West Jerusalem in any final settlement, but until then the "nothing is decided until everything is decided" principle applies. Zerotalk 08:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the UN stated "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions". Which means that they withdrew from resolution 181 back in 1949. No nation in the world has "defined" their borders because borders can always change. But Israel had defined their administrative regions (West Jerusalem being part of one of them) and that's what the UN recognized in resolution 273. Even the Arab League recognizes Israeli soverignety over West Jerusalem. Backarn (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this is not the place for your personal analysis. You are simply wrong on every point. Here is an example of many UN resolutions that followed the admission of Israel to the UN. Clause I.1 is very clear. You are also completely off the mark about borders. There are plenty of disputed borders in the world, but the vast majority of borders are either coastline or delineated in bilateral treaties. Israel in 1949 did not even have its own definition of where its borders were. Zerotalk 10:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if all that's true, which it is not, that still doesn't justify this article litteraly contradicting itself. It is simply impossible to recognize X as Y's capital without also recognizing Y's sovereignty over X. So please tell me, how can Jerusalem enjoy limited recognition as Israel's capital, but no recognition as its sovereign territory? That would be as if Sweden recognized Washington D.C. as the United States' capital, but not as its sovereign territory. Backarn (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct that it looks odd, but you need to ask Donald Trump to explain it. Around here we can only follow good sources as best we can. We aren't allowed to use our own reasoning to draw conclusions not in the sources. Zerotalk 12:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Then why not just change the text to "although the state's sovereignty over East Jerusalem remains imternationally disputed" but still link to Positions on Jerusalem? Because the current phrasing just leaves the reader with more questions than answers. Backarn (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The current lead section text is extensively cited and footnoted, including information about the disputed status of the recognition.  A reader is not likely to be confused by reading this and even if they are, the body text fully explains and includes multiple links to appropriate topics that further explain the situation.  Changing this is outside the bounds of a simple edit request and requires a new consensus to be formed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nakba in the lead
My mistake I didn't include summary when reverting. Lead section must summarize the most important information about the subject. The article is about Israel. The lead already has enough about Palestine. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox - Area
Hi guys, not an idea but more of a request.

Could you clarify in the infobox for area what do these two numbers mean? (Right now the area is stated as a range instead of a precise number, and it's not clear why, or what do these two numbers stand for) --194.67.223.184 (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There‘s a footnote at the bottom of the box (linked from immediately after those figures). It says the larger number includes the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  06:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

IPA - Hebrew
Can anyone add the IPA transcription for modern Hebrew: /jisʁaˈʔel/

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.109.86 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A mistake in the article
"The following year, Shimon Peres on behalf of Israel, and Mahmoud Abbas for the PLO, signed the Oslo Accords, which gave the Palestinian National Authority the right to govern parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."

It was Arafat, not Abbas. And possible Rabin, not Peres? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.34.206 (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See Oslo I Accord: "the Oslo Accords were subsequently officially signed at a public ceremony in Washington, D.C., on 13 September 1993,[2] in the presence of PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and U.S. President Bill Clinton. The documents themselves were signed by Mahmoud Abbas for the PLO, foreign Minister Shimon Peres for Israel" &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Map
Should the map have light green sections in Gaza and West Bank, with something like "Claimed but not fully controlled"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.232.49 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Israel withdraw from Gaza, it is not under their claim or control. Sokuya (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Not really, Israel still has control over Gaza's maritime and air space. 108.162.179.236 (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But that still doesn't mean Gaza is claimed or controlled by Israel. Egypt also blockades the Southern border. Blockades are a legitimate tactic during war, even the UN judged the Gaza blockade to be legal. Nor is the West Bank actually "claimed", and there should be a distinction between Area "A" - no Israeli control, and Areas "B" and "C" - Israeli military control (C also means civil control). But, if Israel claimed the territory, they would annex it, not keep it under military control with a separate legal system, as obliged under international law for occupied territories.  &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  13:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Foreign embassies move to Jerusalem
Besides Czech Republic, United States and Guatemala, more countries had announced that they are plan or will move their embassy to Jerusalem:
 * 🇧🇪 Belgium – Philippe de Backer, Belgium's secretary of state said: "There is no doubt that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. It’s clear: it’s reality. There’s no discussion on this issue."
 * 🇵🇾 Paraguay – President of Paraguay Horacio Cartes wants to relocate embassy to Jerusalem before the end of his term.
 * 🇭🇳 Honduras – Honduran lawmakers pass resolution endorsing relocation of embassy to Jerusalem. and Honduras President Juan Hernandez expressed an understanding of the importance and international recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital so he appointed a senior staff to examine the issue of moving the country's embassy to Jerusalem.
 * 🇷🇴 Romania – Prime Minister Viorica Dancila and the Romania government supports moving embassy to Jerusalem although the president, who has the final say, said that the move could break international law.

Sokuya (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not now. Certainly wrt Belgium, there's no indication that the embassy is being moved, at least not yet. Likewise for Paraguay, and indeed Honduras and Romania, there's no concrete instruction to actually move the embassies, at least not yet. Perhaps Honduras is worthy of a mention, as there is actually investigation of the possibility, and agreement between the legislative and executive branches. However, as per NOTCRYSTAL we can't speculate on unconfirmed moves. The statements of certain countries parliaments, I'd say, belong at Positions on Jerusalem. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  15:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 🇵🇾 Paraguay – Paraguay opened its embassy in Jerusalem Sokuya (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Capital
Since the capital is a disputed issue and since according to the UN, the EU and international law the capital of Israel is not recognized as Jerusalem but Tel Aviv, shouldn't at least appear the names of both cities? Appearing only the name of one city makes it look like taking a stand and this article is suposed to be unbiased and informative. I suggest that in the section concearning the capital it should appear: Tel Aviv/Jerusalem (disputed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.13.145 (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the capital of a country is not what other countries consider it to be. Secondly, for many countries (e.g. UK), they don't consider Tel Aviv the capital, it's just where they maintain their embasssy (they basically consider Israel to have no capital, officially). The current wording has been debated heavily, and the current wording has consensus as satisfying WP:NPOV. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  19:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change regarding intro section and geography section
Nowhere in the two sections is it indicated that Israel is in Asia. This should be rectified. Proposed first line should be "...officially the State of Israel, is a country in the Middle East region of Western Asia, on the southeastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea and the northern shore of the Red Sea." Similarly, a change should be made to the geography section indicating the country is, in fact, on the Asian continent. DTXBrian (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article says that the country is in the Middle East with a helpful link to anyone unfamiliar with the term. I don't mind mentioning Asia but your proposal sounds awkward to me. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Yet Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all mention in the first sentence that they're in Asia, and Egypt is described as transcontinental in both Asia and Africa. It seems... inconsistent. DTXBrian (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't mention Israel is on planet Earth either (while we do mention Asia multiple times, earth is mentioned only in the context of the dead sea being the lowest point). Israel is typically defined first as a Middle Eastern or Mediterranean country.Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As opposed to Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, which are considered something else? In many ways, Israel is special. This is not one of them. DTXBrian (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you DXTBrian, encyclopedia should have uniformity in it's articles, but also truth. I'm certainly no expert in this subject but Israel is not the only country being defined first as a Middle Eastern country. The Western Asia article itself talks about this thing in the intro and it seems this goes much deeper than I care to go. I did a quick check on the countries both within Western Asia and Middle East, and except for Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia, Bahrain, Israel and State of Palestine these countries are all described as being part of Western Asia, and have been before the discussion here started. State of Palestine's Gaza Strip is also excepted, yet West Bank is not. I'll leave it to the professionals. Karel Adriaan (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did some more reading, and I like to point out that the term Middle East used to be Near East. This change originated in the United Kingdom. Further away regions were called the Far East. All three are terms to roughly describe regions from an European viewpoint. That alone should be reason enough not to prefer it over Western Asia, which is a geographic fact. Before the change, only Mesopotamia was called Middle East. So if you want to be really specific, Israel has no original claim to the term Middle East in the first place, because Israel has never been part of Mesopotamia. Karel Adriaan (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Russia recognises West Jerusalem as Israel's capital
It has been reported on April 2017 that Russia recognises West Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and now was reported again. Sokuya (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2018
There is a mistake. Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Israel's official capital is Tel Aviv. Please, this is a really sensitive issue and Wikipedia cannot take sides by supporting Jerusalem as the country's capital. 194.224.168.12 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See the many links at Talk:Jerusalem/capital, as well as the section above at from just 41 days ago. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 20:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Capital
The Word "Limited recognition" doesn't describe the truth about Jerusalem! 151 countries in U.N rejected Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel! Maybe "Denied by majority of the nations " describes it perfectly! As far as I know Wikipedia should be more descriptive & neutral!

Again according to Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Jerusalem.

"" Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital was rejected by the majority of world leaders. The United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on 7 December where 14 out of 15 members condemned Trump's decision. The Security Council said the decision to recognize Jerusalem was in violation of U.N. resolutions and international law. ""

So according to UN it is a violation of UN Resolution and International law!

You just can't declare Jerusalem as the capital of Israel with this much controversy on this topic! It's just complete favoritism towards Israel! Bashing Sanchez (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read previous discussions on the subject, most recent them just one section above this. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment - new option & discuss earlier points about politics in the lede
Final discussion for the points made about the last 4 options.

I've also added a fifth option, which includes Encyclopedia Britannica as source for the phrase "multi-party", a short & concise summary of the findings of Democracy Index and Freedom House, as well as a sentence and footnote for Onceinawhile's full summaries, of a number of scholars' opinions.

Option 5: "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a multi-party parliamentary republic with proportional representation and universal suffrage.  Both Democracy Index and Freedom House describe Israel as a "free country" and a "democracy", ranking it among the world's top countries in the areas of political rights and freedom of speech, but criticize the record of some of its other civil liberties.  Some scholars also use different descriptions for Israel's form of government."

Duoble 07 (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: The "some say..." type of phrasing is not very encyclopedic. Overall, I think the opinion of organizations that typically do classifications of governments (e.g. Freedom house) is overwhelmingly in favor of using democracy. The opinions of a few out-spoken academics are not notable in this context. In academia, there is certainly NOT a consensus against Israel, however the anti-Israel academics tend to generate more controversy and therefore draw more attention. OtterAM (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I think that this whole debate is slightly misguided. As for Israel's system of government, that it is democratic is just a statement of fact. I think what people are really arguing over is whether Israel counts as a "free society". That is a more subjective judgement, but fortunately Wikipedia does not include this classification in the article. (For what it's worth, the organization Freedom House rates Israel as "Free".) OtterAM (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Far too indepth for a lede, and also way out of line with our treatment of other countries that are essentially officially democratic but with some problems/disputes. Other countries called "ethnocracies" in academia include Estonia, Latvia and Turkey -- yet none of their ledes even comes close to hurling the label at them. Actually it would probably make this by far the harshest treatment of any such cases, and harsher than some much worse cases. We would be calling Israel an "ethnocracy" essentially in its lede, while not even mentioning the interethnic issues in Mauritania, which only recently abolished slavery and still is lacking in the enforcement, which doesn't mention such in its lede. This is not an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument -- in the case of Israel, a high traffic page where a lot of the readership will be acutely aware of issues of double standards, there is actually a considerable risk that going down this route could lede to the page being mocked across the internet.--Calthinus (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

How many RfCs are people going to start? Enough. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2018
Capital is Tel Aviv not Jerusalem. Only the US claims the capital as Jerusalem. 85.115.52.201 (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not done. Please find a reliable source that says that Tel Aviv is the capital. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)