Talk:Naftali Bennett/Archive 1

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Naftali Bennett. 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 tag to http://baityehudi.org.il/englp/natali.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126045833/http://www.rsa.com/press_release.aspx?id=6316 to https://www.rsa.com/press_release.aspx?id=6316
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113070752/http://www.onestateisrael.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/The-Israel-Stability-Initiative-Naftali-Bennett.pdf to http://www.onestateisrael.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/The-Israel-Stability-Initiative-Naftali-Bennett.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128122427/http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=301052 to http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=301052
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161109152708/http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_2016_ELECTION_WORLD_REACTION_THE_LATEST?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-11-09-03-28-10 to http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_2016_ELECTION_WORLD_REACTION_THE_LATEST?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-11-09-03-28-10
 * Added tag to http://baityehudi.org.il/englp/natali.htm

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) 08:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"Right wing"
I do not wish to comment as to whether the appellation "right wing" is correct. However, the term right wing is used multiple times in the first few paragraphs, and is clearly being used in a derogatory manner. The repeated terms can be deleted without changing any content. Pollira (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

ALL of them should be deleted: Wikipedia is not the place for declaring that this or that party is 'left wing' or 'right wing'. This is a matter of personal opinion, not of fact. There is no objective measure for these things.

Update
The 3 out of 4 sources that are used talk about "far-right" and not "right-wing". This issue is also discussed on the article Jewish Home. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * Is there any objection to use "far-right" as in the sources or any other comment about this concern ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources have their agendas and their own bias. This is a matter of opinion, not of measurable/verifiable fact.

Shameless promotion
Regarding labelling of politicians (either left or right wing), see my essay User:Ravpapa/Tilt. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Palestine's "right to exist"
'Palestine' has no right to exist. The Palestine Mandate supported by UN charter article 80 forbid the ceding of land to non-Jews. Jordan occupies 78% of the Palestine Mandate territory (actually an illegal act by Churchill) and Israel has just 22% of the Palestine Mandate territory (minus Gaza and the PA enclaves in Judea and Samaria). There is no 'Palestine', its a fiction created by the KGB in 1964. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.122.102 (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that in the interests of NPOV a consistent tone and terminology needs to be used throughout wikipedia with regard to the situation where participants in the Middle-East conflict oppose their opponents claim to statehood. Throughout wikipedia the phrase used is that the state's "right to exist" is opposed and, as I've shown, I think it is important to maintain neutrality that this phrase is adopted regarding Naftali Bennett's stance in the Israeli-Palestinian section. The alternative would be that the phrase "right to exist" is replaced throughput wikipedia in the Israeli-Palestinian context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.224.75 (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You say "oppose their opponents claim to statehood", therefore the correct text should be "Bennett opposes the Palestinians' claim to statehood". Happy138 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"You say "oppose their opponents claim to statehood"," - and I said that with reference to both sets of opponents in the Middle East conflict.
 * Are you recommending the phrase "oppose Israel's claim to statehood" substitute "right to exist" throughout wikipedia in that context then. I think to maintain NPOV you have to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.224.75 (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Israel already has a state. The Palestinians want one. That's the reality. Happy138 (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the relevance of that (aside from the fact the UN recognised Palestine as a non member state). Are you saying that Palestine's right to a state is debateable ? Is that your view - I doubt its wikiepdia's. Very few regard as debateable either Israel's or Palestine right to statehood. You've said nothing to argue that the NPOV stance is that a consistent phrase (eg "reject right to exist") be used throughout wikipedia to describe this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.224.75 (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am merely stating a fact not an opinion. And please don't change the article before this dicussion is concluded. Happy138 (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about your opinions - when will the talk be concluded ? I noticed you changed the article whilst requiesting I don't !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.224.75 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I'm afraid your view that Palestine has less right to exist than Israel is an opinion - as you know many states recognise Palestine as a state, many recognise Israel too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.224.75 (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying "Palestine's right to exist" implies that there is a Palestine (which there isn't, at least as of now) and that it has a right to exist, therefore it's biased. Saying "objects the creation of a Palestinian state" is as objective as it gets. TFighterPilot (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying "Palestine's right to exist" implies Bennett opposes the creation of a Palestinian state ever which is exactly his view. That is the standard phrase used when decribing Hamas's identical stance on Israel - do we change "right to exist" to "opposing the creation of Israel" there too ? And even your claim that Palestine isn't yet a state is debateable - the UN recognises it as a state (a "non-member observer state") and it is recognised by 132 countries. For that matter not every country recognises Israel as a state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is that Israel exists, physically. Palestine doesn't. If the whole world believed the earth was flat, it wouldn't make it any flatter. Wikipedia should go by facts, not wishes. TFighterPilot (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

not sure in what sense you're claiming Israel exists and Palestine doesn't ? you're saying 100+ nations and the UN believe in the equivalent of the tooth fairy - you're right that wouldn't make the tooth fairy exist but I doubt that situation would arise and I don't think it arises here: Palestine exists and can be found on the map (east of Israel, assuming we believe Israel exists) - its partly occupied: we can agree with that. But this is a side-issue. The most important and relevant point is that it doesn't matter if we believe Palestine currently exists or not - Bennett believes it should never exist ie he rejects its right to exist - a basic factual point and exactly the same stance as that of some parties regarding Israel - if the phrase "right to exist" goes here then it has to go everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * following your recent undo can you explain your view here please ? source clearly indicates NBs rejection of Palestine's right to exist ie he opposes their right to a state ever - "right to exist" is the accepted phrase for this I think hence NPOV (are you deleting this phrase when it refers to Israel's right to exist too ?) - happy to go to arbitration for consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.224.75 (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not answer the question, as posed above. Happy138 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * sorry, Happy, I can't see a question in your 3 posts - can you repeat it please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.224.75 (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See what TFighterPilot wrote above. Happy138 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to see what TF wrote - (s)he wrote 2 posts and I responded to both, neither included a question. (s)he made the dubious claim that because, in his/her opinion, Palestine doesn't exist that therefore Palestine has no right to exist and that therefore using the phrase "right to exist" is biased. it might be quicker if you just restate the question you think I've been asked and not responded to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.224.75 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Its been a while now, you've not replied stating the question you think I need to answer. Can I conclude the debate is finished and as I think I've replied to your and TF's points and, in the interest of NPOV, revert to the previous, long standing phrase that is commonly used elsewhere in the Israel-Palestine context. Happy to seek consensus or conflict resolution re this phrase here and elsewhere on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.82.114 (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Michael Zeev, wrt your claim that "right to exist" needs to be the phrase used in the source I disagree. First there is logically no difference (what differece would it make if eg Hamas stated for example that, like Bennett, they rejected a 2 state solution believing only in a Palestinian state in the same way that Bennett believes only in an Israel state) and, with an eye on consistency, does the phrase "we reject Israel's right to exist" occur in either the PLO or Hamas charters ? wikipedia states that the phrase used in the PLO charter is that Israel is illegally founded but uses the phrase "right to exist" inn describing that situation - so my insertion of "right to exist" here is consistent and NPOV happy to seek some sort of consensus or conflict resolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.82.114 (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC) HappyTalk,, is it possible for you to explain here please why you've undone my last edit, you've not replied to any of my points above including my 2 requests for you to restate the question (by TFighterpilot ?) that you say I've not replied to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.82.114 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sorry, missed your last post. I don't think adding the word "dubious" to the claim that there is no "Palestine" on the ground wins the discussion. Since there is no such state on the ground - you need to write that he opposes its creation, not "right to exist". Happy138 (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

no the word "dubious" doesn't win the discussion - I have replied in detail stating why your and TFs argument doesn't stack up and without responding to my points you just repeat your and TFs claim. It doesn't follow that because Palestine (in your and TFs opinon) doesn't exist that it has no right to exist - and that would be the case even if it were undisputed that Palestine doesn't exist (and its fair to say that there is a dispute there giving the UN recognises Palestine as a state). Existing and having the right to exist are separate issues. I think we agree that prior to 1947 Israel didn't exist ( at least since biblical times) and prior to 1775 the US didn't exist (ditto Germany+ Italy pre 1800s) - does that mean that they had no right to exist at that period ? I doubt any pre 1947 Zionist would agree with you on that and there's no mention of this lack of a right to exist in the US declaration of independence. Your "proof" that its a fact that Palestine has no right to exist and therefore that its biassed to state that Bennett (and Danon) hold this opinion is flawed. In fact even if it were accepted (and not just your opinion and that of Bennett) that Palestine has no right to exist then it would still be odd that you object to stating that Bennett rejects Palestine's right to exist. And not only have I shown that your proof that Palestine doesn't exist is flawed and just your opinion but I doubt its an opinion that many share - certainly Obama doesn't regard it as a fact: http://www.haaretz.com/news/obama-in-cairo-israelis-can-t-deny-palestine-s-right-to-exist-1.277308 Still feel that we need for NPOV to restore the standard phrase "rejects right to exist" happy to go to dispute resolution - I think we have to summarise the dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.82.114 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well yet again, Michael Zeev, you've reverted my edit your reason being "stop it". Last week I allowed your undo to remain and responded to your points on this and theDanny Danon talk page and waited for you to try and defend your stance. You haven't done and refuse to discuss while consistently reverting my changes with inflammatory remarks such as accusations of POV, "get the point" and "stop it". Maybe you are unaware of wikiepdia advice "When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the talk page" either way I'm afraid this doesn't reflect well on you or maybe you realise you can't justify your reverts.

Why is it that this particular conflict brings out people's ignorance and bias more than any other? The Flat Earth analogy is entirely apposite: the UN's GA also declared that 'Zionism is racism', only to reverse that declaration later. Is anyone here claiming that between those dates Zionism WAS racism, but before the first date and after the second it wasn't, by some sort of magic? I hope not (although nothing surprises me any longer). The GA is a debating club with no power to turn myths into facts, and the fact is that a state of Palestine does not exist at this point in time. The 'observer' status mentioned above, created purely for political show, does not change the empirical facts. Moreover, it is even phrased in such a way that it is not claiming full statehood. The comments above regarding this, that and t'other 'not being debatable' or 'nobody debates it' are as biased as it gets. Everything is debatable and is being debated and doubted by some; however, Israel does exist - fact, and Palestine does not - fact. However much this or that person may dislike one or both of these facts, an encyclopaedia is not the place to engage in a sleight of hand and pretend that 2+2=5 (we have the UN GA for that). This is similar to Wikipedia's refusal to describe accurately the empirical fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. This or that editor may detest Israel and be furious about the location of its capital, but claiming that it's not where it is empirically is akin to a three-year old covering his eyes and shouting: "You can't see me". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Bennett's "Tranquilizing Plan" for the Palestinian problem of Israel
The term "tranquilizing" in Bennett's plan(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeHT9TlrARc) addresses several audiences: Israelis, Palestinians and the rest of the World. Once his plan will be accepted, believes he, all three communities will become less agitated about the Israeli Occupation (which he refuses to recognize as "occupation")(http://www.timesofisrael.com/what-occupation-asks-bennett-rejecting-two-state-solution/). His main idea is that Israel should Annex, immediately, 61% of the occupied West Bank, nearly 3500 square Kms, which include all the Jewish settlements with some 350 thousand Jewish settlers and up to about 150 thousand Palestinians. These Palestinians will be offered civil rights, in order to avoid the accusation of "apartheid" by the world.

Most of the nearly 2.5 Million Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank live in some 220 "islands" of "A" and "B" areas (fully and partially controlled by Palestinians, respectively) as islands of existence (http://www.richmond.edu/_common_KP3/files/faculty-staff-bio/law/publications/Motro_Swiss_Cheese_Map_Legal_Affairs.pdf) surrounded by a contiguous "C" territory that is fully controlled by Israel (thus highly reminiscent of the S. African Bantustans). So, Palestinians are expected by Bennett to stay tranquil and accept his proposal that does not give them any control over a free state of their own. More than 2 millions living in those 220 separate areas with a total area of ~2000 Square Kms, while 350 thousand settlers get according to Bennett the rest of the West Bank (3500 sq Kms). In terms of population density, this means that Palestinians should have an average density of 1250/sqKm (60% of Palestinians live in villages) while settlers will have tremendously better conditions with only ~100/SqKm (again, on the average).

But those are just numbers. Bennett also suggests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naftali_Bennett#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict) more content to the relation between the Israeli annexed "C" area and the Palestinian areas. His plan is that Israeli Military and Shin Bet should continue controlling those 220 "A" and "B" areas to "suppress Palestinian terrorism", but avoids mentioning the length of the border to be controlled between Israel and the Palestinians, and its translation to the required size of those Israeli military forces. Based on planimeter measurements, the length of these borders reaches a total of more than 3500 Kms, 10 times longer than the old "green line" between Israel and Jordan before the Six day war, which is also the basis for the border proposed by current supporters of the 2-state solution. That means that military forces should be about 10 times larger according to the Bennett plan, compared to the needs of the 2-state solution.

What makes Bennett's plan even more unrealistic and even ridiculous, is his idea of connecting all the 220 "A" and "B" Palestinian areas by roads so as to enable Palestinians to move freely between all their lands, "with no checkpoints". A quick calculation brings the number of such roads, at a maximum, to 220 times 219 divided by 2. About 24,000 new roads to get from each "A" and "B" to any other "A" and "B". With about 10 Kms for an average road length... and ~10 meters for standard road width of two lanes... this brings us to a total length of 240,000 Kms (6 times the earth's circumference) times the width of 0.01 Km = an area of 2400 sq Kms of roads alone.... which amounts to some 40% of the total of the West Bank. That is at maximum. Assuming that we we may cut that number by 10, brings us to only 24,000 Kms of roads for Palestinians alone. Thus, Jews will not be present on Palestinian roads, and Palestinians will have their own roads. And everything under Israeli control for fear of terror.

'''Does'nt all that remind you of something that the world got rid of, some 20 years ago ? and how "tranquilizing" is it for Palestinians and for Israelis ?'''רסטיניאק (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
 * WP:FORUM TFighterPilot (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

'faction'
Bennett leads a political PARTY, not a 'faction' (which is a subset of a party). Does anyone refer to the USA's Republicans or the UK's Liberal Democrats as 'factions'? Of course not. The term 'faction' is derogatory and biased, and should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference not working
Reference number 25 doesn't word. The link has to be changed by this link: https://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Six-new-MKs-must-renounce-foreign-citizenship --Jordi G (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020
Could someone revert this? "48-Palestinians" is not the conventional term for Israeli Arabs, let alone a term used by Bennett.--Watchlonly (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you very much!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 13:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox member of the Knesset
Template:Infobox member of the Knesset has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox officeholder. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Why does it say "he was Minister of Defense" in 2020
The page says that he "was" Minister of Defense in 2020 even though it currently is 2020. If someone could kindly explain why it is phrased like that I would be happy to listen.

Toxicscientist12345 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since 17 May 2020 the Minister of Defence is someone else. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Bennett was actually the Minister of Defence from 2019-2020 so the page is wrong Kalomijs (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2021
To add a text stating his plan for our economy. here's some links https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/bennett-has-better-chance-of-being-pm-of-singapore-liberman/ https://www.allisrael.com/what-is-bennet-s-singapore-plan-for-the-israeli-economy?fbclid=IwAR3pAOPIB9zrXBU3miIiPirnrPGlJZPCU1iPBV2U_syUNjQBmfPsTf2YZ4Q ארנב אביב (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2021 (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.

FB as a source
Here's Bennett himself writing that his parents returned to San Francisco in the summer of 1973, but that the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War, during which Jim Bennett rushed back to Israel to serve in an artillery unit, made his parents decide to return to settle permanently - https://www.facebook.com/NaftaliBennett/posts/1657664320921896. I feel like it's an important piece of biographical info but it appears only on his Facebook page. I can't find it anywhere else. Can FB be considered a legitimate source in this case?--RM (Be my friend) 15:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Political positions: “Settlements” subsection required?
Various comments etc on this are subsumed within the Conflict subsection. Would it not be better for these elements to be separated out? It’s hard to overestimate the importance of this whole area of discussion now. Boscaswell  talk  03:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Why don't you propose something or be WP:BOLD and do it?VR talk 23:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I’m nothing like as involved as I once was with Wikipedia. Boscaswell   talk  08:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggest an edit on the first sentence
Naftali Bennett (Hebrew: נַפְתָּלִי בֶּנֶט‎, IPA: [naftaˈli ˈbenet]; born 25 March 1972) is an Israeli politician serving as the 13th prime minister of Israel since 13 June 2021.

Naftali is not the 13th prime minster of Israel since 13 June 2021.

He is the 13th prime minister of Israel and took office 13 June 2021.

I agree but when Netanyahu was still in office several hours ago it listed him as just prime minister, without the numbering: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Netanyahu&oldid=1028366531, so i think this the numbering should be removed in the first sentence Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lochglasgowstrathyre Using that it should be "Naftali Bennett (Hebrew: נַפְתָּלִי בֶּנֶט‎, IPA: [naftaˈli ˈbenet]; born 25 March 1972) is an Israeli politician serving as the prime minister of Israel since 2021," correct?
 * Yes alternatively including the date 13 June Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ministrial Roles
Why are the ministrial roles written like this? Why don't we write them just as we do for any other world leader? Duke of Somewhere (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Deputy prime ministers
Why are his deputies not inputted? Kalomijs (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Image
Shouldn't we use a more recent image for the infobox? Perhaps one of these 2021 images: SecretName101 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Naftali Bennett Thirty-sixth government of Israel, June 2021 (GPOHA1 2061).jpg
 * File:Naftali Bennett Thirty-sixth government of Israel, June 2021 (AVO 5997).jpg
 * File:Naftali Bennett Thirty-sixth government of Israel, June 2021 (GPOHA1 2036).jpg
 * File:Naftali Bennett Thirty-sixth government of Israel, June 2021 (GPOHA1 2048).jpg

There was this a well File:Naftali Bennett (portrait).jpg although it was taken last year, it was the lead image until the very moment he was voted prime minister Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Although i support the first image (GPOHA1 2061) as it is in good quality Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2021
Naftali Bennett is the State of Israel's first religious Modern Orthodox Jewish observant Prime Minister. Q2Learn (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

"A modern-Orthodox religious Jew, Bennett is Israel’s first religiously observant head of government."

"Bennett, a modern Orthodox Jew, will be Israel’s first prime minister who regularly wears a kippa, the skullcap worn by observant Jews."

Q2Learn (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2021 (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.  Mel ma nn   09:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually i'm not sure about that. I think Menachem Begin was shomer Shabbat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.136.238 (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand you may be unsure about it and you think differently but you're not showing a source to counter the change. And even though I also think that Menachem Begin was Shomar Shabbat, he did not regularly wear a Jewish kippa. Therefore, the sentence is accurate and historically significant. Furthermore, my sources are legitimate upon investigation. In any event, I will request only the second sentence be added which refers specifically to the kippa.

The changes I am requesting to be made in X to Y format: Please add a sentence in the Personal Life content:

"Bennett, a modern Orthodox Jew, will be Israel’s first prime minister who regularly wears a kippa, the skullcap worn by observant Jews." Q2Learn (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Replacing his portrait
The photo on Prime Minister of Israel of Bennet is older but is of higher quality and seemingly more official.. I'd like to establish consensus before making any controversial changes though; what do you guys think? InvadingInvader (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a better picture that the current one, and is from last year. Number   5  7  16:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK...I can see where you're coming from. No one seemed to respond except you, so I'll change it to the one Number 57 suggested. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one noticing that the current image in the infobox isn't slightly centered? There's more space onto the left than on the right. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's too big of a deal. It's reminiscent of most official photos of US Senators and Representatives. Nevertheless, I'm using the one Number 57 suggested.InvadingInvader (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That image is quite low in quality, and there is visible pixelation. What about this image? — Goszei (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That one looks to be worse quality that the 2020 one TBH. Also, the background is significantly worse. Number   5  7  12:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Nummer 1 is best picture. More professional and high quality. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

His official portrait as PM was just released (from the official twitter account of the PM's Office: https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/1407009265030737927) but isn't on Wikipedia yet. Maybe we should use that. I'm hesitant about uploading it myself because I'm uncertain about which copyright tag to use but someone certainly knows.--RM (Be my friend) 16:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in touch with his Spokesman about releasing his official portrait. Will update! Atbannett (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Any progress?--RM (Be my friend) 17:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet. They are waiting for approval to give permission to release via CC license. Atbannett (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Links removal
This page is under WP:1RR. I think you just violated that:, ,. And secondly, why you keep removing external links? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Family history
Is it really necessary to have an entire section devoted to this? Why can't it just go into the general early life section, where it talks about his background?--RM (Be my friend) 06:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The section "family history" was created because it is a lot of information, none of which is specifically about Naftali Bennett's direct family (ie. his parents, his siblings). When someone removed the section it made this article harder to read because of the entire paragraph about his grandparents placed in the intro. Also some of the details were removed, it is notable that both of his grandparents were from San Francisco. I am unsure why someone would remove that since it had a reliable citation too. Also adding a note here, you can't just removed a "citation needed" tag without actually replacing it with a RS citation. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2021
I believe the picture of the person is outdated and should be changed to an official picture of the person. 102.132.165.27 (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See this conversation. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The Netanyahu–Bennett rift
Sorry in the advance for the OT. Was the Netanyahu–Bennett rift insurmountable or more about opportunity? So, on a May 3 speech, a day before the expiration of the deadline, Netanyahu offered Bennett to be the first on the rotation, the same deal he now has with Lapid — see ~2:20 of the speech (Hebrew, courtesy of the Ynet YouTube channel). Specifically, Netanyahu says that he has conceded to Bennett's own request to that effect. Did Netanyahu wait too long? Were the chances of getting to +60 too slim (looks like Abbas would have been the only one likely to join by adding his +4 to the block's 59)? Were there other key considerations (ideological, personal, etc.)? I remember wondering this at the time, and am no closer to a clear answer now. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated. El_C 14:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Netanyahu-Bennett rift goes way back. Netanyahu had a habit of trying to destroy his proteges when he started seeing a future challenger in them. It happened to Avigdor Lieberman and Gideon Sa'ar too. There's also a personal element, because Bennett had a falling-out with Netanyahu's wife Sara. The details of that aren't public but it was likely because as Netanyahu's Chief of Staff he was blocking her access to perks Netanyahu was getting as opposition leader. She's known to have quite a bit of influence over her husband so she was likely pressing him to let go of Bennett. In any case it wasn't just about the rift. Netanyahu has a well-known track record of breaking promises when it suits him, and not too long ago he had blatantly tried to get out of his promised rotation with Benny Gantz and the nation went to a fourth election as a result. His offer of a rotation was probably just an attempt to disrupt coalition negotiations, but in any event, he had literally just blatantly violated a promise to rotate before, why on Earth would Bennett have had any reason to trust Netanyahu?--RM (Be my friend) 22:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Except, depriving Gantz out of his rotation via the budget shenanigans was different, because Gantz was second. Here, Bennett would have been first, so I don't know how conceivable it would have been for Netanyahu to... how do I put this... trick it away, somehow. But I guess who know. Obviously, it'd be no confidence'd in a flash, but I suppose the point would be to trip Lapid up.
 * In any case, having Bennett, Lieberman and Sa'ar sit in the same cabinet as Horowitz and Michaeli — that is a collection of some strange bedfellows. As an aside, I remember watching Bennett's acceptance speech where he highly praised Netanyahu, then the camera panned at a stone-faced Netanyahu, who didn't even raise his head!
 * Also, speaking of the speeches, I estimated Netanyahu's outgoing speech at about 90 percent speech, ten percent interruptions. Whereas Bennett's acceptance speech was more like 50:50. Also also, speaking of Itamar Ben-Gvir, I haven't heard someone use ASHAF (אש"ף) contemporaneously in ages, so that took me back! El_C 23:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This assumes that Netanyahu was actually willing to let Bennett or Saar go first. Like I said it could easily have been an attempt to disrupt coalition negotiations. Netanyahu could have negotiated and then invented a reason to pull out, plunging the country into a fifth election. I'm highly skeptical he would have actually allowed anyone else to go first. I lean toward the theory that the "offer" was a disruption tactic and nothing more.--RM (Be my friend) 02:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you may be right that, ultimately, Bennett just didn't believe Netanyahu would have followed through, seeing as failure would likely see him caretaker PM'ing, again... El_C 10:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in, I agree with you that Netanyahu has a tendency for ruining any potential challenger to his leadership, which also applies to many Likud members (maybe with the exception of Katz, since Bibi doesn't see him as a political threat). He also removed Sa'ar from his post as Minister of Justice after he challenged Netanyahu in internal elections for Likud leadership (a filthy move). Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what Netanyahu did for Israel, such as a good economy, a good security situation, vaccines, Abraham accords, etc. But Bibi's hunger for power cost him the government, and in my opinion it probably started back in 2018 when Lieberman, his long-time partner, was Minister of Defense and Netanyahu acted as if he didn't exist, so Lieberman returned him the favour in April 2019, starting the political crisis that led to four elections in two years. Nevertheless, Bennett is also a deceiving politician difficult to trust. After all, he publically promised not to form a government with Lapid and Raam (even urging Netanyahu to sign a document in this regard on live TV).... and then he did exactly that, not to mention he included Labour and Meretz in his weird anti-Netanyahu coalition. The only one who seems to stick to his electoral promise is Gideon Sa'ar. I don't like what he did either, he proved to be full of ego just like Bibi, and he was willing to form a government with the left just to get his revenge, which was to get rid of Bibi, but at least he's not a blatant liar like all the rest. Anyway, Bennett and Shaked had issues with Bibi long time ago, they didn't get along very long, despite they were working together for a time, maybe we could include some information in article without all the gossip. I personally don't like the anti-religious tone of the new government and I can't see how they will be able to govern the country having a party like Raam in the coalition. For example, Raam MKs are against extending the ban on "family reunification" and I really can't blame them, despite I see such a "reunification" as a demographic threat, since they are simply defending their Arab electorate. The opposition hopes to embarrass the government by refusing to support extending a law they agree is necessary for Israel's wellbeing, but they are only embarrassing themselves and I don't think I'll vote for them again just because of this. They proved they care more about short-term political gains than Israel's basic interests. Benny Gantz seems to be the only grown up in this entire situation. I'm not crazy about the new government, but I wish them success. I don't want them to fall and start another cycle of political crisis and failed promises. The country needs a stable government. I'm sick of politics. Maybe Yossi Cohen should rule as a Jewish ayatollah and finish all the nonsense... lol (also I know Bibi would like to be a king, but he's 71 anyway, and I see how Biden has deteriorated, if you know what I mean). I actually think there should be a so-called "deep state" in Israel that is independent of the political system, which is extremely flawed, as we can see. The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute session in the Youtube comments. Most people all over the world are ignorant and shouldn't have a say in anything beyond their simple and boring lives. Check out Corey Gil-Shuster's Youtube channel, most people are dumb and have no idea what they talk about. It's the same story in Israel, the Palestinian territories, United States, South Korea or whatever. Regular people think their meaningless, amateur, uninformed, lazy, uninteresting, unoriginal, cheesy, selfish, pathetic, sentimentally-based opinions should count for something or make a difference in the world, but they don't and shouldn't, probably including mine, but I still want to express it for some reason (I recognize my own hypocrisy and lack of humility, I guess, since I'm no better than the average Joe). At the same time I value some degree of liberty in a society, as well as the fact that we can express our meaningless opinions without going to jail or something worse (unless it involves violence). I like that Israel is not like most Middle Eastern countries. I mean, I wouldn't like to be ruled by a Saddam Hussein tyrant who can come to my house and take my stuff and my girl for no reason at the sound of his finger snap. Sorry for the off-topic.--SoaringLL (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC) (See Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2021
His Political Party isn't updated. Yoroor (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It should be “Prime Minister” not “prime minister”
“Prime Minister” is a proper noun and should be written accordingly. The introduction has the title in lowercase. Jcowen777 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2021
Bennet is Israeli-American. 2001:D08:D8:86C4:6DF8:B467:FB6C:1D0E (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2021 (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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Naftali Bennett and Vladimir Putin.jpg

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2022 about "Exit" Book
Business career section: In 2009, together with TheMarker media Bennett published the book called "Exit", written in Hebrew. The book contains compiled and edited featured articles from TheMarker, where he shared business lessons and insights from his journey with Cyota. In January 2022, "Exit" was republished in English for the first time.

External links: EXIT the book, by Naftali Bennett Sofiaplus972 (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide independent reliable sources about this... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2022
In Foreign Policy, change "in August 2021" to "In August 2021", change "he subsequently" to "He subsequently", change "on 14 February" to "On 14 February", change "the Kremlin" to "The Kremlin". Gabe114 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ji11720 (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)