Talk:Israel/Archive 70

Capital of Israel Correction
Dear Editors, Why is wikipedia showing the incorrect capital of Israel, if according to UN resolution A/ES-10/L22, declares that the Jerusalem is NOT to be considered the capital of Israel by 128 Nations worldwide as a decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biomax20 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * there's been much discussion of this, search "Jerusalem" in the archive box above. To summarize the existing consensus, Jerusalem is Israel's capital, as Israel declares it to be so, just like any other nation state sets their capital. Israel's seat of government is in Jerusalem. However, the lack of international recognition is notable, hence the subtext. The subtext recently was changed from "internationally unrecognized" in recognition of the changing status on the international stage - and the USA is the world's biggest economy and power. No alternative exists - Tel Aviv? An empty box where "capital" should be? &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  21:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article says that Israel considers its capital to be Jerusalem and that some countries don't like that. What exactly is incorrect here ? 21:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo The issue is that Google also states that the Capital of Israel is Jerusalem, which is incorrect as it is not recognized by a more than median decision. For the sake of clarity, neutrality, and fairness in facts, the UN, being a authority representing the worldwide consensus and its respective nations do not recognize Israel as the capital, This means that this article should correctly state the capital as contested, or rightfully back to what it previously stated, Tel Aviv. General logic governs that if one body declares something to be true, despite overwhelming criticism contesting and opposing its declaration by a large number of bodies, then that declaration is void.
 * Why do you believe that UN represents the worldwide consensus ? If anything it represents the result of interaction of political powers and their interests. See definition of Capital City: "A capital city (or simply capital) is the municipality exercising primary status in a country, state, province, or other administrative region, usually as its seat of government". Jerusalem fits this description to the letter. Where does it say anything about international recognition being a prerequisite ? Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because Israel says so. The fact that many countries do not accept it is notable, and it is indeed noted. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I view the UN as a partisan, political body. The UN obsesses over criticising Israel - it can because in the cold war, it ended up with largely the Arab/Soviet block criticising Israel, and ~57 Arab states vs 1 Jewish... then the USSR, Poland,Cuba,... all of which represented the opinion of about 100 people. Compare that the democratically elected US government. Foreign policy from the era has largely continued. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  15:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Biomax, you're 100% right in that is incorrect to state Jerusalem is Israel's capital, since that's in fact a fringe view among the international community. Other fringe views, for example, hold absolutely horrible opinions of certain ethnic groups, but we would never seek to present them as fact in Wikipedia's neutral voice. However, the content of the project is effectively a compromise among editors who have chosen to participate in compiling it, and for now what we have is what we have. Consensus may change going forward. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Dailycare, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. That's about as debatable as whether the earth is flat or the laws of gravity can be repealed. The issue is that the overwhelming majority of the world does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Capital city has a pretty good summary of the situation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the fact that Israel declared Jerusalem as its capital and operates its seat of government from Jerusalem should not be in dispute. Many countries object to Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem (with some differences between East and West Jerusalem) - which we duly note in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's really nothing like the laws of gravity. The issue is whether half the people who read this article will decide that it is unreliable because of the identifiable and prominent POV. Even if we mean well and add a note, the damage is done - thus I dont think it's in the interests of the project to make these decisions based on POV. But I expect this appeal to reason is likely to go unheeded. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what "damage is done" by stating the obvious? While you're at it, could you explain how identifying Israel's capital is "identifiable and prominent POV", but failing to identify it isn't? Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Malik, Jerusalem is not Israel's capital. However, the point is not that we discuss the situation and agree among ourselves, but rather we merely need to state what the balance of the best sources say in the matter. This is what the Security Council stated: "all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void". If you steal a car, it doesn't become your car even if you insist until you're blue in the face and your best friend agrees with you. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to you or the UN security council, Israel alone determines its capital. Incomplete international recognition has nothing to do with a city being a capital. Look up definitions of capital city. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Israel controls the territory, all branches of its government have their permanent offices there and nowhere else, and they all regularly meet there and nowhere else—there's a word for a city like that, isn't there? Oh yes, it's a capital city. You may not like it, your government may not recognize it, the United Nations can denounce it, but that doesn't change reality. Whether Israel is in lawful possession of the territory, whether the United States is in lawful possession of Washington, D.C., or whether they were stolen from their previous inhabitants, doesn't change the fact that they're the capitals. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here, I can't help but agree with User:Malik Shabazz. Since when does "International Law" determine the capital cities of the nations of our world? Members of the international body of nations often disagree with the "International legislative body," since often their decisions are based on personal bias, as in the case of their condemnation of China's sovereignty over non man-made islands claimed by China in the South China Sea, and specifically, here, in Israel's case where she seeks to uphold Israel's territorial integrity, a country that had not been divided prior to 1948.Davidbena (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

-Dear sirs, this newly established 'fact' based off of 1 nations decision over countless that do not recognize this decision (Israel's capital) as being unrecognized by a overwhelming majority, is a disservice to Truth and everything wikipedia and history tellers have stood for (Actual facts). Simply because the US decides to move its embassy within Jerusalem and 'declare' it as Israel's capital, does not make it so, if the entire world disagrees with the view. The recent geopolitics portrayed by Israel and USA convey blatant hooligan politics by deciding whats what whenever they so seem to desire. This is wrong. Especially since for decades the area has been contested.Biomax20 (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because Israel says so. It is partially recognized because part of the countries recognize it. Simple as that. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, in fact it is not as simple as that. It would be more neutral to state that since France (a more significant and neutral country) doesn't consider Jerusalem the capital, it isn't the capital. Anyway, capital-ness cannot be measured with an instrument, wherefore it is necessarily a question of claims and their recognition. --Dailycare (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * France has no say in this. France (or any other country) decides whether or not it recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and of course this partial recognition is notable, but it does not change the fact that the capital of a country is determined by the country itself alone. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When Israel claimed Jerusalem as its capital, the UN Security Council declared that an illegal and ineffective declaration. It therefore is the case that at least the UN Security Council disagrees with your idea that "the capital of a country is determined by the country itself alone". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * UN GA resolution declared that US recognition of Jerusalem is capital is "null and void", and yet nobody in their right mind would say that US didn't recognize Jerusalem. UN resolutions are notable by themselves but do not change the facts. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're trying to move the goalposts. You wrote earlier that "the capital of a country is determined by the country itself alone". I noted that the UN Security Council disagrees with this notion, so your view doesn't seem to be current in international law. Of course, endorsing your view would mean that Jerusalem is factually the capital of Palestine, too. --Dailycare (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

"Disputed" for Jerusalem as capital
The phrasing for Jerusalem as capital as "not recognized" was changed to "disputed". This is wrong, or at least a typical example of "false balance". Just because the US moved the embassy to Jerusalem does not suddenly change the way the rest of the world views the matter. Certainly there is no consensus for such a contentious change of phrasing. Get consensus first, instead of edit-warring.Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 22:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's been quite significant discussion on this page regarding this very issue (or something closely resembling it). I've restored the stable version, which says partial recognition. You also don't seem to fully grasp the nature of the recent dispute, which is sovereignty over Jerusalem, rather than Jerusalem's status as capital. The argument made by in instigating the change in the first place was based on that fact.  &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  00:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the current version is even more wrong. The sovereignty over Jerusalem is recognized by precisely zero countries. Even the US, when moving the embassy, was careful to maintain that We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders.. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 10:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The US did not take a position either way on the borders within Jerusalem (e.g. East/West Jerusalem), yet recognized Israeli sovereignty over at least part of Jerusalem.Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that "partially recognized" means "some part of Jerusalem is recognized by a small part of the countries of the world"? If that's not misleading, I don't know what is. "Not recognized" is the correct description. Nuances can be left to the body of the article. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 12:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My parsing of the US position is that they recognize West Jerusalem (as does Russia incidentally), while leaving the US position on East Jerusalem (in whole or in part) unspecified. So no - this is not a small part.Icewhiz (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Read more carefully: "small part" modifies the proportion of countries of the world, not the amount of territory in Jerusalem. Your have also read the Russian statement wrongly, and your parsing would anyway be WP:OR. Russia (like everyone else in the world), supports a settlement where there would be Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. It is "in this context", where they say that West Jerusalem would be part of Israel. Since there is no Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, the whole context is inapplicable. There have been entire treatises written on the status of Jerusalem for many decades. It's not ok to quote misleading and ephemeral press reports to overturn decades of international law or state practice. For instance, here's a BBC report from after that period: Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem has never been recognised internationally, and all countries currently maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. So which is it? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the Russian stmt again (or take a peek - here - "a year after declaring that west Jerusalem is Israel's capital") - Unlike EU countries (which conditionally recognize East/West Jerusalem as part of PA/IL in a future settlement, maintaining the territory is currently still Corpus Separatum), Russia (which, IIRC, has been out of the Corpus Separatum camp for a while) - recognized west Jerusalem as Israel capital currently (2017 and onward). Concurrently, they called for a future Palestinian East Jerusalem - but their recognition of west Jerusalem was not conditional on such a final settlement.Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can tell me what "in this context" means then? That's just for decoration? Why did Russia vote for the UNSC resolution after the embassy move along with everyone else? This is all a diversion. Even if one counts Russia as according "kinda-sorta partial recognition of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem", it is still false balance at best to say that Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is "partially recognized". Israel claims full sovereignty over Jerusalem. Precisely zero countries agree with this position. And even those who accord some "kinda-sorta partial recognition" are a small part of the world. That's the basic point. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which fits directly into partial or limited recognition - as opposed to unrecognized. Maybe very partial and very limited - but still such. Russia and the US are major international players (and then there are minor players such as Guatemala, Panama, and Paraguay).Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bellezzasolo, FWIW, I believe "not recognized" is the stable version since several years ago. Concerning the "Russian statement", the link does not link to it but to Jerusalem Post's interpretation of it. JPost is not reliable concerning this kind of interpretation. Furthermore, the JPost article does not even once mention sovereignty over Jerusalem, wherefore it is irrelevant to this discussion. Also the actual Russian statement, IIRC, does not refer to sovereignty, but states that in the context of an eventual peace settlement, Russia can recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. --Dailycare (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * while that is the case, the limited recognition wording lasted about 10 days - frankly, an age on this article. "Not recognized internationally" seems to violate NPOV given the changing scene on the world stage. Yes, the movement has been limited, but so far, the United States, Guatemala, Taiwan, Vanuatu, and Russia all recognize at least West Jerusalem (with the Russia Day parade taking place in Jerusalem for the first time this year). Furthermore, other countries like the Czech Republic and Romania seem to be having internal debate about this issue. I'd say that warrants limited/partial recognition, but probably the best word is disputed, as it doesn't carry connotations like limited does. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  10:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here "the Russian leadership decided to recognize West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel", without any "this context". It's not a matter of opinion or interpretation, it's a simple fact. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to remind people that this issue was already addressed in a RfC where the conclusion was to use "limited recognition". OtterAM (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bellezzasolo, do you have sources to the effect that even one country recognizes West Jerusalem as Israeli territory? Please note, once more, that this is not the same thing as recognizing the city as Israel's capital, as the United States explicitly points out. --Dailycare (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

History in the lead
Is there any reason why the Mandate period is not explained in the lead? It jumps from the Ottoman period, mentions the words "British Palestine", and then goes immediately into independence. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What the hell is a "second language"?
Rafe87 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

FAQ
I have added FAQ for this page, maybe some editors want to fix some wording. Hddty. (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tel Aviv was never recognized by majority of the United Nations members as the capital of Israel because it was never recognized as capital by the Israelis. Sokuya (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No mention of sand?
Israel is renowned for having the distinction of having the softest sand in the World. Something to do with salt maybe? I can't find a link, but heard it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:131F:EC8A:F099:120E:117A:3929 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Statements need to be supported by reliable sources on Wikipedia. See WP:RS Luftfall (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2018
Add these sources  to the statement in the lead about Israel being a representative democracy, and remove the "disputed" template until someone submits a reliable source claiming otherwise. 213.184.122.18 (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is misuse of the template : "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant." Sokuya (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Per WP:EDITREQ, an edit request can only be completed for uncontroversial improvements (which this is clearly not) or requests that are already supported by a consensus of editors (which I do not see). Please continue discussion on the talk page, and seek other forms of dispute resolution if needed. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Official languages and Democratic status
Arabic has been stripped of 'official language' status and should be removed from the article and the infobox? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-politics-law/israel-adopts-divisive-jewish-nation-state-law-idUSKBN1K901V Luftfall (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we also need to remove references to Israel being a democracy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Denoting an official language or stating a country is a nation state does not change the democratic status of a country. As for Arabic - its status was ambiguous previously. The new law clealrly states Hebrew is the official language, however it accords Arabic a special status (and rather ambigously states that the law does not affect the previous status of Arabic in law).Icewhiz (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. Declaring that (according to Reuters) "only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country" means that Israel is no longer a democracy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Reuters - "national self determination" - which does not modify an individual right.Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Malik Shabazz here. Could it be that he has finally redeemed himself? “Four legs good, two legs better!" Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

From Reuters source above: "Israel passed a law on Thursday to declare that only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country", how is this a democracy? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you actually read past the first sentence - it is It stipulates that “Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and they have an exclusive right to national self-determination in it”. (which is a bit of a mash of the final bill - however we'll pardon Reuters due to all the last minute changes). The right is conferred as a national right to the Jewish people - not to individual Jews (clause 1C in the bill).Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Arabic still need to be mention in the Infobox cause it have a 'special status' and its differ from other spoken languages such Russian, Amharic, Yiddish etc. "The Arabic language has a special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions or by them will be set in law; This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect. " It should be mention in  with a footnote explaining the status of the language. Sokuya (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Arabic name of the state should be still feature in the article even though it not longer official language. See examples Algeria, Brunei, Cambodia, Somaliland, Tunisia, Mauritania, Nigeria. Sokuya (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I argee with Malik Shabazz and Veritycheck✔️ and that a country where only the Jewish people "have an exclusive right to national self-determination" and all non-Jewish citizens have NO right to national self-determination is NOT a democracy. All the false references to Israel being a democracy need to be removed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Personal opinions are all very nice, but aside from the regular chorus of anti-Zionist BDS supporters (whose opinion of Israel is entirely unchanged by the law) - consensus in RSes differs.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The RSes are clear that Israel's democratic status is in question following this new law this July. See http://time.com/5345963/israel-nation-state-law-democracy/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/israel-jewish-state-nationality-law.html . Also, I am not an anti-Zionist or a supporter of BDS, just a supporter of a factual definition of democracy in Wikipedia. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * op-eds that do not say that (they do say shift from or prioritizing natiinao over democratic democratic values - but not not).Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of reliable sources and their view on the claim to being a democracy:,. There certainly seems to at the very least be a dispute as to whether or not Israel is still a "democracy". If I recall what NPOV says, there was something about not making statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice when there are significant POVs disputing that view.  nableezy  - 17:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * True. We should, at the very least, state that Isreal's democratic status is in dispute. Those words have now twice been removed from the article. Those removals are not NPOV editing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well mine was. I was removing an extreme claim based on poor sourcing. Check out EXTRAORDINARY. If a shedload of R/S sources, preferably taking the longer view, become available in the future, we can revisit this. And the wording would have to be exquisitely crafted. And please WP:AGF by the way. I am an established user known by many, regardless of their POV to be an open minded (as far as is humanly possible here) colleague, who weighs issues on a case-by case basis. Thank you. Irondome (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * An op-ed by a fellow with an a-priori dim view of Israel, and CNN who is referring to critics but does not say so in its own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The "fellow" is M. A. Muqtedar Khan (a RS for the record) and why would CNN need to say it in their own voice? The CNN cite shows that the claim is disputed, as does the piece by Khan. Once more, here is what WP:NPOV says"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."The fact that serious sources such as Khan say that Israel is no longer a democracy and that CNN is noting that claim to being a democracy is now in dispute renders the view that Israel is a democracy a contested view. And finally, can somebody explain to me why the defenders of Israel on Wikipedia feel so compelled to not only ensure articles contain a decidedly Zionist slant but in addition they must remove any tag that calls into question an ongoing dispute? Tags about a dispute directing readers to the talk page should not be removed until the discussion is resolved. Yall are really testing the limits of WP:TE.  nableezy  - 21:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

When Democracy Index will change Israel status from Flawed democracies into Hybrid regimes then you could change this in the article. (as happened to Turkey) Until then you are arguing for nothing. Calm down everyone. Sokuya (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Democracy Index is not the sole source of what constitutes a democracy; it is but one. Secondly, telling people to ‘calm down’ when they have a differing opinion than yours is impractical, if not rude. WP:Politeness Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, but appeal to authority doesnt a valid argument make. WP:NPOV is clear on this point, when reliable sources contradict each other then Wikipedia describes the conflict. There are reliable sources that, as a result of this law, contest that Israel is a democracy now.  nableezy  - 17:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No contradiction. Or anything new - this law has been expected to pass for the past couple of years. We do not have RSes stating anything. We do have longstanding anti-Israel critics who penned a few op-eds coinciding with the passage of the bill, and some RSes mentioning said critics.Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As stated on Template:POV statement: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant." Also, the article Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People alredy address those claims and dispute in the reaction section and this is where it belongs for the moment. Avoid weasel terms. Sokuya (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument is self-contradicting. The template should be applied to articles that are “reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources “. Than you are referring to the article Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People where views of high-quality sources such as the Anti-Defamation League are expressed argueing that the law violates a key element of democracy – equality. יורם שורק (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No self-contradicting, that's people reaction to the Basic law. Notice what they said: "Anti-Defamation League (ADL), said, 'While there are provisions that we agree with — notably with regard to state symbols like the anthem, flag and capital Jerusalem; as well as in reaffirming that the State of Israel is open to Jewish immigration — we are troubled by the fact that the law, which celebrates the fundamental Jewish nature of the state, raises significant questions about the government’s long-term commitment to its pluralistic identity and democratic nature'." Did they said Israeli democracy dead? No. There is none RS that said that Israel democracy ended. Just people opninon as reaction to the law, that's why it belongs to that section. When groups of scholars will publish studies about how this law changed Israel democracy and explain how the implications of the come to effect, then we will have those RS. For now we only have opinions or reaction on the law. This is way too soon to change the definition of Israel democracy on main article. Sokuya (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What a load of self-serving baloney. There is never anything but "people opinion" about whether a country is or isn't a democracy -- there's no objective measure of what a democracy is, and no voice from the heavens will proclaim which countries are and which are not democracies. Was the United States a democracy when only white men who owned property were allowed to vote? What about apartheid South Africa? Both had "democratic elections", but it would be a stretch to describe as democracies countries in which the majority of the population could not vote. Israel has democratic institutions, but it has declared that one-fifth of its citizens will always be second-class citizens -- and a topic ban prohibits me from mentioning the elephant in the room. So long as expert "people opinion" questions whether Israel is a democracy, Wikipedia should not state that it is one. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "but it has declared that one-fifth of its citizens will always be second-class citizens" - That's not true. This is your interpretation of the law. Sokuya (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it is true, and all the wishing and arguing and hand-waving and other attempts to change the subject won't change that. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Newcomer to this dispute. Read the Reuters article. My assessment is that this law does not actually change any of the rights that non-Jews currently have in Israel. "National self determination" essentially refers to the right of a people (a national ethnic group) to have their own state; it does not have anything to do with personal rights or liberties. This really just restates, perhaps in stronger language, the status quo—that Israel is a Jewish nation state, not an Arab state or a multi-ethnic state. As the article explains, "Largely symbolic, the law was enacted just after the 70th anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel. It stipulates 'Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people and they have an exclusive right to national self-determination in it'." Ltwin (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This can't be stated in Wikivoice anymore in the lede. It should have probably been removed some time ago but this is formal recognition and there are much stronger sources now supporting the removal including Reuters and the NY Times  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 14:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of those articles state that Arab citizens have lost any rights as a result of this law. At most, they've stated the fear and concern by some that this largely symbolic law could lead to future discrimination against Arab Israelis. Ltwin (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The law didn't take away any rights, and nobody has said that it did. What it did was enshrine in law the de facto second-class citizenship that non-Jewish Israeli citizens currently "enjoy". Previously, that disparate treatment was considered contrary to the Israeli proclamation of independence; this law has said that the disparity is just fine and made it permanent. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a straw man argument, nobody has said that any rights were taken. What the sources say is that the law changes "Jewish and democratic" to "Jewish" in describing the state. Your putting up requirements on what needs to happen for Israel to change its character is WP:OR.  nableezy  - 17:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that the lead includes a sentence offering Israel's definition of itself followed by a sentence offering a description of Israel's government in Wiki's voice. No one has yet disputed the sentence describing Israel's self-definition. The sentence that is being disputed is this one: "Israel is a representative democracy." So, with all due respect, the issue is not about how Israel describes the character of the state but about whether Israel's government is objectively representative and democratic. Since you acknowledge that no Arab citizen has lost their right to vote or be represented, why is Israel's classification as a representative democracy being denied because of a "largely symbolic" law that has not changed the nature of Israel's governmet? Ltwin (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

uh this edit is purposely misleading it seems, as reliable sources disputing the phrase has been presented (eg this). It is you you that are arguing with personal opinions, not sources. Why exactly are you removing even mention that the claim to being a democracy is disputed and actively being discussed here?  nableezy  - 17:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Because this is a clearly misuse of the template : "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant." Sokuya (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have presented a high quality reliable source that directly disputes the statement. What about that is unclear?  nableezy  - 17:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Those  are not high quality reliable sources that support your claim. As others already explained to you, one is an op-ed and the other (CNN) isn't support your claim as the author summaries the article with the sentence: "Israel is one of the only Western-style democracies in the world that does not have a constitution anchoring the rights of its citizens." Sokuya (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what an op-ed is? M. A. Muqtedar Khan is himself a reliable source. Please read WP:RS, especially the section on established experts.  nableezy  - 17:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I meant this is an opinion article, and it does this is an option article he wrote to Daily Sabah newspaper. Even in the CGP website you have this line under the article: The views expressed herein are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of CGP. From WP:RS: "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. (Notes: Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require Verifiability, and this is policy.) If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. There really no room for this attribution in the lead. This is an exceptional claim and it belongs to this Reaction section. This is not a RS to use to dispute  the views of other multiple high-quality reliable sources in the subject. Sokuya (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes it “Exceptional claim”? the democratic nature of the Israeli regime is a matter of controversy even inside the Israeli parliament where the third biggest party claims it is NOT democratic. יורם שורק (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Making an opinion article by some dude equal to all standard reliable sources classifying Israel as a democracy is WP:Undue weight. Every Israeli citizen above 18 has the right to vote and be elected i.e. representative democracy.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Short dictionary: "some dude" - everyone who User:יניב הורון does not agree with; "standard reliable source" everyone he likes. Simple fact: the nature of the Israeli regime is a matter of dispute in academy and public opinion and the article should reflect that fact. Every citizen has the right to vote but not all citizen can live wherever they want. יורם שורק (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The right to vote does not equate to a representative democracy. That is an over-simplification, not the definition. There are countless examples; Egypt for one and Israel for another. Once again, “Four legs good, two legs better!" Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Freedom House and the World Factbook (to name a few) are far more important and reliable than an opinion article by a Turkish newspaper. See also WP:Recentism.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on past discussions, World Factbook is generally not a preferred source, and neither is the CIA. In my opinion, it would have to be attributed like any government agency, as a non-neutral source. I don't have any input on Freedom House. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 20:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * From your first source, "Israel is a multiparty democracy with strong and independent institutions that guarantee political rights and civil liberties for most of the population. Although the judiciary is active in protecting minority rights, the political leadership and many in society have discriminated against Arab and other minorities, resulting in systemic disparities in areas including political representation, criminal justice, and economic opportunity". Your second source, now really, the C.I.A.? A reliable source? They aren't known for honesty - that is merely a propaganda page. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but the fact that there's discrimination (like everywhere else, including Europe) doesn't contradict the fact that Israel is a democracy.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Discrimination as official policy and as part of the state's constitutional values is unique to Israel. יורם שורק (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the independence declaration (repeated in Israel's basic laws) specifically says the state "...will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex." But I'm not interested in your opinion and flawed interpretations, whether there's discrimination or not is irrelevant. Major reliable sources say that Israel is a representative democracy.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The declaration of independence has no legal or constitutional value. Discrimination in basic laws and as official government policy (racism as official ideology) is relevant because equality is a major component of the democratic system. When “Major reliable sources say..” and other major reliable sources say the opposite the article should inform the reader about the controversy. When the exact nature of an article subject is unclear or disputed  the article should reflect it as for example in  Gluteus minimus.   יורם שורק (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no "controversy" about Israel being a democracy (probably the only one in the region), there's an article opinion in a Turkish newspaper criticizing the new basic law, which basically repeats what the independence declaration already says. That's all. All major sources describe Israel's political system as a representative democracy. See WP:due weight and WP:recentism.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Beyond being an op-ed, Turkish newspapers would generally not be seen as a RS for anything except for the Erdogan regime's position - per Freedom House and RSF.Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This whole discussion is unbelievably silly. National self-determination has nothing to do with individual freedom. The Supreme Court has the legal right to literally obliterate the Government should they ever attempt to infringe upon Human Dignity and Liberty or Freedom of Occupation as as these two laws enjoy super-legal status. The theory that Democracy Index (the Economist) will demote Israel is also incorrect, as they too recognise the power of Israel's Supreme Court and the fact that the nation-state law is merely declaratory: "In lieu of a constitution, the Knesset has, over the years, passed a series of “basic laws”. One, from 1992, enshrines the same civil rights for all citizens. The new measure, also a basic law, does not change that. [... Because the nation-state law is only declaratory, few think it will sway Israel’s Supreme Court, which often rules in favour of democratic values over Jewish nationalist ones.]" Please remove the "disputed" template from the lead - as it only makes Wikipedia look pathetic. Code Temple (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Calling it 'silly' is disingenuous and couldn't be further from the truth. This is precisely why this discussion is taking place. It is disputed. A sham democracy, such as Israel’s, is nothing more than that; hollow. From the news (all WP:RS):
 * “Israel is not a democracy. A democracy doesn't deny millions their civil rights, plunder their land and resources and deprive them of independence and of a say in their future.” - Haaretz
 * “A new law shifts Israel sway from democracy” - Time
 * “If you look at all the land Israel controls between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, that area contains some 8.3 million Israelis and Palestinians of voting age. Roughly 30 percent — about 2.5 million — are Palestinians living outside Israel under varying degrees of Israeli control — in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They have some ability to elect Palestinian bodies with limited functions. But they are powerless to choose Israeli officials, who make the weightiest decisions affecting them.”
 * “International humanitarian law does not grant a people living under temporary military occupation the right to vote for the institutions of the occupying power. But “temporary” is the operative word. Military occupations are meant to have an end. And common sense says half a century is not “temporary.”” - NY Times
 * “Israel has passed into law a highly controversial bill that serves to define the nature of the state of Israel, with critics slamming it as the "nail in the coffin" of Israeli democracy.” - Localnews8
 * “The “only democracy in the Middle East”? Hardly. This claim has always been disingenuous, ahistorical, and tinged with racism. Israel can claim to be a democracy only in the sense that apartheid South Africa could also claim to be so: an “ethnocracy” with full democratic rights for the privileged race or religion; lesser or no democratic rights for those with undesirable skin color, ethnicity, nationality, or race.
 * Israel became a preponderantly Jewish state, thereby gaining this veneer of democracy, only by ethnically cleansing indigenous Palestinians from their homes in 1948 and preventing to this day these refugees and their descendants from exercising their right of return to their homes as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “” - Huffingtonpost
 * “If Israel continues on its current course, the world will draw an additional conclusion: the so-called only democracy in the Middle East is a sham.” - The National
 * “But some critics question whether the country can truly call itself a democracy. They point to Israel's occupation of the West Bank as a key issue.
 * "What do you call an arrangement where your country controls every aspect virtually of the lives of 2.7 million people who have no say or vote in the government that rules them?" says Daniel Sokatch, chief executive of the New Israel Fund, a non-government organisation dedicated to social justice in Israel.” - ABC
 * “Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. In fact, it's not a democracy at all.” - Jacobin


 * Including the "disputed" template from the lead - shows that Wikipedia is accurate. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. The laws and soverignity of the State of Israel apply only to the territories that have been annexed by it. That's like saying the U.S. is undemocratic for having its troops in Syria but not allowing the Syrian citizens to vote in the American elections. Again, this article is about the State of Israel, not the territories under its military control. Nobody has named ONE SINGLE independent democracy-monitoring entity claiming that Israel is not a democracy. Therefore, it's not disputed, except maybe by BDS activists. Period. Code Temple (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your arguments need to be directed at the sources and what they state if you want to refute them. Those that have been provided above are but a few that demonstrate democracy in Israel is disputed. You must find sources of your own that state that it isn't - if that is your position. What is irrelevant are personal opinions, yours included. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone can find op-eds claiming that X is Y. Again, Israel's democracy is not disputed by any independent democracy-monitoring entity. And even though you may wish it was, Wikipedia isn't an advocacy platform for your little movement. Sorry. Code Temple (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The criteria of what is included in Wikipedia is not limited to a ‘monitoring entity’, but includes, among other sources, those which appear in the news. Your tone is getting personal WP:CIVIL. I belong to no movement. I check that Wikipedia reflects reality as supported by RS, nothing more. I see now that you created this account today and have only participated in this discussion. Familiarize yourself with WP:5P. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not if op-eds are the only available sources, but monitoring entities are certainly more reliable. Both Democracy Index and Freedom House recognise that Israel is a representative democracy, just as both NASA and ESA recognise that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. That fact is not "disputed" just because I can find an op-ed claiming that it's actually flat. 213.184.122.18 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Opinion columns are not reliable sources for statements of fact, but only to reflect the biased opinion of their author, whenever that's pertinent (which is not here); see WP:NEWSORG.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You really should read what you link to. Particularly WP:RS where it makes clear established experts who have been published by third parties in the field can be used as reliable sources themselves.  nableezy  - 20:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic democracy vs ethnocracy
Rather than debating journalistic views, op-eds and recent reaction to the Basic Law change regarding whether Israel is a democracy, we are better off referencing the issue in the context of the three-decade long scholarly dispute. That dispute pits the terms ethnic democracy and ethnocracy against each other. The details of the debate encapsulate everything being discussed in the threads above, in a scholarly manner.

A detailed and high-quality footnote explaining and sourcing this has unfortunately been removed from the article in this edit by with no explanation other than pending consensus. Yaniv, please share your viewpoint here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you got things wrong. WP:ONUS is on YOU to convince us this is appropriate for lede.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The quality of these sources and quotations, and the neutral, scholarly and pithy manner in which the dispute is described, will finally mean we can stop wasting time debating the Israel/democracy issue which, if you look in the archives, has been going on here ever since Wikipedia first came into existance. With respect to both the lede and the main article, to ignore or take just one side of this well publicized dispute is POV. If you can find a better form of words, without totally ignoring the dispute, please propose them. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The Law of Return is the only Israeli law which separates Jews from non-Jews, and it only applies to individuals who have not yet become citizens. Also, Jews are not solely an ethnicity, but also a religion and a nationality. So I'm not sure how either "ethnic democracy" or "ethnocracy" would be accurate. 213.184.122.18 (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Ethnocracy" is a term invented by a few left-wing academics with no basis in Israeli or international law. I don't see how those "intellectuals" are anything different than opinion pieces in newspapers. "Ethnic democracy" (which by the way implies a democracy) is a subjective term invented by Israeli professor Sammy Smooha. No other country in Wikipedia is defined as such. Please stick to standard definitions. International organizations like Freedom House provide accurate definitions for each country, and it's used as a valid non-biased source throughout this encyclopedia.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You dont get to reject reliable sources because you dislike what they said. You dont get to demand that only sources that support your position are included. WP:NPOV is clear on this.  nableezy  - 01:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be WP:UNDUE to apply this minority view on government systems in general (Ethic democracy not generally accepted as a system by scholars in the field) - and if we were to apply this label - then Latvia and Estonia should be the test case prior to Israel - as the situation of Russians in Latvia and Russians in Estonia - many of whom are denied citizenship (let alone other rights) - is more pronounced. Those, minority position academics, that use the term - give Estonia and Latvia as prime examples. Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are all demands not based in Wikipedia policy. WP:OSE is not a valid argument. Including well sourced material does not violate UNDUE, quite the opposite, suppressing the material entirely is not giving it due weight.  nableezy  - 15:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better to just stop labelling forms of government in the LEDE and infoboxes of all country articles. Generally speaking, I don't think the LEDE is a good place for value-laden jargon anyway - democracy has multiple possible definitions and indexes that use their own measures. This is a constant source of problems as most of these indexes have real shortcomings as well - can anyone here actually give the standard widely accepted consensus definition of democracy? The man on the street might say "majority rule" but that isn't right. Constitutionally limited government? - that would exclude a number of countries. The rationale for when to include it and when to exclude seems to be more POV-driven, so I think it would be more productive if we could just agree to a style guideline similar to flagcruft and then add neutral discussion to the article text that includes all significant views. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz and Yaniv, please could you take another look at the sources? Reaching an agreement here would resolve a long running dispute over a key issue in this article, so it’s worth investing time in.

Your comments both assumed the same presumption - that one or other of the definitions is somehow “fringe”.

Yet the sources state, explicitly, that this is the central area of scholarly focus on the question. Twenty or thirty years ago these terms might have been new, but the sources are clear that this is now the mainstream and the terms are used often.

If you have a different interpretation, please either provide a quote from the sources or provide other sources which underpin your claim.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you consider "mainstream" a couple of left-wing 'intellectuals' or opinion articles criticizing the new basic law, then you are mistaken. Op-Eds are not reliable sources to state facts, but apparently you refuse to WP:get the point. Freedom House and Democracy Index, on the other hand, are what we call mainstream. Check those two articles and their respective sources if you aren't sure.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the point (and creating strawmen - I never advocated for the op-eds). This is not just “a few” scholars, this is the entire scholarly community. As an aside, your attempt to disparage them as “intellectuals” suggests you might not be suited to this project.
 * You reference FH and DI as if they somehow conflict with the scholarly position. They do not. Those benchmarking indicies track certain elements of democratic life - their job is not to tell us what terminology to use. That is the job of the scholarly community.
 * An excellent recent summary of the issue is the 2010 presentation of Professor Shlomo Hasson of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Modes of Democracy in Israel Please read this and the other sources before commenting again.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)