Talk:Likud/Archive 1

Coalition
Likud was initially described in US as a coalition of parties rather than a party. Is that
 * a mistake,
 * something that needs to be mentioned here with how and when it changed, or
 * still true? --Jerzy

The Likud began as a merging of the Herut party and other Israeli opposition parties. That apparantly is already present.(12/1/03) -Leumi

Text Removed for Clarification
(I've probably made some misinterpretations in my copyedit of the material i didn't move here; originating editor, please critique.)

The clause
 * and the party's center passed a rule in the Likud's center rejecting to Palestinian state.

adds nothing to the article because it is incomprehensible, and i have moved it here in hopes it can be worked on. Perhaps clarifying would help some editor who is a native speaker of English turn it into something usable.
 * what party (Likud, no? But if so, why is Likud mentioned explicitly later in the clause?),
 * what is meant by "center", and
 * whether a "rule" is a regulation, a policy statement, an interpretation (i.e., a "ruling"), or something else

I also moved the phrase
 * is a neo-Tachterist and extreme capitalist

here. "Extreme capitalist" is vaguer than the opinions reported in the next sentence. Those to whom "neo-Tachterist" has any meaning must be rare, as no reference appears in a Google search; if it's important to the point of the editor who introduced it here, we need more info on it.

And the term
 * welfare services

is not clear (in context of unemployment benefits); are these government or private funds and/or agencies?

(I have made no effort to ensure NPoV, seeing the copyedit as more pressing.) --Jerzy 05:17, 2003 Dec 1 (UTC)

A rough translation from the Hebrew Wikipedia: The Likud’s center is the party superior institution, which is authorized to determine in every affaire of the party. In its initial gathering this institution called the Likud’s party convention, but after is initial gathering the convention became the center until the next elections to the party’s convention. The center has around 5,000 delegates. The majority of delegates are elected in local elections and some delegates are center delegate because of their position.

Ideology
I do not believe that Likud today can be considered as following the priciples of Revisionist Zionism. Also, I do not think Zionism (or any type of it) should appear in the infobox since most Israeli parties claim to follow some form of Zionism anyway, and also since Zionism is not a universal political ideology (like Neoliberalism, Conservatism, Social Democracy etc.) and may be confusing without explination and may be more fitting in the article itself but not in the infobox. Thus, I am thinking of deleting this label from the party's infobox, is this okay? Does anybody disagree?Tal :) 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. It'll be like adding Islamic fundamentalism to Fatah. Let the reader read the article and make his own conclusions. Psychomelodic (people think edit) 13:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed. Psychomelodic (people think edit) 14:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Likud a center-right party ? I would think they are right-wing, period. Kadima is center-right. Iska (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kadima is center left.Oren.tal (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Kadima is center-left, while Likud is center-right. Right wing parties would be Shas, United Torah Judaism, National Union, and The Jewish Home. The ultimate Israeli right-wing party was Kach, founded by the radical Rabbi Meir Kahane. However, Kach has been banned since 1992. --98.14.149.139 (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Shas is somewhat centrist actually. They supported the disengagement.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

New section removed
The following new section was just added and I just deleted it (I have changed the level of the heading so it stays in this section of the talk page):

Future Of Likud
The Likud is purported to Bounce back to the forefront of the Israeli counsciousness due to the disillusion with Kadima on the war in Lebanon and its goals. As well on February 1st 2006 the Central Committee relinquished control of selecting the Knesset list to the the "rank and file" members. This gives historically much control to the broad electorate on the entire gamut of who represents them and how they are represented. That will make that the Likud Knesset very concious of the constituency, in effect a people's party.

I have deleted this on the grounds that it is unsourced, original research, infringes on "WP is not a crystal ball," and secondarily, is not very well written, especially the first sentence. I suspect that someone, somewhere has written at least a semi-scholarly article on the future prospects of Likud (hopefully in English) which could be cited. Until that is located, I don't think this speculation belongs in the article, at least not in this form. (And that is not to mention the logical difficulty of saying that a change in nominating procedures made before (and presumably used in) the last election, in which Likud was routed, will help them in future elections if it didn't help them in the last election.)   6SJ7 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Overcoverage of recent issues with too little on history
There is far too little historical info here. Could someone add some more? Joseph Sanderson 17:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now the article states opinions as facts. It states as fact that Likud lost elections because they moved to the center. It also gives states as fact the super stupid opinion that Likud was center-left during the last elections.

"direct ideological descendant"
This is NOT a direct quotation. It is misleading and the linking is not accurate. The Revisionist Party is not Herut, it is simply political platform put together by Jabotinsky. This was not a merger of other parties joining Herut. All parties joined together in an alliance to form a new party. If you really wanted to quote the source anyway, why would you insist on adding the words "right-wing" when the given source does not, and the sentence it is included in ALREADY contains those words to begin with? There is no reason for this term to be written twice in the same sentence.

The sentence already states the party was formed by Menachem Begin, who has a history of his own which gives implications on the politics of Likud. Furthermore, the sentence already describes the parties that went into the party: "right-wing and liberal parties." This is descriptive enough in the lead. At this time, Likud has lost much of its adherence to traditional Revisionist ideology. Writing that it is the direct ideological descendant WITHOUT including that it is no longer the cornerstone of the party is misleading.

You may also want to take a look at and.

If you would like to describe Likud's history with the Revisionists, do so, although it is explained already in the article body. You may want to be completely accurate and complement it with what is true of Likud today. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first diff shows that the specific source was once there. I don’t remember moving it, but admit it was moved; it should probably go back where it was.  The original source says: “In large part, Likud was the direct ideological descendant of the Revisionist Party, established by Vladimir Jabotinsky in 1925.”  It is a direct quote to the extent quoted.  The links however, should be better, as you note.  How about this:
 * ”It was founded in 1973 by Menachem Begin, largely as the "direct ideological descendant of the Revisionist Party", when Herut merged with several other right-wing and liberal (non-socialist) parties.”


 * You may edit this alternative as you see fit, so we can resolve this editorially. I surmise from your post that you are more concerned with the current Likud; my editorial interest is more with its history. Both Likud’s roots and this season’s foliage should be in the lede.  Thanks for the links; the first is most relevant for my editing to explain the historic differences between Medinat Israel and Eretz Israel in Likud politics, and the second helps to understand the present time better.  While I admit that Likud is a moving target for quick-fix political, right-center-left labels, I believe the end of the ideological decision, noted in your first link, is more theoretical than absolute. Future events will tell, of course, but I believe ‘crunch time’ is closer.  Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No. The meaning of liberal is changed in this context and making it infer a different meaning for which you do not know for sure. I am reverting it back. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ariel Sharon founding a party that would be described as centrist, does not make "move to the center."

Updated Wording in the Introduction
There is a sentence in the introduction that I think should be changed. However, after ruling the country for most of the 1980s, the party has won only one Knesset election since 1992, in 2003. The introduction does say that the Likud's leader won the vote for Prime Minister in 1996 and that they won with a significant mandate in 2003 and then in 2009, while not getting the majority of the vote, Likud still leads the government coalition. In my opinion this sentence should be either erased or changed because it is very misleading now. Likud has won two elections since 1992 and the Prime Ministership in 1996. Also, the popular vote for Prime Minister occurred only once in Israeli politics - perhaps that should be mentioned in parenthesis after saying that Netanyahu won in 1996? Does anybody object?
 * In fact the Likud did win in 1996 at the Knesset also and in 2009. No Israeli party never ever got over 60 mandates and the majority, the only thing important is to have a majority *coalition*. The Avoda in 1996 and Kadima in 2009 had more mandates but could not build a majority coalition, so they lost. So this sentence is not just misleading, it is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.36.56 (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Liberal conservatism or conservative liberalism?
An unregistered user added "Liberal conservatism to Likud's ideology on 12 November 2006. I am wondering if this is exactly the case. Are we sure their ideology is not closer to conservative liberalism? --Shamir1 (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How about someone defines what some of these ambiguous terms mean. What does it mean to be a conservative liberal as opposed to a liberal conservative? And how is Likud centrist or liberally conservative? Isn't it basically just conservative? Let me provide evidence: 1) Hates laborers and is convinced that poor people are lazy. Check. 2) Wants to engage in hostilities with other nations to expand imperial influence. Check. 3) Glorifies the ego and "free-market" capitalism. Check.

Nope. Seems to me these people are downright conservative. No liberality or centrality at all. I mean, am I wrong? Can someone explain this?

Explanation of edits.
I've incorporated some elements of LP's edits while trying to keep it npov. For example, I've kept the term "colony" and variants thereof out and did not incorporate some other POV issues such as labeling the Madric conference "ill-fated". Does anyone object to the current version? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see where you kept the term "colony". Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, all I saw was "I kept". I didn't see the "out". Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "colony" is the most pov term and the most problematic. "Settlement" is fine and neutral. Benjil (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, JoshuaZ, could you use the "preview" button when you do your edits and do just one big edit instead of 10 small ones. It's very annoying.Benjil (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. See colony. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no you agree with me. The definition given here has nothing to do with the settlements in the west bank, so one more reason not to change the term. Benjil (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Benjil & JoshuaZ. "Colony" is a highly POV term. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you say that? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LP, you have been warned by an administrator in the past about this term. Please stop trying to insert it into articles without a particularly good reason. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is why do you want to replace "settlement", a neutral and descriptive term, with "colony", a highly charged term ? Benjil (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the difference in using "settlement" or "colony". Could someone please explain why this is a charged term? As far as I know, English and Hebrew are the only two languages where there is two words for this same concept. CapitalElll (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll just quote myself, from the previous time Lapsed Pacifist tried to push the term "colony" - "I see no good reason to use a rare, vague term, when there's a good, commonly used alternative. Settlement is the word all the major sources, news outlets etc. use, and so should we. I'm seems to me the sole purpose of using "colony" is to make insinuations, capitalizing on the bad reputation the word has, owing to western colonialism. Settlement is a much more neutral term, and using it allows us to focus on the facts at hand, instead of (consciously or unconsciously) biasing the reader against a certain subject." (3 July 2008) okedem (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not against using "settlement", but it is a little vague (see settlement). In my view it's no harm to use "colony" every so often, as this is the kind of settlement being referred to. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, and that's fine, but here we use the common names. There's nothing vague about "settlement" in this sense - that's the word that it used. It's about as vague as the "United States" - I mean, literally, it doesn't mean anything - which states? Where? Why are they united? But that's the name, and there's nothing vague about it.
 * Additionally, all but one use of "settlement" in this article includes their location ("Israeli settlements in the West Bank", etc.), so there's really zero possibility for confusion. okedem (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to using common names; what I object to is the insistence they be slavishly adhered to at all times. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Does that sound fair? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What? Using the word "colony"? No, it isn't. It's a word used solely for passing judgment and hinting at the legitimacy, not through any argument of international law, but simply by used a "bad" word. I have never seen or heard any major news outlet use the word "colony", so it's not a close call between the common name and another one. It's crystal clear. okedem (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose that History of Likud be merged into Likud. The Likud article is small enough it does not need a separate article for history.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, merge.--Sreifa (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge/rename 'Charter' subsection (in 'Ideological positions')
There are 3 problems here:

1) It doesn't discuss the charter (I don't think there is one). If anything, it discusses party platforms (for elections). (The article did say "The 1999 Likud charter emphasizes the right of settlement..." but contradicts itself by next referring to the same document as a platform, the reference note also says platform.)

2) Incongruity. The rest of the sections are about the Ideological positions on specific topics topics/issues. There is no Ideological position on 'charters'.

3) Oddly enough, this subsection is titled 'charter', yet only discusses settlements & the possibility of a Palestinian state.

I propose this section be renamed &/ merged with the 'Palestinians' sub section. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "charter" refers to the party constitution. The section probably needs renaming and moving to its own second-level heading. Number   5  7  11:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be merged, there is no 'constitution' per se. The Likud Party has a central committee that writes a platform for the elections. This platform is a compromise between the major factions within the party and the head politicians are bound by it, so I suppose that's why there is a lot of different terminology around it. But if the section isn't expanded to discuss other issues, like education, then it is redundant with the "Palestinians" section. Here is an example from an Israeli newspaper where the title of the article says "charter" but the Likud politicans quoted in the article say "platform". http://www.haaretz.com/news/israeli-elections-2013/israeli-elections-news-features/likud-beiteinu-struggles-to-reconcile-charter-with-netanyahu-s-two-state-bar-ilan-speech-1.489644 Also, this book explains the Party Platform and how it works in more detail: http://books.google.com/books?id=519DdhmiFbgC&q=party+platform#v=snippet&q=charter&f=false NewbieAtEditing (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. A charter and a platform are two different things. A charter is a continuing document that defines the organization. A platform is a statement of a position that only applies at a particular time. It appears, in fact, that the 1999 platform is no longer in effect and that Likud has no platform at this time. See http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/likud-beiteinu-charging-forward-but-without-a-party-platform.premium-1.494391, and a Google search of "site:www.likud.org.il platform" finds no current platform. The purpose of this section being labeled "Charter" appears to be distinctly non-NPOV. The purpose appears to be to compare an outdated party platform with the charter of Hamas, as seen in pieces such as this one: http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html . Since this is not actually a charter of Likud, it should not be referred to as such. It should be referred to as a former party platform, and discussion should be balanced by including references to the much more recent party debates over calls for a two-state solution.RichardMathews (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on Ideology, Charter, and Palestinians sections
By putting the oldest information about the Likud party first and by omitting much of Likud's history since 1999, various sections under "Ideology" present Likud as opposed to a two-state solution. This is non-neutral. One way in which this biased point of view is presented is by putting information that is pro-peace after a "However". This happens often in the "Palestinian" section.

Perhaps the first sentence of the "Palestinians" section, could be edited to present information more chronologically? For example, the first sentence could read: "Likud's policy towards Palestinians has changed over time."

Information to add to the Charter section (is this too detailed?): In 1996, the Likud party changed its party platform to express that Likud would be willing to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for a permanent peace, and implicitly stated that it would accept a Palestinian state. On April 25, a Likud-Tzomet-Gesher special committee officially adopted a new platform committing all future Likud governments to respecting international agreements. This platform did not explicitly say that it would recognize a Palestinian state, but was clearly referring to the Oslo Accords underway at the time. The platform also called for the Palestinian Authority to amend the clauses in the Palestinian covenant that advocated destroying Israel, and called for the Palestinian Authority to take steps to stop terrorist attacks. It also called for Israel's sovereignty over the Golan. Many high-level Likud members supported the document, including Olmert, Meridor, Levy, Mordechai and Katzav. Sharon asked for additional conditions for negotiation with Palestinians. The only strong opposition from the committee came from Sharon.

reference: Israel at the Polls, 1996 p41-42 edited by Daniel J. Elazar, Shmuel Sandler http://books.google.com/books?id=IdNQAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=likud+slogan&source=bl&ots=jtJlUa3Mo9&sig=fV1cKzKmBxq21O7olPwhucs0Svs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YsXyU4npKca4igL5kIHoAQ&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=likud%20slogan&f=false The 1999 Likud charter also emphasizes peace with Arab states. It says: "Peace is a primary objective of the State of Israel. The Likud will strengthen the existing peace agreements with the Arab states and strive to achieve peace agreements with all of Israel's neighbors with the aim of reaching a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Likud will seek to achieve peace and permanent borders in the framework of peace treaties between Israel and its neighbors and will seek cooperation with them on the practical level. The peace agreements will include full diplomatic relations, borders open to free movement, economic cooperation, and the establishment of joint projects in the fields of science, technology, tourism, and industry."

Information to add to the Palestinian Section: Multiple of Likud's campaign slogans have referred to peace. For example, one of the Likud's campaign slogan in 1996 was "Netanyahu - We Make a Safe Peace". http://books.google.com/books?id=IdNQAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=likud+slogan&source=bl&ots=jtJlUa3Mo9&sig=fV1cKzKmBxq21O7olPwhucs0Svs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YsXyU4npKca4igL5kIHoAQ&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=likud%20slogan&f=false

Olmert in 2008, as head of the Likud Party, made a peace offer to the Palestinians that included recognizing a Palestinian state, and dividing Jerusalem. Jewish holy sites on the Palestinian side of Jerusalem would be administered by a custodial group including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel and the US. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The 2009 speech by Netanyahu is considered to represent a national consensus for recognizing a demilitarized Palestinian state. http://www.likud.org.il/en/members-of-the-knesset/benjamin-netanyahu http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/netanyahu-we-have-consensus-on-two-state-solution

Thank you for your help and comments on how exactly I should edit. (I would of course clean up the references before adding this information).
 * NewbieAtEditing (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the above information. It is indeed vexing when old issues such as the 1999 denial of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river, are raised as being uniquely representative of an organisation that is, as you eloquently put is, "changing over time". This is of course not helped when certain Likud members, perhaps not representing formal party policy, present the old views in recent times, such as Netanyahu and Sharon in 2002. Bibi sent a different message at Bar Ilan University in June 2009, only to have this contradicted by Yisrael Beiteinu.


 * Maybe there is a place in Wiki to contrast the remarkable similarities in this regard between Likud and Hamas. These should be treated in exactly the same way on Wiki, don't you agree? I will assist your efforts in checking for any unlevel treatment. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In the section treating the election platforms, the latest reads "The Likud Constitution[41] of May 2014 is more vague and ambiguous. Though it contains commitments to the strengthening of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, it does not explicitly rule out the establishment of a Palestinian state.". At first I thought that this was a case of 'original research' but later I found that the exact text was taken directly from an unreferenced blog. If there is no response showing satisfactorily that my analysis to be in error, I will erase the text. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The current Likud charter is more subtle, but not more ambiguous: the text reads: "Preserving the right of the Jewish people over the Land of Israel, as an indisputable eternal right, persevering in the settlement and development of all parts of the Land of Israel and applying the sovereignty of the state to them." (https://www.likud.org.il/images/huka/hukalikud080514.pdf)
 * In the original, "Land of Israel" is "Eretz Israel," which means, particularly to right wingers, the entire block of land from the river to the sea. Mcdruid (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Likud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110222215318/http://www.likudanglos.org.il:80/2010/08/zeev-jabotinsky-1880-1940.html to http://www.likudanglos.org.il/2010/08/zeev-jabotinsky-1880-1940.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100329092340/http://en.netanyahu.org.il:80/Themes-of/security/ to http://en.netanyahu.org.il/Themes-of/security/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Likud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701081041/http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-1000561032 to http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-1000561032
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701082429/http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-789560 to http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-789560

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Right-wing populism?
The citation that says that they are Right-wing populists is an opinion paper from a left-wing source... ShimonChai (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Likud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701080721/https://likud.org.il/en/about-the-likud/organs-of-the-likud to https://likud.org.il/en/about-the-likud/organs-of-the-likud

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

International Democrat Union
Likud party has joined International Democrat Union.1 It was finalized on February 19, 2018. Sokuya (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Jabotinsky connection is poorly integrated.
I am far from an expert on the history of Likud, so I wouldn't take it upon myself to fix this, but theres no mention of Ze'ev Jabotinsky in the article apart from an image of him and a citation leading to him justifying why National Liberalism is considered part of Likud ideology. To my understanding it seems as though the Jabotinsky element should be elaborated on under either history or ideology.

93.126.142.45 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Likud Political Position?
likud has a more conservative social policy than Yisrael Beiteinu, like on religion and state, on culture likud has a Thatcherist economic policy likud is an anti immigrant party

therefore likud is a rightwing National conservative party and not a centre right national liberal party

(79.182.87.229 (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Ignoring Bibi (and mainly during his stint in the treasury a decade and half ago), the Likud is far from Thatcherist - it in fact supported and promoted a welfare state when it came to power in the 80s, and major portions of the part support a welfare platform. Immigration is different in Israel. However all that being said - which is OR - we generally stick to how sources frame the Likud (and other parties). Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2019
Hello, I would like to propose the consideration that Anti-Iranianism, aka Anti-Iranian sentiment, be added to the Ideology of the Likud party. I believe that it is more than just anti-Khomeinism and anti-Islamic regime sentiment as there have been cases where Benjamin Netanyahu and his party have directly shown anti-Iranian sentiment. Migboy123 (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I found a mistake in the article
The Likud party got 35 seats, not 36. כובש המלפפונים (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed (and will probably need to be updated to 34 soon if the expected Ben Dahan split goes ahead). Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Likud is not "secular"
Over the years, it has allied itself with orthodox religious parties, and supported a large number of religiously motivated laws. --רמי נוידרפר (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Would support removal of 'secular'. In the past (even 2008, when the source dates to), sure, but certainly not today. Nowadays it is a big tent of both the secular and religious right.--Jay942942 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Likud do not have a secular agenda, just look at MKs such as Tzipi Hotovely and Miki Zohar. --Jayhood97 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2019
Update the number of seats from 35 to 38 - Kulanu (4 seats) has merged into Likud, which is also reflected on the Knesset page, while Eli Ben-Dahan split from Likud to form Ahi, and is now running as a Jewish Home candidate. Cat Elevator (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Frood (talk!) 05:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Party Foundation
Likud was founded by Menachem Begin. Ariel Sharon and others also played a role, but not enough to deserve to the flattering title of founder as mentioned in the lede section. This should be removed from the lede, but the text should mention it somewhere below. 42.109.250.78 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC) P.S. He himself didn't formally join Likud until 1977. 42.109.250.78 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2020
El Trece 13 (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

number of actual seets on the Knesset need to be change
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * El Trece, Eggishorn, El Trece was asking for the seats held by the party in the infobox to be updated . As you can see here ,Likud won 32 seats in the September election, while they gained 36 seats in the elelction held last month . I went ahead and changed the "32" seats held in the infobox to "36." David O. Johnson (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Likud constitution of 2014 still calls for all of the territory
According to the handy google translate, the 2014 Likud constitution states: "Preserving the right of the Jewish people over the Land of Israel, as an indisputable eternal right, persevering in the settlement and development of all parts of the Land of Israel and applying the sovereignty of the state to them."

The phrase "ארץ-ישראל" is commonly used to mean, at least, from the river to the sea: "After the creation of the State of Israel in May 1948, this notion of a "Greater Israel" became the central theme of the political program of Israeli nationalist extremist movements. To them, Eretz Yisrael stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean." https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/eretz-yisrael-hebrew-meaning-land-israel. The article should be updated to show that Likud is still calling to push the Palestinians out of their land. Mcdruid (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Ideology
Likud should be considered neocon in the 'ideology' section, tbh.

--2A00:23C7:C081:8000:5DA5:2244:B246:57C2 (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would oppose this, it's U.S. terminology that isn't applicable to Israeli politics. Plus, there is significant divergence between Likud and the U.S. neocons on Russia.--Jay942942 (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2020
please put  Split from : Kadima . S2K-Lynx (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. See also: Likud. Not sure what you mean here, since it was the Kadima that split from the Likud.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 17:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey y'all, it's ECP so I can't edit the seat share
Can someone with clearance edit the seat share down to 30? I'm trying to update the composition bars for the new Knesset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebbleroad (talk • contribs) 18:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The election results aren't yet official, so it's best to wait. The final results aren't presented to the president for five more days. . David O. Johnson (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2021
May I contribute to the page ? 176.231.191.150 (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, the first thing is that I recommend you make an account, and the second thing is that this page is "extended-protected" which means that a user can edit a page if their account is at least 30 days old and if they made more than 500 edits. You can't edit "extended-protected" pages until you meet these requirements. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2021
May i edit 176.231.191.150 (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2022
Likud has far-right factions: Netanyahu has expressed far-right views when it comes to the Palestinian issue & so have other Likud member’s, often hateful views Produda (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Likud-Tzomet.png

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2022
update the seats to 32 in both the infobox and election results section, also add mention of the party’s recent win in the 2022 elections. 77.137.73.211 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 3mi1y (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)