Talk:Israel/Archive 71

Request for Comment - description of "representative democracy"
Which one of the following statements shall be included in the lead?

1. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a representative democracy   with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.  "

2. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.  "

ששש.מ.ל (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. Democracy is disputed. See the section on this Talk page Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The type of democracy is disputed. See the ref note in my second option, I linked to all the different types that have been suggested, including the ones put forward by Onceniawhile. "Representative democracy" is a neutral term that fits all of the descriptions above; not even the BDS disputes that fact that the Members of Knesset are elected by the citizens of Israel. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a misrepresentation and inaccurate. Democracy, in itself, is also disputed. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * By whom? And do not link to an op-ed! ששש.מ.ל (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The second option seems a good attempt to compromise.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You cant state things that are contested by reliable sources as fact and then relegate that dispute to a footnote. This RFC seeks to either completely remove any mention of the dispute over the status of Israel as a democracy or bury it as a footnote. Both options violate WP:NPOV.  nableezy  - 19:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if we assume that Israel is an ethnocracy, which is obviously BS, it still doesn't change the fact that it's (also) a representative democracy. None of the sources that anyone has presented at the talk page "dispute" or "contest" that, reliable or otherwise. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Neither "elected by universal suffrage" is an odd turn of phrase - there's no need to link PR I think, it's very jargony. We could just say it has a parliamentary system - both of the proposed versions seem to fail on conciseness. (Parliamentary system, representative democracy, proportional representation) ... Parliamentary system may be the best compromise. (Adding "Parliament elected by universal suffrage" is optional.) Seraphim System ( talk ) 21:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Parliamentary system" is acceptable and not disputed.Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither is parliamentary republic, which seems more appropriate.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Added options 3 and 4. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit that sought to introduce new options at the top of the discussion once it was already underway. Add new suggestions BELOW. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. I've now started a new RfC instead in order to avoid confusion. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think starting multiple RfCs on the same topic at once is a good idea, since editors will be summoned to both and it will likely cause more confusion. I think it would have also been better to leave the discussion open here so editors could discuss the final wording. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 22:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edits are disruptive and causing more confusion. You have introduced 2 RFCs back to back created on the same day concerning the same issue. I suggest you auto-delete the second one adding your feedback to the first where it belongs. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Why not just go by the here presented "Democracy Index" source and call it what they call it: A "flawed democracy"?--TMCk (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Because none of the dozens of other countries listed under that category by Democracy Index are called "flawed democracies" in their lead sections on Wikipedia. And please stop discussing here, I've added more options to the other RfC. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

CONTINUED DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT RFC. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead
Ubeidiya and Canaan deserve a mention in the lead. Open to suggestions. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about "Ubeidiya", but I definitely agree that Canaanites deserve a mention in lede, although no more than a sentence. Do you have any text in mind?--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Ubeidiya site in northern Israel has evidence of the earliest migration of Homo erectus out of Africa (ca. 1.5 million years ago). The land of modern-day Israel was known as Canaan during the late 2nd millennium BC, home to Philistia and the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah." ? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's not expand but shorten the lead. It's already long. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't however omit mentioning these two very important points. I would suggest trimming the Jewish states histories as they are quite over-detailed. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Are these two subject most important things to say about modern State of Israel ? I think not. Those two subject belong under Prehistory and Antiquity, where both are already mentioned. "Jewish states histories" are actually far more relevant to the modern state. If you want to expand History of Israel or Prehistory of the Levant and History of ancient Israel and Judah - it makes much more sense. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) The Jewish state histories are quite important. I do however agree that early hominid remains in the region (and this is wider than just Ubeidiya - Skhul and Qafzeh hominins as well as Neanderthal and other finds are significant). I wouldn't mention Canaan - attestations to Canaan's use are mainly biblical with the exception of the Amarna letters. I'm not sure I would single out Philistia - Canaan was home to a diverse set of groups (in shifting boundaries) - if we're adding Philistia (who lasted 1175-722bc), Phoenicia and possibly Edom (subsumed into Judah by the Hasmonean, followed by the "reverse takeover" of Herod the Great who was an Edomite) would be more significant in terms of lasting impact - however all 3 are missing from the body of the article at present.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Are these two subject most important things to say about modern State of Israel?" I don't know, is it unimportant to have the world's earliest evidence of homonids out of Africa? And Philistines which directly bordered Israel and Judah, collectively in Canaan? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a proposal. What about saying... Canaanite tribes are archeologically attested since the Middle Bronze Age.  (then it continues with the current text which talks about Israelite kingdoms). It's nothing more than an introductory sentence, but at least Canaanites are mentioned. If not, tell us what text you have in mind.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Aren't Israel and Judah part of these Canaanite tribes? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. However, the Sea People or Philistia are less significant than other neighboring groups who were also (in part) in modern Israel - Edom, Phoenicia, and possibly others.Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you save us some time and show the text you want?--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I already did write what I wanted. I favored specifying that the land was called Canaan, but the sentence that Yaniv proposed is almost equally appropriate. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What about Ubeidiya? I think its very important. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Israel has evidence of the earliest migration of hominids out of Africa. Canaanite tribes are archeologically attested since the Middle Bronze Age, while the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged during the Iron Age. Israel existed till 720 BC, and Judah remained to exist as autonomous Jewish provinces despite being conquered by various empires. The Hasmonean kingdom was established in 110 BC, and it remained independent until it became a client state of the Roman Republic in 63 BC. The Romans subsequently installed the Herodian dynasty in 37 BC, and in 6 AD created the Roman province of Judea which lasted until failed Jewish revolts resulted in widespread destruction, expulsion of Jewish population and the renaming of the region from Iudaea to Syria Palaestina. Jewish presence in the region persisted to a certain extent over the centuries. In the 7th century AD the Levant was taken from the Byzantine Empire by the Arabs and remained in Muslim control until the First Crusade in 1099. However, it fell to the Ayyubids in 1187, and the region was later controlled by the Mamluk Sultanate and the Ottoman Empire. During the 19th century, national awakening among Jews led to the establishment of the Zionist movement in the diaspora followed by waves of immigration to Ottoman and later British Palestine–leading to episodes of violence with the Arab population there.
 * This is a humble attempt to rewrite the second paragraph of the lead. Suggestions are welcomed. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Israel has evidence of the earliest migration of hominids out of Africa." I like that, I'll add it with a proper source. However, the rest of your proposal to change the paragraph is not welcomed, since it removes the brief mention of Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires (which doesn't occupy more than a line anyway). As far as conflict with the Arabs, it's mentioned in the next paragraph.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps also (1) add "where Judaism originated" after "the kingdoms of Israel and Judah", (2) change "Hasmoenan kingdom" to "Jewish kingdom" as the Hasmoneans were the dynasty, not the kingdom (but still link to the dynasty), and (3) spell out "Ottoman Syria" instead of just "Ottoman". ששש.מ.ל (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Babylonian rule for example lasted from 586 BC to 538 BC; barely 48 years. Is it that important to include? I am not knowledgeable enough to decide which of the various empires and civilizations should be considered important enough to be placed in the lead, but I know that you can't just place every single empire in what is supposed to be a quick summary. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment of Israeli neighborhoods
I have opened an RFC for several of the Israeli cities that I think are un-encyclopedic. I appreciate input from editors at that RFC. Thank you. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledging the high profile debate on Israel and democracy
The above discussions have shown that some editors believe that the high profile debate regarding Israel and democracy should not be made clear to readers. The only policy based argument proposed was “fringe”, yet no supporting evidence has been provided. Evey single source being discussed, even Freedom House and Democracy Index, and every reputable scholarly source and every reputable journalistic report, acknowledges the debate. Unless actual evidence can be brought to disprove that this debate is mainstream, then we should end the filibuster and fix the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a high profile debate - a twitter/media storm in a teacup following a bill. In one-two-three news cycles, and that's about it.Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Every major global news organization has discussed this topic for decades.
 * The heated debate in secondary literature has been going for thirty years.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you got this the wrong way. You're the one who has to provide evidence as to why a few scholars are more (or even equally) reliable than the world-leading NGOs on the subject. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They are not "world-leading NGOs" - the democracy index would not even meet the standards for a low-cite primary statistics study published in an academic journal. It is an informal survey of public opinion without any rigorous methodology. These are primary sources, they are not sources for whether Israel is a democracy, only for the results of the survey. A "democracy index" is about as abtruse as you can get (per WP:SCHOLARSHIP). If that isn't enough to exclude them for common sense reasons, our policies unambiguously state that we prefer discussion in academic secondary sources. Seraphim System ( talk ) 11:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Heated? Not really. Israel has been referred to as the "Zionist entity" by Arabs and the supporters of their cause since its founding. However, this discourse is for the most part limited to partisan support of the Arab cause. We already amply cover the long standing lack of recognition by some Arab states of Israel - there is little reason to interject propaganda from supporters of this cause throughout the article - beyond covering said partisanship in an appropriate section.Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Another strawman and filibuster. Noone is talking about that.
 * You are ignoring the evidence of unanimous scholarly and journalistic consensus - please comment on that. That is the basis of wikipedia.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is evidence of some opinions, but "unanimous scholarly and journalistic consensus" is quite WP:EXCEPTIONAL and needs some pretty good sources. Where are they? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See for a scholarly consensus regarding the existance of a dispute, and the two main models. For journalistic consensus, dozens of sorces have been provided above by other editors. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This doesn't show that there is a consensus, it shows that there are several people discussing/disputing Israel's democracy. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is clear consensus that a debate exists, and has been going for multiple decades; these sources all reference and describe that debate in similar ways.
 * If this was a non-mainstream debate, there would be sources characterizing it as such, as there are for all high profile but non-mainstream disputes.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In the spirit of concluding this discussion, are any editors claiming that this scholarly and media debate doesn’t exist? I get that some people wish it didn’t, but it’s there for everyone to see. To ignore the obvious does nothing but create embarrassment for our project. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's time for some people to get their heads out of the sand. This debate has gone on since 14 May 1948 - 70 years and counting. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And it seems the same people who have been opposing Israel for 70 years are the ones writing a few op-ed repeating the same message to a different prompting event.Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The state of democracy in Israel is clearly a mainstream debate, as the many references given above prove. It should either be documented in the article or the name of Wikipedia should be changed to what it really currently is, the Wikifalsehoodblog. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Per Kingsindian above, I propose to add a few sentences to the main body, after which we can discuss the lede. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Wikifalsehood"? lol! We are not interested in "WP:Truth", but only what reliable sources say.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Confusion regarding the boundaries of Israel
Many of the arguments made in favour of excluding the term "parliamentary democracy" as a descriptor of Israel in the lede were based on the notion that the Judea and Samaria Area (particularly Area C) is part of the State of Israel, which is of course inaccurate.

Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967: "In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the Supreme Court of Israel determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel": "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been 'annexed' to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention)."

Sword &#38; Olive Branch (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary list of published scholars who describe the “ethnic democracy” vs “ethnocracy” debate
Below is a preliminary list of published scholars who describe the “ethnic democracy” vs “ethnocracy” debate. This list clearly includes some very notable individuals, with credentials which do not allow for them to be waved away because one would rather this debate didn’t exist.


 * Alan Dowty, professor of Political Science Emeritus, University of Notre Dame
 * Sammy Smooha, Professor of Sociology at the University of Haifa and Israel Prize recipient
 * Nadim Rouhana, Professor of International Negotiation and Conflict Studies at Tufts University
 * Oren Yiftachel, Professor of Political and Legal Geography at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
 * Ruth Gavison, Israeli Law professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
 * Asad Ghanem, Professor of Government and Political Theory at the University of Haifa
 * Yoav Peled, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Tel Aviv University
 * Dr. Doron Navot of the of Government and Political Theory department at the University of Haifa
 * Ran Greenstein, Associate Professor at University of the Witwatersrand
 * Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Professor of language and education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Sakharov Prize recipient
 * Dr Alexander Koensler, Social Anthopology department, Queens University Belfast
 * Dov Waxman, Northeastern University, Professor of Political Science, International Affairs, and Israel Studies; Stotsky Professor of Jewish Historical and Cultural Studies
 * Ilan Peleg, Professor of Government and Law at Lafayette College
 * Benyamin Neuberger, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the Open University of Israel and recipient of Lifetime Achievement Award of the Israel Political Science Association
 * Dr. Moshe Berent, Department of Sociology, Political Science and Communication at the Open University of Israel
 * Ami Pedahzur, Founding Director, Institute for Israel Studies, University of Texas at Austin

Unless it can be shown that this debate is somehow not notable or not mainstream, it must be described in the article. Sources for the above are in an earlier thread.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First; acknowledging the existence of a debate is not the same as agreeing with either side. And even if they all do agree with it, it's still not relevant enough to be mentioned in the lede outside of a footnote. There are individuals in every free country questioning the nature of its democracy, but none of them are mentioned in those countries' Wikipedia ledes, inside footnotes or otherwise. This seems to me like a clear attempt at discrimination against Israel specifically.
 * Second; "ethnic democracy" explicitly includes the term "democracy", and "ethnocracy" does not explicitly exclude it. Both of them are arguably still forms of democracy. Sword &#38; Olive Branch (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don’t cast baseless aspertions of disrimination. You have not shown any other country having this level of heated scholarly debate over the nature of its democracy, so your claim is nonsense.
 * On your second point, you are guessing as to the essence of the debate. It’s not difficult to understand - you just need to read the sources. If you don’t have time to read them, then you have no right to comment in this discussion and will be ignored.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Work this into Estonia and Latvia first - which are given as the most obvious example of this by sources on Ethnocracy / Ethnic Democracy. This angle is UNDUE - and is unused by most scholars and monitoring NGOs that characterize governments - it is mostly simply ignored (not just for Israel) as a classification.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dr. Moshe Berent of the Open University of Israel would disagree with you: "But contrary to what Smooha suggests, Israel's national identity is indeed unique. In each of Smooha's East European examples, besides the concept of a core ethnic nation, exists the notion of a civic territorial nation, which makes possible the integration or ‘assimilation’ into the dominant culture of those who are not members of the core ethnic nation. Yet, Israel's national identity does not recognise the existence of a civic territorial nation and makes no provisions for the integration or assimilation of non‐Jews, especially Arabs, into the dominant Hebrew culture."
 * As does Priit Järve: "This paper applies a model of ethnic democracy elaborated by Professor Sammy Smooha of Haifa University, Israel, to Estonia, a case which is usually regarded as marginal in this regard... The case of Estonia (and also that of Latvia) is usually considered as marginal and controversial because considerable proportions of non-titular permanent residents are not citizens and cannot fully participate in the democratic process. Nevertheless, there seems to be a growing consensus among scholars that these states can be labelled as ethnic democracies despite the fact that part of the residents do not have citizenship"
 * Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * To Once's list, one can add Ami Pedahzur (Founding Director, Institute for Israel Studies, University of Texas at Austin) and many others depending on the exact membership test for the list. I'm not sure what descriptor should come first, but suppressing a widespread scholarly debate is simply not an option. Zerotalk 09:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * de Gruyter published a book called "Major Debates": ; it included Oren Yiftachel's 1998 paper on Israel as an ethnocracy. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is widespread because it is a key tenet of Post-Zionism. Which should be made clear. The first thing I thought about with the nation state law is this is really designed to be a final death blow to Post-Zionism. As it forces the Post Zionist to become an anti-Zionist.Jonney2000 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Professor Emanuel Adler, Chair in Israel Studies at the University of Toronto and former editor of the high profile journal International Organization runs a course on Israel's identity. Subject 9 (Who Is "We?": The Israeli Palestinians: "Us" or "Them?") and Subject 10 (What are we: Israeli Democracy as Identity) show only the above authors as the primary "required reading" (Sammy Smooha, Yoav Peled, Nadim Rouhana and As'ad Ghanem, Dov Waxman and Ilan Peleg, and Ruth Gavison). It is clear from this that the above list captures the primary contributors to the academic debate on this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that a concrete proposal, giving WP:DUE weight to all viewpoints, be hammered out here. Preliminary discussion can happen in the normal informal way, but adding the section (or not) will probably require an RfC. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Time to reach a compromise on the RfC?
Option 1 of the last RfC was formulated as: "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a representative democracy   with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.  " It was supported by nine (9) editors (Icewhiz, Sokuya, יניב הורון, Ynhockey,  Jonney2000, Calthinus, OtterAM,  Shrike, and I), and opposed by three (3) editors (Onceinawhile, Veritycheck, and Seraphim System).

The arguments back and forth have been going on for many days now. The personal opinions of individual scholars - it seems - will never be included in the lede. However, their critiques of some of the civil liberties in Israel are echoed by both Democracy Index (DI) and Freedom House (FH), which are recognized by the overwhelming majority of the editors in the RfC as the most reliable sources on the subject. That's why I'm now proposing a compromise to settle this dispute once and for all. It includes a footnote shotrly explaining the positions of DI & FH, as well as the Encyclopedia Britannica source - put forward in the RfC - adding the term "multi-party" (which is also supported by DI & FH) in front of "representative democracy": "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a multi-party representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.  "

Duoble 07 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Support seems like a workable compromise proposal to me.--Calthinus (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm sorry, but I don't think this is satisfactory. The sentence in question is about the political system, not about ongoing issues in society nor about the level of "freedom" in the country. Discussion of these belong elsewhere on Wikipedia. OtterAM (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sovereignty over Jerusalem
"proclaimed capital is Jerusalem, although the state's sovereignty over Jerusalem has only partial recognition." This is questionable phrasing and does not in fact echo the sources used. 'partial recognition ' is a question-begging description of less than a handful of 196 nations. One might tweak to 'the state's assertion of sovereignty', but sovereignty is counterfactual, given Ian S. Lustick 's never to my knowledge controverted 'HAS ISRAEL ANNEXED EAST JERUSALEM?' Middle East Policy Volume 5, Issue 1, January 1997 pp.34-45Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting legal argument, not sure you would convince a jury. The author admits that most sources at the time of writing viewed it as annexation. It is however badly out of date now since the Jerusalem Law was amended to preclude transfer.Jonney2000 (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also jurisdiction of Jerusalem was amended. It is almost like the Israelis read that text.Jonney2000 (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * +1
 * Also, the Basic Law: Referendum requires secession from any Israeli sovereign territory to be accepted by at least two-thirds of the Members of Knesset, or by the majority of the voters in a national referendum. Duoble 07 (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are part of the Districts of Israel (where the same civil laws apply) and are included in the official CBS statistics. I'm not sure what else is required for "soverignity". Duoble 07 (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The sentence needs to address the fact that it is the East Jerusalem section that is disputed. So "...although the state's sovereignty over East Jerusalem lacks international approval." I used approval rather than recongition because Israel is clearly sovereign in East Jerusalem (in the sense that it excercises power) but this sovereignty has not been approved by the international community. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by 'sovereignty'. 'Partial recognition' is of course totally question-begging.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This has apparently come up again. Please note, that I asked above a month ago (timestamp 06:49, 14 July 2018) whether even one source could be presented that Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem had been recognized by someone. No such source was found. Therefore, "partial recognition" seems wrong as the sources are consistent only with "not recognized", which is still the stable version of this text. --Dailycare (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)