Talk:Israel/Archive 75

Isn't Israel (becoming) a Theocracy?
Many thoughtful people wonder if Israel is another middle-east theocracy, but somehow "westernized," (or at least pretending to be). Yet the term "theocracy" is not mentioned once, which considering the hyper-powerful Israel lobby in the United States, and the many political third rail taboos surrounding Israel, I am not 1% surprised. Here is a tiny example of the controversy from from a 10-second google search, quoting:

Jerusalem Post ISRAEL: THEOCRATIC REPUBLIC, ETHNIC DEMOCRACY OR MODERN SECULAR NATION-STATE?

http://www.nationinstitute.org/featuredwork/nationbooks/2510/israel_turning_into_theocracy/  Israel Turning Into Theocracy BY ERIC ALTERMAN JEWISH DAILY FORWARD Israel is slowly but inexorably turning into a conservative theocracy while the Diaspora is largely dedicated to liberal democracy. It is becoming increasingly obvious that a break between Israel and Diaspora Jewry, particularly its American variety, is fast approaching. The reason for this is...

Videos of Israel theocracy

Israel: On the Way to a Theocratic State – LobeLog  https://lobelog.com/israel-on-the-way-to-a-theocratic-state/ Jan 18, 2018 - by Israel Rafalovich. Israel is facing a rise in the influence of ultra-orthodox Jews. Their effort to impose their strictly conservative worldview has ...

Israel's Fading Democracy - The New York Times  https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/israels-fading-democracy.html  Aug 4, 2012 - By AVRAHAM BURGAUG. If this trend continues, all vestiges of democracy will one day disappear, and Israel will become just another Middle Eastern theocracy. It will not ...

THEOCRACY - JewishEncyclopedia.com  www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14356-theocracy Basic to the notion is the relation of Israel to God as His peculiar people (comp. Ex. xix. ... But the rerise of this theocratic kingdom in Israel will coincide with the ...

Israel, on the road to a theocracy - Opinion - Israel News | Haaretz.com https://www.haaretz.com › Opinion  Dec 22, 2015 - We are facing a major assault on Israel's democratic-secular identity, with an unholy alliance between nationalism and religion at its core.

Israel has evolved from democracy to theocracy  BY HENRY BERGER Aug 2, 2018  Israel is rapidly deserting democracy while adopting the characteristics of a right-wing theocracy in a country politically polarized and increasingly isolated from the Jewish diaspora. It is doing so in the name of ethnocentrism. In 1967, just after Israel’s triumphant victory in the Six Day War, former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion sounded the alarm against Israel’s continued occupation of territories it had conquered in the conflict. He warned that in doing so, the country was “sowing the seeds of self-destruction” and sacrificing the ideals of democracy and pluralism.

New conversion bill only makes Israel more of a theocracy - Opinion ... https://www.haaretz.com › Opinion  Nov 2, 2014 - Israeli government 'refusing to uphold' new conversion law, critics charge ... reform will only lower Israel further into the abyss of theocracy.

We must stop Israel from becoming a theocracy - Haaretz - Israel ... https://www.haaretz.com/1.5025350  Jul 6, 2011 - Should Israel be a democracy in which a minority enjoys equal rights, or an ethnocracy for Jews who believe that their right to the Land of Israel ...

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/1/28/1359821/-Israel-and-the-paradox-of-theocracy I am an American-born Jew. I've lived in New York City for most of my 57 years and have never been to Israel. For many in my family those two facts immediately strip me of any right to question or even comment on any Israeli policy or action.....  The paradox: how can a government simultaneously be theocratic and humanistic -- committed to being a Jewish state, and committed to being a social democracy that values human and civil rights? The 240-year-old U.S. Bill of Rights would be unenforceable in Israel because several of its rights -- religious freedom, of course, but others as well -- are antithetical to the notion of a theocracy. Israel has many non-Jewish -- Arab -- citizens, but under its founding principle it continues to be a theocracy, with a Jewish ruling class, or quasi-class. After WWII,...

end quotes Wikipedia needs to cover this controversy. Unfortunately, being an American where the topic is even more effectively censored than in Israel, I don't know much about it. But sadly, unlike most Americans I know the power of taboo. Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:1DD4:F5FC:1EF5:91BB (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * Israel may or may not be a theocracy, and it may or may not be turning into one, but every one of the links you cited is an opinion column, which can only be cited as a source for the author's opinion, not as a source for facts. I recommend that you read WP:IRS, especially WP:RSOPINION. I also recommend reading WP:SOAPBOX. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 23:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Theocracy is a form of government in which a religious institution is the source from which all authority derives. Which religious institution in Israel has any authority over individuals who have not voluntarily entered into such contract? And what is your evidence for the "becoming" part? Can you cite any government policies and/or public opinion polls, or at least any sort of WP:RS? 13zmz13 (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Israel has some elements of theocracy - matrimony, divorce and burial are normally handled by religious institutions. Private secular burial is possible, and people can take a trip aboard to be wed, but for divorce as far as I know there is no alternative to the religious institution. This is not, however, what these articles say - they use the term theocracy, but what they really describe is prospect of Israel changing the balance of Jewish and democratic state away from democracy and toward ethnocracy. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To be precise - personal law (specifically divorce) is handled by religious courts according to the designated religion of the persons involved. There are multiple such courts - Rabbinic (Jews), Sharia (Muslims), Druze, several different Christian churches (each of which functions as a recognized religious court), Karaite Judaism ( which de-facto recognized), and possibly a few other smaller sects. This does not a theocracy make - as the state recognizes a multitude of different religions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Civil divorce is possible if you never entered into a religious marriage contract. The only difference is that it will (in some cases) technically not be seen by the State as a marriage in the first place, but why does that matter if you still enjoy the exact same rights?
 * I'm not so sure that they purport to describe any "changing of balance". The hypocritical (pro-)Islamist activists have always treated Israel as an ethnocracy, theocracy, [insert buzzword here], and they probably always will. 13zmz13 (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because a state "recognizes a multitude of different religions" doesn't mean it's not a theocracy. One example is the Islamic Republic of Iran. 13zmz13 (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm - yes - but in the context of divorce law in Israel, no particular religion (or non-religion in the case of two individuals without a registered religion) is favored over others. Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. All religions can be "favored" the same; the question is wether or not a religious institution is the source from which all authority derives, or any authority for that matter. Your argument that two individuals in Israel can avoid religious court jurisdiction (for example by marrying/divorcing without being registered to any specific religion) is much better. 13zmz13 (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Does anyone claim that Israel has "a religious institution is the source from which all authority derives" ? Despite imperfect Separation of church and state, no religion is the source of any authority. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * no particular religion (or non-religion in the case of two individuals without a registered religion) is favored over others. - I don't understand what point is trying to make here - this is also true in countries where family law is governed by shari'a and christians go to christian courts, muslims to muslim courts, etc. That doesn't make the application of religious law to family law non-theocratic. Israel is at best a mixed legal system. I imagine there are aspects of this that would be governed by secular law in Israel - such as cases where a husband murders and adulterous wife. (I don't know the details of how this is handled in Israel, but I would hope it goes through secular police and courts. In the US, it is usually considered a voluntary manslaughter).  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 14:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In Israel the murder case would go to a normal criminal court. The religious court system(s) deals only with the divorce itself (and there is a competing civil jurisdiction for divorce - depends on who files first) - custody, alimony, abrogation of the marriage, etc. Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Humanitarian section tag
This has been discussed in detail above at, but the discussion faded. I have tried to summarize all the information coming from that discussion in one place below:


 * The text reads like an advert; it was added a few years ago by an editor who stuck around for less than a year making only 350 edits. The topic itself has been criticized as a PR campaign, labelled by critics as “bluewashing”, and is on a Hasbara fellowship itinerary. This has been used by an editor to support inclusion, arguing that "Israel values doing" it, so it should be in our article.
 * Israel has a mixed record on the topic:
 * It features at the bottom of List of development aid country donors as a % of the size of its economy
 * The OECD (table 1) puts Israel second-last within the entire OECD by % of GNI donated. In terms of surrounding countries, each of Greece, Turkey and the UAE give substantially more
 * The World Giving Index has four types of score:
 * World Giving Index overall: Israel is number 43, immediately between the shining lights of Northern Cyprus and Libya!
 * Helping a stranger average: Israel is number 80, just above Turkmenistan
 * Donating money average: Israel is number 27, a whole five places below Bhutan
 * Volunteering time average: Israel is number 49, between Cameroon and Zambia
 * DARA’s Humanitarian Response Index is “not an index on the volume or quantity of funding provided by Western governments for humanitarian assistance. It looked beyond funding to assess critical issues around the quality and effectiveness of aid.” Their global assessment is here, yet Israel doesn’t even feature
 * Development Initiative’s global humanitarian assistance report (see page 38) doesn’t include Israel Yet it does include neighbours Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE.
 * Israel has an excellent disaster relief team, comprising a single company of personnel with equipment which can be carried by one large semi-trailer truck. This team has been mentioned once by the WHO as the last of seven low-key news items in the back of their monthly magazine called this "massive capacity". It has received coverage in the Israeli press and Israeli academic world, but not internationally.
 * No editor has been able to point to any other country articles which have such a section
 * No editor has attempted to establish the relative notability of the topic within the article, or provide measurable rationale for the appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Israel spends just c.$200m annually on aid, half the cost of a single office building in Tel Aviv, yet we have nothing in the article on such buildings. An editor stated that “[it] is the smallest in the "Government and politics" section"; in fact it is broadly the same size as “Legal system” and “Administrative Divisions” sections, although no explanation has been provided as to why this section deserves equivalence with such fundamental components of the country.

It would be good to land this discussion either way, because the tag has been there a long time.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Is it really WP:OSE to look at other country articles for guidance? Uniformity is important in an encyclopedia, and uniformity among country articles is important for WP:DUE. Imagine if Spain had several sections about colonization but France had only a sentence. I think by looking at Featured Articles for other countries, we can get a pretty good read on consensus:
 * Australia: one paragraph in "Foreign relations" section, with a spinout to Foreign relations of Australia with more detail
 * Belarus: no mention
 * Cameroon: no mention
 * Canada: couple paragraphs in "Foreign relations" section, with a spinout to Foreign relations of Canada, which has a Foreign aid section
 * Germany: couple of paragraphs, more at Foreign relations of Germany, which has a humanitarian aid section
 * India: military assistance mentioned in foreign relations section, more at Foreign relations of India
 * Japan: one paragraph in Foreign relations section, more at Foreign relations of Japan
 * United States (GA) and Saudi Arabia: same
 * China (GA) and Russia: no mention


 * Following those examples, I think Israel should have a paragraph or so about aid in Israel. Further info can go in Foreign relations of Israel and Israeli foreign aid. Levivich (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Israeli aid delegations to disaster areas area well covered in sources, and should be in the article. IDONTLIKE or OR (mixing monetary aid vs. In this case personnel on the ground) is not grounds for exclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, by “aid” I mean any kind of aid, monetary, military, whatever. I don’t think it deserves its own section is all; should be summarized in the foreign relations section with details in the spinout articles. Levivich (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think any new information? The discussion above faded for a reason. Unless there is something new that wasn't brought up last time, there is no need to repeat the same arguments. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WarKosign is right. The discussion has faded, now twice, because no-one is able to provide a source-based argument to support inclusion.
 * If this continues, this section will be removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to remove the section and there is no consensus for it. Its appropriately sourced and WP:DUE . --Shrike (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOCONSENSUS. "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In that quote, the words “deletion discussions” are piped to WP:DP which covers AfDs. It does not cover disputed content within existing articles.
 * The relevant rule there is WP:ONUS: “The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”
 * Unless consensus is achieved for inclusion, the material will be removed.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus for inclusion only you oppose it --Shrike (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not only Onceinawhile opposes keeping the section as is. I think the section should be condensed, as it is in other nations' featured articles, for consistency and DUE considerations, as I stated in my comment above last month. Since I posted that comment, I haven't seen any arguments at all for why Israel should have an expanded "International humanitarian efforts" section in its main article, rather than in a child article, as is done in featured articles about nations. That doesn't mean I think it should be deleted outright; simply condensed here, with the detail going in the Foreign relations and Israeli foreign aid articles. Levivich (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From the same section: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No – you are quoting from WP:CON, which also states “Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue”. You have not even made an argument. You are simply hoping the question will fade away, which it will not. Levivich and I have both presented detailed arguments, which you continue to ignore.
 * WP:ONUS is clear – if you cannot justify inclusion, the material cannot stay.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You made no new argument, so I refuse to re-state the arguments others and I made above. Feel free to scroll up and re-read if you're so inclined. You want to make a change, it's up to you to convince others that it's justified and so far you failed to do so. You can keep saying "the material cannot stay" as much as you want, your opinion alone does not determine the consensus. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I listed 7 FAs and 2 GAs above; no one has addressed the reason for following a different format in this article than in those other articles. That is "new"; it wasn't addressed in the previous thread. Would an RfC help? Levivich (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason is WP:DUE there are multiple sources that discuss and emphasize the Israeli aid--Shrike (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FAs and GAs fall under WP:OSE. If other countries have notable (that is, described as such by reliable sources) humanitarian aid programs - perhaps someone should add/expand this info on their articles. Feel free to discuss it there. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WorKosign, Shrike, you have simply repeated DUE as if that is an argument in its own right. It is meaningless without an explanation which couldn’t equally apply to 100 paragraphs or 1 sentence of article text. EVERYTHING you have written could apply to arguments supporting either end of that absurd range. So it will be ignored. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding "FAs and GAs fall under WP:OSE": OSE says ...This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else...Wikipedia guidelines may be based in part on the established precedents set down in articles by consensus...Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Levivich ? ! 21:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

it has now been a month since this discussion was reopened, and no-one has made any specific arguments supporting the status quo. Levivich and I have provided detailed arguments against it, and proposed middle ground positions in which the key information is retained.

I propose to proceed with the amendments shortly. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please reread the discussion the arguments were made there is no point in repeating them over and over again --Shrike (talk)
 * I have done so. Your total contribution to the discussion, over three months, is pasted below.


 * You addressed none of the objections raised and provided no specific information. Your statements are so vague they could be supporting one sentence or one hundred paragraphs.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

we are well into WP:DISCFAIL territory here. After multiple requests, over three months, only Levivich and I have produced specific and quantifiable justification for appropriate weight here. I will be implementing Levivich’s middle ground proposal shortly. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

My reading of the discussion, as uninvolved, leads me to agree with Onceinawhile. Regardless of what opinion one might have, the arguments for removing or drastically reducing the section are detailed and well-articulated. The arguments to keep it are, in all honesty, weak. Had I come into the discussion at the start, I would have argued for keeping it. The arguments of both sides have convinced me it should go. If Israel is not doing far more than other countries in humanitarian aid, there's no reason to give that impression. That's not to say we should not mention it at all; it can well be mentioned in a sentence or paragraph as for other countries. Not more than that. Jeppiz (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I made some changes Israel's aid to Africa in the 1960-70s is well supported by scholarly sources.Jonney2000 (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not failure to discuss, it's your failure to hear. Several editors responded to your argument in length, several times. You want to re-read the argument - just scroll up. Nobody has to respond over and over again to the same argument you insist on repeating. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

below are your contributions: In terms of sources, you provided a small number of “local” sources and one small mention at the back of a WHO magazine.

In terms of arguments, nowhere did you attempt to justify the specific WEIGHT currently allocated to this topic. That is the only real question here and you avoided it every time. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * are you going to try to address the central issue here? I would like to proceed with your blessing, but if you keep ignoring the problem we will go with the consensus and amend the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you expect me to add. Me and several other editors provided numerous sources establishing that Israel's humanitarian efforts as notable on world-wide scale. In your opinion these sources or the efforts are not sufficient. You are certainly entitled to have this opinion. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , WP:WEIGHT. Not RS, but WEIGHT, is what you're being asked to comment on. This isn't about notable or not notable, it's about how much in this article, and how much in the child articles. Nobody is talking about deleting information, just condensing it here, and moving the detail to the child articles. Any objection to that, and if so, why? Thanks. Levivich ? ! 21:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As established by the sources, Israel's delegation is among the first and usually is the most influential medical delegation at sites of natural disasters during the first crucial hours. Especially proportionally to the size of Israel this is a huge impact that is well covered by sources. In this article there are just 3 paragraphs dedicated to the subject, one of the smallest subsections. If anything, I think it should be expanded a bit to also cover the fact that WHO certified Israel's field hospital as the first (and as far as I can find, so far the only one) level 3 field hospital in the world. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 22:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As established by the sources, Israeli actress Gal Gadot is one of the 100 most influential people in the world. She was the first person to portray Wonder Woman on the big screen; the character is a founding member of the Justice League and a feminist and LGBT icon. In the role the Israeli actress has inspired thousands of young girls around the world to see a world without barriers and be the best they can be. Especially proportionally to the size of Israel this is a huge impact that is well covered by sources.
 * So,, the exact same argument can be made for many topics which are not even covered in the article. The question is why should this topic have such a large percentage of this top-level article. It is a relative question, and one which you continue to avoid. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever Gal Gadot's achievements are, no sources claim that they are Israel's doing. If her recent success was as part of Israeli cinema (and not Hollywood), perhaps she would have deserved a quick mention akin to several Nobel prize winners. On contrast, humanitarian aid delegations are funded and operated by Israel, so they certainly are of part humanitarian policy. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is now the 17th time you have avoided the question.
 * I could make the same argument for Israel’s founding role in the medicinal marijuana research field, or its successes in the Eurovision Song Contest. Do they also deserve three large paragraphs and an entire subsection header each? They both have much more international coverage than this single team of people whose primary global acknowledgement is being mentioned in a corner of a page at the back of a WHO monthly magazine.
 * I’m not sure how many more times you are going to avoid the question, but in an optimistic spirit i’m going to ask it another way. How can you possibly justify this minor topic getting almost as much space (3 vs 5 paras) and equal profile (one subsection header each) as the article’s entire coverage of the “occupation”?
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, maybe we should just mention both aspects, namely, Israel provides some personnel assistance even though they provide very little development aid compared to other countries. --Dailycare (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * agreed - the article does this and all agree on this. WarKosign’s objection is to a proposal to reduce the size of this section of the article - does it really need three detailed paragraphs to make a point that you made in half a sentence. There is consensus around a reasonable middle ground, but it is not unanimous – WarKosign (and I believe Shrike) continues to object to any change at all. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not only is there consensus for condensing the text to give it proportional weight relative to the rest of this article and to other nations' articles, there is also emerging consensus for a new subsection with the heading Gal Gadot, marijuana, and singing. Levivich  00:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

We now have enough consensus to get on with the changes, but in the spirit of avoiding any risk of conflict, I am going to try one last time. are you able to provide specific justification for the relative weight of this section as it currently stands?

If the question is avoided again, I will go ahead and implement Levivich's proposal.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Occupation" has far more coverage - it has a longer dedicated section and many mentions scattered through the article. I believe that international disaster aid is an important property of Israel that deserves prominent mention in the article. I don't think anyone can provide "specific justification for the relative weight", it is a judgement call by editors. Since I seem to be a minority voice, go ahead and apply your changes - I expect other editors to notice and protest then, but if I'm mistaken so be it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you I have now implemented this per . I tried to maintain the vast majority of the text - if you disagree please feel free to amend as you see fit. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Immigration B
I've re-reverted this reversion, as the literal translation here is quite obviously "Immigration B". Furthermore, the cited source (Shapira) also has "Immigration B" in parenthesis (page 416) - the text previously there being a rather severe misrepresentation both of linguistics and the cited source. Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a wikilink to Aliyah Bet for "Immigration B". It seems pointless to provide a literal translation if we don't inform the reader what "Immigration B" means; this way we can do both. Levivich 08:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - in regards to diff while immigration prior to May 1948 may have been "illegal" according to the British authorities, immigration following the formation of the state of Israel was not "illegal". As the section being described is "late 1940s and early 1950s" - following the formation of the state of Israel, describing the Immigration B institute as "which handled illegal immigration" is factually incorrect. The institute may have been involved in clandestine operations, however it was legal immigration to Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would add that "handled illegal immigration" is vague and uninformative: "handled illegal immigration" could mean they facilitated illegal immigration or that they stopped illegal immigration. If we're going to explain what they did, I would prefer clearer language. Levivich 23:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm always in favor of clearer language. The institute is mostly known (by an extremely large margin) for organizing illegal immigration before 1948. It is true that it continued operating for a while afterwards (for example, fetching people who the British were slow to release from Cyprus or military-age people who were blocked by the international embargo) but that's not an excuse for removing the primary information. The wording before didn't indicate the underground/secret nature of the organization at all. Zerotalk 00:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The section this was added to was entirely post-48 - making the question of pre-48 (which is discussd elsewhere) rather moot. Icewhiz (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2019
change "In 2009, a natural gas reserve, Tamar was found near the coast of Israel." to "In 2009, a natural gas reserve, Tamar, was found near the coast of Israel." Gerardogoldenberg (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2019
Change "As of 2014, Israel produced over 7.5 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas a year.[574] Israel had 199 billion cubic meters (cu m) of proven reserves of natural gas as of the start of 2016.[575]"

to "As of 2014, Israel produced over 7.5 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas a year.[574] Israel had 199 billion cubic meters (bcm) of proven reserves of natural gas as of the start of 2016.[575]" Gerardogoldenberg (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Official name (Hebrew only, or Hebrew and Arabic)?
Currently, both the infobox and the lead give the official name in both Hebrew and Arabic, despite Hebrew being the only official language. For the record, I am one of those who thought it wrong to remove Arabic as official language, but my POV is of course irrelevant. Having the name in minority languages would seem to contradict the practice for other countries in the region. For example, for Turkey we do not give the Kurdish name in the infobox and lead. For Iran, only the Persian name if given despite being the language of only 53% of the population. I do not really care much one way or another, but this seems to be a bit inconsistent. It would be good to either decide to use only the official language, or to decide to include regional languages, and to apply it consistently. Jeppiz (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not precise to state that Hebrew is the only official language - you need to separate polemic columns against the recently passed legislation (that polemically exaggerated what was actually passed). The nation state law states "4-B 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." and "4-C This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect." (which basically means that a whole set of other laws and regulations, which addressed Arabic in various contexts, are still in effect). So yes - while Hebrew has been declared as "official" (and no language was previously declared as official - the status of Hebrew, Arabic, and English actually harked by the Mandatory king's council (+ various other stuff on the way)) - nothing was removed from the status of Arabic - in fact - it was granted a "special status" which is didn't have previously. In this respect - the situation is quite different from Turkey was has, per its constitution, only Turkish as an official language and has attempted over the years to suppress Kurdish languages. Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec)Though Arabic lost its status as official language De Jure it does have a special status and also the law specifcly says "This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect." So De Facto nothing should be changed --Shrike (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Arabic did not lose its official language status with this law because it never had one. It's status was in limbo and not clear and the law made it clear. Benjil (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It did? Where? Where it said that nothing in the law should be understood to change the status previously enjoyed by the Arabic language? Could it have been any more obscure? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Arabic has a "special status" (a typically Israeli deliberate ambiguity) is reason enough to include the name in Arabic. No further argument is needed. But I can't resist denying some claims here. We agree that English, Hebrew and Arabic were official languages in Mandatory Palestine. That was true from 1920 (see Gazette No. 28) but especially by virtue of the 1922 Order in Council. In the 1948 Law and Administration Ordinance, Israel adopted the Order in Council but cancelled the special status of English. The great majority of legal opinion is that Hebrew and Arabic thereby retained their official status, though nobody denies that Hebrew was given priority in practice. As an example, High Court ruling HCJ 4112/99 (2002): "Writing for the majority, President Barak held that Arabic is an official language in Israel according to the 1922 King's Order in Council." The effect of the recent legislation is unclear and I guess the court will have to decide sooner or later. Zerotalk 03:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Technical note - in this particular issue there is nothing actually new for the court to decide on - as the law preserved the prior status held by Arabic (by legislation, ordinance, or practice) - so the same somewhat unclear status present in previous decades remains. Where a court challenge may be relevant is if there is new legislation (or ordinances) that change the prior status of Arabic in line with the new Basic Law - in such a case the meaning of special status may require the court to parse in relation to new legislation fulfilling it.Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Map image
I don't have too strong an opinion on including the Golan or EJ as long as it is spelled out that they are considered occupied territory by the international community, but I do think that a change over a years long stable map requires more than one user enforcing their view through reverts. I prefer the map without the Golan, but I dont think it matters too much. Discuss, reach a consensus, and then make a change is the way this is supposed to go. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I think not showing Golan at all is taking a side. Showing it (clearly marked as separate from "proper" Israel) is NPOV, and as LightandDark2000 pointed out it's the practice for other disputed territories. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have converted this discussion into a more formalized RfC. I apologize if I misinterpreted or improperly refactored anyone's arguments in the changes I made.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wtf, you cannot do that. Just open a new discussion below the section I opened if you want. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the refactoring and split off the affected comments into a separate section. For a wider continuation of this discussion, please see the RfC in the section below.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you very much. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2019
israel is not a country!!!!!! 210.48.221.10 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. <b style="font-family:verdana;color:#2b601f">aboideau</b><sup style="color:#474647">talk 15:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Capital
The capital of Israel according to the United Nations is Tel Aviv, but the article says that it is Jerusalem. Can you repair this wrong?--Albraa Saleh (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I cannot repair this wrong. I wrote a letter to the UN asking them to recognize Jerusalem as the capital, but they did not reply. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 21:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article says Jerusalem is the "proclaimed" capital, not that Jerusalem is the capital. There is a formal RFC decision according to which we cannot state in Wikipedia's neutral voice that Jerusalem "is" Israel's capital, since that would violate a mandatory policy (neutrality). --Dailycare (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And we also cannot say that Jerusalem is not the capital, as it is the place where the Israeli Government is located, and we recognize all other "declared capitals". It's disputed by the U.N. but that's about it. ElectroChip123 (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It is up to the country to declare it's capital, not the U.N. Wikipedia should ack the facts on the ground. Jerusalem is where all government business is conducted.72.22.189.98 (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC) Agreed it is the capital, Wikipedia is giving undue weight to the U.N. No other nation needs U.N approval, and Israel does not answer to the anti-Semitic U.N.24.103.241.91 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As per the "Israeli Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel" - Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and also as per the United Nations data website: http://data.un.org/en/iso/il.html - The UN website lists Israel's capital as Jerusalem and mentions "Israel's capital: Jerusalem (Designation and data provided by Israel. The position of the United Nations on Jerusalem is stated in A/RES/181 (II) and subsequent General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.)".
 * I'm sorry, but Tel Aviv is a small city which is half the size of Jerusalem. And Tel Aviv is not mentioned in any Israeli document or United Nations document as the capital. So according to United Nations the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. http://data.un.org/en/iso/il.html דוד אהרון 8 (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note the tiny 'c' at the end of the line, if you tap on the top-right menu icon you can read the note: "Designation and data provided by Israel. The position of the United Nations on Jerusalem is stated in A/RES/181 (II) and subsequent General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.". Even if it wasn't there, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL we need a much better quality source for sudden change of UN position. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of UN position, Jerusalem is Israel's capital because Israel says so. It is notable that many countries dispute that, so we say it in the article. As for Tel Aviv, as far as I know nobody officially holds the position that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. De-facto it does perform some of capital's function, such as being a major city and hosting many embassies, but so does New York, and nobody calls it the capital of the USA. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Vanuatu and Jerusalem
In the sources for limited recognition for Jerusalem as the "capital of Israel", Vanuatu is mentioned with this source from 2017: https://www.israelhayom.com/2017/07/10/island-nation-vanuatu-recognizes-jerusalem-as-israels-capital/

The link is dead.

Here is a source from 2018 that contradict the claim that Vanuatu recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel: https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/186833-181021-vanuatu-pm-tells-i24news-best-to-remain-neural-on-matter-of-jerusalem --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to change the main infobox image to conform to standard Wikipedia policy
I am proposing that the country map of Israel in the main infobox of the article be changed to one showing Israel's disputed (and controlled) territories, seen, in keeping with standard Wikipedia practice concerning map images of the nations. In pretty much every other nation article, the maps of those respective nations include all of the disputed territories controlled and/or claimed (yet uncontrolled) by those nations, regardless of the international status or international recognition of those claims (though the specific illustration of those disputed territories varies in format on some articles). Notable examples include China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Ukraine, Morocco, and Sudan. I cannot think of any country, let alone any major country, where disputed territories are not included, except for Taiwan (though most people know that both China and Taiwan claim sovereignty over the same areas, and the Taiwan article uses a completely different kind of map), and possibly Egypt (though Egypt claims and is in de-facto control over all the dark green areas of the Hala'ib Triangle shown on the map). I see absolutely no reason why Israel should be the only nation using this kind of geographical map to exclude its disputed territories from the country map. This exclusion already points to a break in standard Wikipedia practice, in addition to hinting at an anti-Israel bias in the infobox image. For people who oppose this change by saying that Wikipedia articles should "only include territories internationally recognized", most editors on Wikipedia currently incorporate disputed territories into nation maps, and since Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia, there is absolutely no good reason for leaving disputed territories out of a country's map (especially when active disputes exist or when the "facts on the ground" indicate that the disputed territories are not controlled by their internationally-recognized owner). In keeping with current Wikipedia practices, I propose that we change the geographical map image of Israel to the proposed one with the inclusion of its claimed (and controlled) disputed territories.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support – As the proposer, and per the arguments provided above and current Wikipedia practice.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Just more of the run of the mill double standards pointed at this tiny country in the Middle East, I'm for setting the standard straight for all so either it should apply to Israel as well or it should apply to non Guy355 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - areas annexed to Israel and partially recognized are obviously relevant to this article (and are included in CBS statistica, etc.). Furthermore, we should also mark the West Bank as an Israeli occupied territory. Given the length of occupation and treatment in the article this should be clearly colored on the map (separate color).Icewhiz (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless includes Israeli settlement areas in the West Bank (see right) since the large West Bank settlements are as much de facto part of Israel as the Golan Heights (see for example Israeli law in the West Bank settlements). Their population is already included in the population in the infobox, and their economic output is already included in the infobox’s economic stats. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree, there is still technically a legal difference (under Israeli law) between the Golan Heights and the Jewish areas of settlement in Judea and Samaria/West bank of the Jordan river. While the former is officially under Israeli civilian law, with said law applying as well to the pre 67 inhabitants (the Syrian identifying Druze) such is not the case in the latter, as it has not been declared as of yet part of Israel proper. While Israeli civilian law does apply to those citizens who live in the areas of settlement, it's because they're Israeli citizens and not because the area has been officially declared part of Israel proper. Guy355 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally would not include the Israeli settlements in the West Bank region in the Israel map, not unless Israel actually moves to annex them (which would generate even more headlines). That being said, if the "settlements" were to be included (in the event that Israel officially annexes them), it would probably include all of the surrounding areas as well (no country would allow its territory to be separated into so many tiny enclaves, not even in disputed territories).  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the map above does include the areas surrounding the settlements - that is the beige area known as Area C, which the European Union considers to be de facto annexed to Israel. The tiny enclaves colored in grey are the Palestinian Authority semi-control. The difference between Area C and the Golan / East Jerusalem is non-existant in practice; it is a legal technicality with no practical implications. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to the (almost colorless) map shown in this discussion. I was referring to the map image linked in my original post in this section (the map with the green colors). Including all of the Israeli settlement areas in the West Bank, in the geomap for Israel, would be chaotic. The outlying Area C regions could be incorporated, though Israel hasn't publicly annexed those areas yet, but I guess that consensus will decide whether or not we include the Area C regions in the geographical map.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to showing West Bank/Gaza in a separate colors, clearly marked as "partially controlled but not claimed" or such. Showing separate levels of controls within West Bank (A,B,C areas, settlements) is perhaps correct but a moot point given the tiny size of the image.


 * Support, not showing Golan is taking a side. Showing disputed territory clearly marked in a different color is the common practice on other page. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh, you cant refactor other peoples comments like this. I never voted in an RFC, I never said the words "neutral", and I was not answering an RFC. Kindly undo this violation of WP:TPO. Adding a section above my comment is a straightforward violation of that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Map of Israel, neighbours and occupied territories.svg "Map of Israel, neighbours and occupied territories.svg" - UN map presently in the body (or similar), should be in the infobox. This clearly shows the Golan, Gaza, and the West Bank in a different color. It also show the UNFIL (Lebanon ceasefire) and UNDOF (Syria ceasefire) areas. Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The name of this article is "Israel", not "Israel and the Occupied Territories", therefor, the infobox should only have a map of Israel without showing any occupied territories. There is already a map in other areas of the article where people can see areas Israel is occupying: . If a map is added to the infobox showing occupied territories, then it must clearly show with both colors and text that they are occupied and can not be presented as being part of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, as you well know the Israeli annexation of the Golan is recognized by countries who combined account for 25% of the world's GDP - which is quite significant. Furthermore, the proposal here is for a different color - inline with what we have at Morocco Morocco WS-included (orthographic projection).svg]]. While international recognition is perhaps of some limited importance, should you wish to enter the Golan - you'd be doing so via Israel. Should you speed in your car in the Golan - you will (or might) be stopped by an Israeli cop. The Israeli control and annexation of this territory is clearly relevant, and at present it is isn't clearly displayed in our primary maps here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * lol I still dont get why you keep harping on GDP like that matters for something. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit rusty, but I recall that in principle the content of articles should reflect what the best sources say in the matter? The Golan Heights were just in the news, and specifically it was big news that Trump considered them part of Israel, which is a strong signal they are in general not so considered. That observation could inform the outcome of this discussion. Reaction to Trump's "recognition" Using the lighter colour is one idea, but should we then also use that to indicate parts of Israel that are claimed by other countries? Where does this stop? If the article on Morocco has an incorrect map, is that a reason to have wrong maps everywhere? --Dailycare (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "should we then also use that to indicate parts of Israel that are claimed by other countries" - Of course, this is exactly the situation. Golan and East Jerusalem are parts of Israel (at least de-facto) that are claimed by other entities, and should be clearly marked to indicate their special status. What is incorrect in the map of Morocco ? The label clearly explains the difference between the light and the dark green. You can't pretend that West Sahara, significant area claimed and occupied by Morocco isn't relevant to the article. Similarly Crimea appears in infobox maps of both Russia and Ukraine, and is mentioned (Russia) or colored (Ukraine) to differentiate it from the rest of the area. We do not pick sides, we describe the complicated situation. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Im fine with a map showing the Golan so long as it is a. a different color, and b. that the caption specify it includes Israeli-occupied territory. But in that case Id also prefer to show the West Bank and Gaza in some way as well. Those all, internationally, have the same status as the Golan. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly the same status so there should be different colors, even between West Bank and Gaza, and especially between them and Golan. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 22:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Internationally, exactly the same status. According to Israel, yes they are treated differently. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Even internationally there are differences - from whom the territory was captured and whether that entity wants it back. The difference that I meant is in practice - whether Israel claims the territory, applies its civil law and who actually controls the territory. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support a change in map. The problem with the current map is that it highlights the political morass and quagmire of the immediate region, with emphasis on the Arab-Israeli conflict vis-à-vis the West Bank, when, prior to 1948 and historically, the ancient land of Israel (Palestine) was not divided. I, personally, would prefer a map option where one can see the relative borders and their changes throughout recent history, or else simply use the map shown above on this Talk-Page, with the caption "Map of Israeli law, population and economy".Davidbena (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with a caption similar to the one in the Morocco article--SharabSalam (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support look like a standard as given examples. Sokuya (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. If the Russia map gets Crimea, then the Israel map should get the Golan. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support: If articles of China and Russia can have their maps with "internationally considered disputed territories" then even Israel's article MUST include the Golan Heights in the map of Israel . As by the Purple Line agreement, the de facto border between Israel and Syria is the Purple line after 1974, where the Golan Heights is under Israeli control/administration ever since. And by the Golan Heights Law in 1981, Israeli sovereignty was extended to Golan Heights with is internationally known as disputed or occupied territory. Whatever the case is, the Golan Heights is under Israeli control today and must be included into the map of Israel. // Look at he map of China where Aksai Chin is included in dark green (but claimed by India), and look at the map of Russia where Crimea is included in dark green (claimed by Ukraine), and finally look at the map of Syria - it does not include the Golan Heights, because it's in Israel (or Israeli sovereignty legally /or control). The map of Israel must include Golan Heights in dark green (not light green)! The United Nations data http://data.un.org/en/iso/il.html also says Israel's area is 22,072km2 which includes Golan Heights and East Jerusalem in Israel! [Or this map - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_(orthographic_projection)_new.svg could be used on Israel's infobox]. דוד אהרון 8 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose — the article is entitled Israel, not Israel and its claimed territories. There is no valid "Wikipedia precedent" supporting such nonsense: if tomorrow Kim Jong-un were to announce that North Korea had officially claimed Luxembourg, few editors would support this as any sort of standard — claiming "it would be "in Korean sovereignty under Korean law" would be, at best, laughably ludicrous. For as much as I support Israel, I cannot countenance using Wikipedia to artificially inflate the size of (as the case has already been made) such a cyoot widdiw harmless nation. The claim to sentiment undercuts at very least the purpose of Wikipedia. Change the article's name, or create a new article, or stick to a clear standard. Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)