Talk:Yisrael Beiteinu

Naming
I assume this party was named to sound similar to Our Home is Russia, the "party of power" in Russia at the time. I think there was also an Our Home is Estonia. I'm not suggesting any of these parties are linked but if I'm right about the name I think it should be mentioned.

Indeed "Bait" means "home" in Hebrew and "Beytenu" is "Our home". So the party name is "Israel - our home". The name sounds good in Hebrew. I do not think that there is a direct link between parties. Israel Beytenu is right wing, (ultra ?) patriotic, Zionist (?) party.

Stub?
It doesn't look to me as if the article is a stub anymore. If anyone edits it frequently, please review the case. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 16:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Article title
Naming this article "Israel Beytenu" is odd. The actual political party's Hebrew name is "Yisrael Beytenu." The English name is "Israel, Our Home." The title should be the one or the other, but not a mishmash of both. I'm not sure why anyone decided to redirect this article from "Yisrael Beytenu." As far as I'm concerned (& I am a fluent Hebrew-speaker), the article should be titled "Yisrael Beytenu." That is how the vast majority of people searching for it here would do so. Richard 22:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Update needed, party now in ruling coalition
See "Israeli PM lets hard-liner in government". Lieberman is becoming deputy PM and Israel Beytenu is now part of the ruling coalition. --John Nagle 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Position in left/right spectrum
There's a nice image of the Israeli political spectrum at Israelvotes.com. This may be useful as a quick guide. --John Nagle 00:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

At least centere-right to right-wing, Oren Metser (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Lieberman plan
For those of us outside the region, It's a little hard to see what is being proposed territorially. Has Lieberman, or his party, produced a map of how they intend to re-draw the border? Indisciplined 22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Far-right" and "Ultra-nationalist" Labels
With all respects to American correspondents Jeffrey Heller and Robert Berger, which were referenced in labelling Israel Beitenu a "far-right" or "ultra-nationalist" parties, this is simply their opinion which doesn't belong in Wikipedia, an opinion of outsiders at that, and is simply incorrect in respect to Israeli political landscape. Israel Beitenu, while pledging toughness towards Palestinians, in fact believes in a two-state solution, which makes them if anything - pragmatic right-wingers, as opposed to Likud, Mafdal, National Union, Herut, Moledet or other parties that still adhere to the Greater Israel policy. If Israel Beitenu was indeed far-right or ultra-nationalist, that would imply that there isn't a party in Israel that is more to the right then them, which is simply incorrect. Finally, will the anonymous person who keeps making these changes have the grace to identify himself by choosing a proper username, and discuss his ideas on this page. Many thanks! Eliyyahu 04:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that Israel Beytenu is not a 'far right' party, but I'd say that calling it ultra-nationalist would be accurate. It basically advocates a more Jewish country (with a higher percentage of people from the Jewish nationality), proposes that anyone who doesn't identify with what the country is for be given only a half-citizenship, etc. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 05:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think you accidentally reverted my minor changes to the infobox. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 05:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. By the way, I also disagree with the 'conservative' label. Maybe there's some political definition of conservative that I've missed (such as conservative = right-wing?), but generally Israel Beytenu does not overtly support religion, proposes many new changes (presidential system, ceding land in Israel proper in exchange for annexing WB areas, etc.), and in general different from conservative parties like Mafdal and Likud. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 06:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is safe to objectively call Israel Beitenu a right-wing Zionist party - ultra-nationalist, once again, would imply that they are the most nationalist in the spectre of Israeli parties, which is not the case. All Zionist or religious parties in Israel seek a more Jewish Israel, it's only the means that are different. For all the accusations, IB's plan of redrawing borders based on current ethnic divisions is exactly what the original UN partition plan was trying to create - except that it reflects the current situation. However, the fact that Israel Beitenu are also supported by many loyal non-Jewish Israelis, such as the Druze, automatically disqualifies them from the ultra-nationalist label. I agree, however, that calling them conservative is not appropriate, and, as you correctly pointed out, Likid, Shas or Mafdal are more conservative, and United Torah Judaism is probably ultra-conservative. Eliyyahu 07:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Far-right" and "ultranationalist" strike me as reasonable labels for this party. I'm curious, though, as to whether the party is described in these terms in the Israeli political arena. Does Israel Beytenu dispute these labels? I've put in a section in which I just state that some observers have described it as "far right" without taking a position. (NPOV, all that jazz). I see that you, Eliyyahu, speak Hebrew. Perhaps you could ferret out some Israeli sources, because that's what this article needs more than aything else. Of course, such sources should come from all over the political spectrum. -- Zantastik  talk  07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither references you quote come from Israel, rather but from left-wing European media, which keep parroting the label, without any understanding of Israeli politics. Secondly, far-right or ultranationalist in one country can be centrist in another (e.g. some might call George W. Bush far-right, while in the context of Palestinian politics anyone that anyone that doesn't call for the destruction of Israel is a "moderate". I am not going to make a judgment on the validity of these labels. Have a look at this website, which outlines Israeli political parties, their platforms and relative position on the left-right spectrum . The use of far-right ("yemin qitzoni") is reserved to parties that call for PA to be dismantled and Arabs forcefully expelled to Jordan (Herut and Jewish National Front). Likud, National Union and Mafdal do not support the two-state solution, yet are never called far-right. If anything, Israel Beitenu is a "pragmatic right-wing party". Eliyyahu 23:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, Israel Beitenu doesn't advocate "transfer" of Arabs, merely re-partitioning areas adjacent to the PA which reflects the demography. It is in line with logic of the original UN partition plan. Eliyyahu 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I just stumbled into this conversation, and merely wanted to note that NPR is neither "far left" nor "European" and has used the label "far right". Additionally, I agree with Zantastik that it's appropriate to note that the party has been described as "far right", so long as the article is careful to note who has called it far right (but not that it is objectively far right). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing: while I think it is appropriate to include a sourced description of the party's ideology in the article, it should not be under the subheading "far right". Perhaps the blurb could be included in the "platform" subsection, which already discusses the party's ideology, or a new "ideology" subsection could be created. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Two points. 1) Calling the sources that label Yisrael Beiteinu as left leaning was original research, more is needed. 2) The JPost reference should be removed. I was going to say, clearly, JPost isn't seen as a left leaning newspaper but that was the opinion column that the quote came from and therefore shouldn't be listed to imply that media sources use this term when it's the individual from the Opinion pages. I am not sure how this should be set up... sourcing the only "left-leaning" sources call it right-wing would be pretty difficult but there must be a better way to do it than we currently have. gren グレン 00:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisionist Zionism
I have noticed that people have been adding revisionist Zionism to the party's platform. I think this may be another error of association - similarly to how people associate right-wing with conservative, even though Israel Beytenu isn't conservative in any way, so do they associate right-wing Israeli parties with revisionist Zionism. This is incorrect because the revisionist ideology today opposes a Palestinian state and wants to maximize Israel's borders, including re-settling in Gaza and all of the West Bank. Israel Beytenu does not oppose a Palestinian state, but supports a land exchange and disengagement from the Palestinians. It does not claim that Israel should extend from Jordan to the sea, but that Israeli Arab towns like the triangle should be handed over to the Palestinian Authority in order to annex Jewish settlements like Ariel and Ma'ale Adummim. I fail to see how this is in tune with revisionist Zionism. Moreover, the source provided by someone in the infobox (Israel votes) doesn't even mention revisionist Zionism - this is even assuming it's a reliable source, which it may not be. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While Revisionist Zionism is not the right label - Israel Beitenu does see themselves as the heirs of Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky - which is the first thing you can see on their English website. Revisionist Zionism, of course, believed in Jewish settlement of both the West and the East Bank of the Jordan River, which is far from what IB is proposing. Eliyyahu 11:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ironies and Assocations
I imagine that Russian speaking voters in Israel (by far Yisrael Beytenu's chief demographic) would immediately recognise the association between the name of the party and the Russian nationalist party  Россия, На Дом (Russia, Our Home).

Is it reasonable to expect that non-Russian speaking Israelis would also be well acquainted with the connotation and the similarities in outlook? If so, might this association not merit a notation in the article?

Finally, another point. There has been an lively discussion as to whether Yisrael Beytenu can be reasonably categorised under various rubrics (far right, conservative, etc). Yet everyone seems comfortable with the designations "nationalist" and "zionist". Is it not then a reflection on the strange make up of Israeli society that this nationalist, ultra-nationalist and/or zionist party is the public face of recent Russian immigrants, few of whom are Jewish?

--Philopedia 02:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Few of whom are Jewish"? Actually the vast majority are Jewish or at least consider themselves Jewish (as someone pointed out to me, in Russia you are thought of as Jewish if your father is, but the Israeli Rabbinate demands matrilineal descent). The number of immigrants who do not consider themselves Jewish is quite small, mostly consisting of Christians married to immigrants. Also, although the party is thought of as Russian dominated, it is also the major party of the settlers (if you can read Hebrew, check out the city-by-city results here) - Yisrael Beytenu was the highest scoring party in Ariel! Number 57 09:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

contested statements removed

 * (ideology =) Neoconservatism, Revisionist Zionism

Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.-- Birgitte SB  16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

contested statements removed

 * (ideology =) Neoconservatism, Revisionist Zionism

Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.-- Birgitte SB  16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why this picture?
Why has this picture of him in front of a United states flag been chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.246.168 (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume (s)he means this. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, the answer is that it's a free image, and we don't have another free image of Lieberman. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

IMEU link
I removed the IMEU link, because it is a biased third party website with a clear (and self-proclaimed) political stance. I believe that the IMEU page linked adds nothing to the subject's understanding and puts unnecessary spin on things. An analogy would be linking to an HonestReporting profile in Fatah's external links section. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

British sources
For a while now there has been an undiscussed dispute about this party's orientation. Some label it 'extreme-right', some 'far-right', some 'ultra-nationalist', etc. No sources had been provided, until now that someone added British sources (namely, The Guardian and the BBC). While I don't oppose saying that this party is far-right or ultra-nationalist per se, I believe that British sources are entirely inappropriate in this case. It would be kind of like using Ynet for information on a mid-sized Danish political party. I'm sure that there are enough reliable English-language Israeli sources (Ynetnews, Haaretz, JPost, etc.) that discuss Israel Beiteinu's political orientation. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how British sources would be inappropriate whatsoever. Regardless, I've added sources from mainstream media in Israel and many other countries. If you have reliable sources that label Yisrael Beitenu as something else (e.g. center-right), feel free to add them. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you missed my point. Since when are foreign media sources reliable about a country's internal politics? Only Israeli sources should be used on this. I believe Haaretz does label the party as far-right, so there shouldn't be a problem to provide them, but I categorically oppose foreign media sources to determine the political orientation of an Israeli party. Even the most reliable source isn't reliable for all types of information.
 * On a side note, If you use multiple sources solely for the same statement, please lump them into one ref. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 04:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when are they not? Forza Nuova uses the Guardian. Front National uses the BBC, CNN, the Guardian, and Reuters. Vlaams Belang uses the BBC, the Guardian, and the Washington Times. If it's a policy, please cite it. If not, feel free to try to create one.
 * Personally, I would think that external sources would be less likely to be biased, as long as they are from countries that aren't in conflict with the country in question.
 * I'll look up the syntax for ref. I'm still learning Wiki. JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the current wording in the lead, but stating it as fact in the infobox is problematic. Because you already did provide Haaretz links, I believe that one of them should be used as a footnote for the infobox. This is not strictly a question of policy, but of common sense (which is also a policy by the way). Foreign media should not be expected to understand the fine points of local politics because they lack expertise on the subject. All respectable Israeli media outlets (newspaper and TV) have political analysts whose job it is to make designations like these. As far as I know, no foreign media source has Israeli political analysts. About some Italian parties, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. There could be many reasons why whoever whote those articles chose BBC as a source; one reason could be that Italian mainstream media is in Italian (although I don't have much knowledge on the subject). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can categorically state that foreign media lack expertise on the subject. Many large media companies have reporters who specialize in the Middle East or more specifically, Israel. For example, the first source I cite is by Mark Willacy of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The first Google result for his name states that Mark has extensively covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reporting on Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel and the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. He was a Walkley Awards finalist in 2004 for his coverage of Israel's assassination of senior Hamas leaders. The second source is by Joel Greenberg of the Chicago Tribune. The seventh Google result for his name states that Joel Greenberg covers the Middle East for the Tribune, with particular emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Before joining the Tribune, Greenberg was for a decade a Jerusalem-based correspondent for The New York Times. He was the West Bank correspondent for The Jerusalem Post from 1986-91 and a Jerusalem contributor to The Christian Science Monitor from 1984-90. He began his reporting career in the Jerusalem bureau of United Press International in 1984. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no comparison between a foreign expert on Israel and an expert on Israeli politics. Israeli political analysts usually have a degree in political science and/or years of experience dealing specifically with Israeli politics. On the other hand, foreign 'Israel experts', just like in the quotes you provided, come from a standpoint of reporting on the conflict. They have little knowledge, and probably little interest, in the nuances of Israeli politics, individual Israeli politicians (except a few well-known ones), etc. For example, when was the last time you saw a foreign feature on the Party for War against the Banks? An even more blatant example is how they ignore Gilad Erdan, a Likud politician well-known for the huge amount of laws he proposed, unless he said something about the conflict. This is also why it is also easy for them to label a certain politician as 'far-right' because of his conflict platform, and it's unclear if they are even familiar with this politician's/party's platform on public transportation, for example.
 * Anyway, the change I'm proposing is actually very minor: keep the wording in the lead and remove the non-Israeli sources (I think that leaves Haaretz, which is enough), and in the infobox move 'far-right' to the bottom with a footnote/ref (also from Haaretz). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * These are people whose entire professional lives are devoted to understanding and reporting on Israel or the greater Middle East. Take Joel Greenberg for example. He was formerly a reporter for the Jerusalem Post and holds a degree from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I don't see how you can make an argument that he's not a reliable source.
 * As far as Lieberman's platform on public transportation, I take it you're referring to his offer when he was transportation minister. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. There is a position called political analyst. It's a person whose professional life is devoted to understanding politics (in this case, in Israel). You can't compare a political analyst to a journalist. About the second point, I have taken the liberty to add some elements of the party's platform which I have never seen reported on in the BBC and the like, and this ties in to the above point. Unfortunately, I have had very little time lately to edit, but hopefully later today I'll be able to add more elements of the party's platform, including their stand on public transportation.
 * In fact, IMO what you said above about public transportation proves my point to a tee. Most foreigners, including foreign journalists, seem to believe (or want you to believe) that the Yisrael Beitenu party = Avigdor Lieberman, and that they have no position other than regarding the Arabs. In fact, many Israelis, especially on the local (municipal) level, know the party for many other activities. I have never seen the BBC or any of the sources you provided (except Haaretz) report on anything related to the party othe than Lieberman and how he supposedly plans to expel all Arabs, thus making a caricature out of a party which has an encompassing platform.
 * -- Ynhockey (Talk) 04:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be mistaking disagreeing with your point with missing your point. I have no problems with additional elements of the party platform being added to the article. However, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to leave out characterizations of the party found in numerous mainstream right, centrist, and left sources. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

move page to Yisrael Beytenu
well, thats the official transliteration, isnt it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.90.180 (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The official transliteration is irrelevant, although I have been pondering moving it to Yisrael Beitenu, per WP:HE. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 04:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you do that. The second "i" in "Beiteinu" is plainly wrong. "Beitenu" would be consistent with the transliteration conventions.Berndf (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant?? check the site of the party... Gumuhua (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The party's official site uses "Israel beytenu". Debresser (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Kadima
The characterizations I included in the article are used by journalists. The characterization of the party as "not really in the right-wing bloc" is from an official in another political party. It would be like me adding "mainstream media characterizes the party as fascist" because many mainstream media sources have printed quotes from Balad and Ta'al officials who call the party fascist. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with quoting Balad and Ta'al. I really don't see who is "mainstream media" anymore these days.  Are you counting only broadsheets or also tabloids?  Are you counting only newspapers or also TV reporting or even blogs?  Only editorial or also news articles or even OpEd contributions? I would rather have controversial characterizations with name attached so the readers can judge for themselves.  In fact, it would nice to have a separate section with all these different characterizations of the party, rather than have a somewhat biased and incomplete sample in the infobox.  Ugh...  Mhym (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ABC News (the American one), Agence France-Presse, Haaretz, The Independent, The Jerusalem Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Taipei Times, and Xinhua label Yisrael Beiteinu and/or Avigdor Lieberman as extreme right.


 * The Age, The Associated Press, ABC (the Australian one), BBC, The Chicago Tribune, The Daily Telegraph, The Financial Times, The Guardian, Haaretz, The Independent, The Irish Times, The Jerusalem Post, The Jewish Daily Forward, The Jewish Week, The Los Angeles Times, The Nation, The New York Times, Reuters, The Scotsman, Slate, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Times, and The Wall Street Journal label them as far right.


 * There are just as many sources for the other labels. I can wikify them if anyone wants. I think that all characterizations that come from a broad spectrum of sources should be in the lead and the infobox, while characterizations that are used by members of other parties belong in the body of the article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry JCDenton, I don't believe you're providing a factual account of the Yisrael Beitenu party. I believe it is unbiased to say that Beitenu is "right-wing," "nationalist," and "Revionist Zionist." Some other formulations are more suspect. It's a manipulation of information to say that "A broad spectrum of mainstream media sources within and outside" label Beitenu such and such. I looked through all the sources you provided in the first paragraph. Almost NONE of them are editorials or regularly news pieces. They are nearly all opinion pieces that reflect the opinion of that columnist, not the PAPER. For example, the article from the Jerusalem Post is an op-ed from a writer that is not employed for the newspaper. It is therefore quite tendentious to say that the Jerusalem Post declares the Beitenu is on the "extreme right." And newspapers like the Ha'aretz and Guardian are not simply mainstream, but clearly define themselves on the left. Therefore, it is not factual to say that "A broad spectrum of mainstream media sources within and outside" but principally "left-leaning media sources and pundits." To say otherwise seems intellectually dishonest. Don't abuse your power here to cripple debate. ShamWow (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In a previous edit I had used many more sources, but I pared it down. Are all of the sources I listed above wrong? What you or I believe doesn't matter. What does matter is what is published in reliable sources. I don't have any power to abuse here. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And the quote from Kadima is completely meaningless without context - "A Kadima official told The Jerusalem Post that Yisrael Beiteinu is "not really in the right-wing bloc." The context of the quote was that Kadima was arguing that in order to cajole Beitenu into a coalition, Beitenu naturally belongs with the "centrist" bloc. The way this quote is presented, one could equally think that Kadima is saying that Bietenu doesn't belong in the right-wing blog, but perhaps the "far right-wing bloc." Agreed? ShamWow (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mhym added the quote from Kadima, you'll need to ask him or her about it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

JCDenton, I went through all those sources provided. Nearly all those ones news sources/pundits that that describe Lieberman as "far-right," "ultranationalist" or something along those as publication policy (editorials, factual newspaper articles) are in varying degrees on the left (Guardian, Ha'aretz). Opinion pieces in an article - such as in the Jerusalem Post, Jewish Forward, or YNetnews articles you cite - does not indicate that that source labels Lieberman as an "ultra-nationalist," etc. For example, Jeff Barak - who does not work for the Jerusalem Post - writes that Lieberman is a "bigoted immigrant" in an opinion piece. Simply because Barak wrote such an opinion piece does not logically signify that the Jerusalem Post therefore believes Lieberman is on the far-right. That is the assertion you are making and it is not intellectually sound. On that grounds, it is erroneous to write that "a broad range of mainstream media sources" label Lieberman as such. Please edit the information to reflect that information because if I do, you are going to block me for "vandalism." ShamWow (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're cherry picking and attacking strawmen. Many centrist sources, such as AP, The New York Times, and Reuters use the label far right. An article in The Wall Street Journal, a right-wing newspaper, uses it too. If you feel that some sources are not sound, feel free to remove them. That does not, however, change the fact that Lieberman and Yisrael Beiteinu are described as far right, ultra nationalist etc in a broad range of reliable sources. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And if the Kadima quote has nothing to do with you, why would you undo it and accuse me of "vandalism"? I rationally explained my position. Please respect it unless it is not logically sound. Thanks. ShamWow (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you felt it lacked context, you could have added more. If you want to take it out fine, but if Mhym objects, please discuss it with him or her on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

More sources:

The Belfast Telegraph, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The New York Times, Newsweek, and The Sydney Morning Herald describe Avigdor Lieberman and/or Yisrael Beiteinu as hard right.

ABC (the Australian one), The Atlantic, Time, and Ynet describe them as radical right.

The American Prospect, The Guardian, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, Real Clear Politics, Salon, Talking Points Memo, and The Times describe them as ultra right.

The Age, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Jerusalem Post, The Jewish Daily Forward, Newsweek, Reuters, The Sydney Morning Herald, and Time describe them as populist.

Agence France-Presse, ABC (the Australian one), The Age, The Associated Press, The Australian, BBC[, [[CBC News]], The Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Jewish Daily Forward, NBC News Newsweek, NPR, Salon, Sky News, The Sydney Morning Herald, and Xinhua describe them as ultra nationalist.

JCDenton - please stop providing opinion pieces as evidence that mainstream media believes such and such. Once again, opinion pieces do not reflect the viewpoint of the paper - newspaper articles and editorials, which are parsed by the paper's editors, do. Thanks for the links, just no more opinion pieces. ShamWow (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I edited the lead--narrowing it down to far right, populist, and ultra nationalist. I removed all "opinion" pieces too. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Time for me to comment. I am very much against this wording, especially the adjectives.  First, YB is "far right" mostly in the mind of liberal media outlets.  It is just "right".  When it is being cajoled into the government it is "not even that right", and it is not even the most right wing party in the Knesset (arguably National Union is).  Similarly, "ultra" has some implications beyond "nationalist" which I don't understand.  It's not like they want to have a Greater Israel.  They don't.  Thus calling them "ultra nationalist" is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.  I say, "nationalist" in neutral and correct.  Finally, I am pretty sure every single party in Israel, US, France, etc. has been called "populist" at one point or another.  When applied to the party, this terms looses some of its meaning.  If you think calmly about YB demands, you will see that they are more ideological rather than populist (compared to Shas, for example).  I think this slightly derogatory description should be removed.
 * One more thing. You clearly used GoogleNews or some such service to find these numerous sources, which often borrow the language one from another. Of course, there is an ocean of newspaper articles and characterizations.  Did you search for other descriptions?  How about "secularist"  which is correct and clearly applies.  How about "right of center"?  Are you sure you want to keep this material in the lead, even though it reads kind of disconnected when placed right after the history of recent electoral success?   Does the controversy belong to an infobox?  Mhym (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've provided plenty of mainstream centrist (and a few right-wing) news sources that label it as far right. It's not some liberal media conspiracy. My opinion is that the Kadima official was trying to appeal to Yisrael Beiteinu to join them in a coalition (or to convince Kadima voters that doing so would not be a violation of Kadima principles). I don't have a problem with it being in the article, as long as it is clear that The Jerusalem Post was quoting a Kadima official, rather making the claim itself.


 * Again, the label ultra nationalist appears in a variety of media, not just liberal media. Describing the party as nationalist would carry very little meaning as most parties in Israel are Zionist, which is in some ways a form of nationalism.


 * Yes, there have been populist politicians in US political parties, but currently neither party is populist. However, many mainstream sources describe present-day Yisrael Beiteinu as populist. If you want to search their archives and see if they also currently, frequently label Kadima, Likud, Labor, etc as populist, then you might have an argument.


 * If you want to add other labels that are well sourced, go right ahead. Articles for other far right parties, such as British National Party and Front national, have similar descriptions in their leads and infoboxes. If there's a Wikipedia policy only allowing descriptions that are put forth by the party or that members view favorably, then all of these articles should be changed. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mhym in that pushing one's agenda by doing a random google search for a term and then calling 'I have found consensus' is nonsense. First of all, Far-right is a 'position', not an ideology. If there's an agreement that a party is called 'ultranationalist', then 'far-right' should be just cleaned up. Secondly, populist is not a good term if not followed by scholarly argumentation, in what this particular 'populism' consists. This has not happened, yet. I have gone through such discussions many times, they are always very troublesome.-- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 11:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not pushing an agenda, so please lay off the personal attacks. And I never claimed to have WP:Consensus. I claimed that I found many WP:Reliable sources that label Yisrael Beiteinu as far right, populist, and ultra nationalist. Being ultra nationalist is not a sufficient condition for being far right. Finally, please cite this policy that requires that only scholarly (rather than mainstream media) sources be used for articles on political parties. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of content
I am concerned that Miacek may have violated WP:3RR with his blanking of content. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How could I have violated this rule with one bold edit plus two reverts? -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 17:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You made three reverts of content that I added in good faith. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section
The lead section does not appear to abide by WP:Lead. From the page: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist."

The article does not concisely overview other points of the articles. The last sentence seems to be quite off focus as well, making the focus of the article Lieberman's political orientation. This is not the case with the rest of the article.

Perhaps there should be a section about Lieberman's political orientation, but this should not be a prime focus of the lead, as it does not abide by WP:Lead.ShamWow (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. In fact, this is exactly what I proposed earlier.  I made the first draft, which might need some expansion.  Please do not remove the section without discussion.  Mhym (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're seeing things that aren't there. How can you possibly argue that the political alignment of a political party is not one of its "most important points"? Additionally, many other parties that are also accepted to be far right are described as such in their leads. (See British National Party, Forza Nuova, Front national, Vlaams Belang, etc.) Obviously other editors don't support your radical interpretation of WP:Lead. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not add redundant references - I moved your refs characterizing the party down to the perception section. Please read it carefully before restoring them.  Mhym (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The political alignment of a political party is one of its "most important points" and as such belongs in the lead. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. But these and further references already do appear in the section below.  You would need to make a balanced summary of the Perception section, not keep your old phrasing.  Mhym (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Only because you moved them without consensus. You need to build WP:Consensus that the political alignment of a political party is not one of its "most important points". JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the lead in the other party articles. Please read WP:OSE which explicitly explains why this is not a good argument.  Mhym (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the section Precedent in usage in that policy article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This portion used may which indicates this can be used as an argument, but it is still preferable when other arguments are used. Mhym (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then put forth some other arguments, please. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you are not reading what people are trying to explain to you. It is preferable that YOU, editor JCDenton2052, use other arguments why one should violate WP:Lead, since "other articles exist" is not a good argument. Let me repeat: I am not disagreeing with having political directions in the lead per se - I am disagreeing with your arguments.  Mhym (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are the one advocating a violation of WP:Lead, not me. You have yet to put forth a compelling argument that the political alignment of a political party is not one of its "most important points." JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, this article does not abide by WP:Lead. The political orientation of the party is important but it is not the focal point of the article. The article as currently constructed makes it the overriding focus of the article, which is not reflective to the article as a whole.ShamWow (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your first two sentences contradict each other. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Untrue. A section on "Political Orientation/Global Perception" would fulfill such a need. The article, as previously constructed, made it so that the focal point of the lead was Yisrael Beitenu's "far-right" political orientation, when the bulk of the article makes no mention of this.ShamWow (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your first two sentences make contradictory statements. Additionally, one sentence out of eight does not make it the focal point of the lead. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead
Why not? If it's disputed, include the dispute. Joshdboz (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tags
Moving the generally accepted political alignment of a political party from the lead to a section with a POV title is a violation of WP:NPOV. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Renaming this section sounds fine to me. Why don't you do that rather than start screaming POV when none exist. Having the short summary in the lead is also fine with me.  I am against having the same references twice.  Moral: no POV, just style differences.  Mhym (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the alleged factual dispute, I don't see it. I repeated the old lead sentence nearly word for word and added few more characterizations with numerous references.  Please read and edit the section rather than try to cry "dispute over facts" when none exist, at least as far as I can see.  Mhym (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits to lede
I generally will stay away from the intricacies involved here, because frankly it is not worth the effort. That said however, the current lede sentence, which says: “Yisrael Beiteinu … is a political party in Israel.” seems both an affront to Wikipedia’s intellectual honesty, and an indication of the poor collaborative ability of editors who choose to edit within this realm of hot topic issues. Athough the current sentence is not incorrect, it of little or no ‘benefit to the readers”, particularly in light of its current notability. It is like saying that “Something smells,” without characterizing the very wide ranging possibilities that that statement entails.

I have edited it by adding right-wing to the first sentence because it provides a flavor of the possibilities, particularly for that geography, without hammering it home, although I note that all current sources (now improperly deleted) do a more precise job. I seem to understand that RSs are the basis of how we are supposed to write. The current number of refs however,  is over done, likely because other editors prefer to leave whatever smell unknown. Further, I have added its ideological roots more directly to the second sentence, so that a more neutral understood might be provided; this does it with facts rather than labels. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with YB is that it is both right-wing and left-wing - it is hawkish on some issues, but liberal on others (e.g. civil marriage etc) - the Jerusalem Post recently described it as "ultra-liberal". I think a better description might be nationalist (which refers only to one strand of its agenda) or populist - it aims to appeal to a wide swathe of the public. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, Nationalist is fine, but I wouldn't say populist. As far as I can tell, the party has been termed 'populist' mostly in contexts wishing to delegitimize it, or trying to "explain" why it's so popular in Israel. There is no indication that Yisrael Beitenu adheres to populism as a political ideology. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Y and 57, (because it seems better to answer this way, rather than to answer 57 and why), I will attempt to answer your valid questions and observations, both of which I understand and tend to agree with (based on the RSs, (and naturally, acceptance of another editor's inevitable personal biases)). I do not question the 'why', the 'what', or the 'because' behind these very good inquires; I do however, believe that Wikipedia (as an Encyclopedia) is intended to provide neutral information on a lower and more common level than either of your (plural) individual and specific knowledge or povs may include, or my own.  That therefore tends to supercede all our concerns.  I firmly believe that Wikipedia must neutrally make information available and thus allow and provide enough for the reader to make their own judgments concerning what we have included.  I am an inclusionist, because my POV is pro-peace; (naturally, I have my biases, but they are not rightfully those with which I have been tagged).  That kind of understanding differentiates between what we (the wiki) make available, versus the full complement of shit that is out there. That kind of understanding should not limit what we say and must not limit how the reader may take or use the information provided, or not.  We should provide the (full, non-fringe) neutral knowledge spectrum, and they decide.  Is that reasonable?  Is that not our five pillar, prime directive?


 * Personally, I am neither I nor P, as it may relate to the I/P conflict, but must note that I (myself) and the American taxpayer (specifically) have been voted to provide the funds that have made possible the existence, wide variation, and promulgation of any and all specific party lines within the Israeli body politic. This is, in itself, both highly appreciated and highly contested at the same time.  OK, well, that is apparently the 'American way', or whatever, but it still costs $3B/yr from the US taxpayer's perspective. (From a very recent perspective that may seem like a drop in the bucket, but I will note that the bucket has only recently become very, very large.)  I have no real, specifically RS'd, way to state the case for my recent edits, nor do I claim such.  I have only noted the RSs previously provided; I have noted also that either too many, or none, have been allowed.  I am not involved in the current edit skirmish (or pissing contest, as the case may be).  That is the result of the editors previously involved.  I felt it my opportunity and duty to simply and neutrally try to put an end to a brush fire that has started to infringe on more important cabalic (cabalistic?) necessities.  If this attempt is not reasonably seen as either simple or neutral, then I have apparently failed, and you have my apology.  I will, however, note that this is the second time in a week that I have attempted to engage specific editors; I appreciate that this time it seems to have been more productive.
 * 57: I think I made a recent edit along your same lines recently elsewhere; I said "but seems to secularly or politically pick and choose on religious issues". I have a similar problem; I am a social liberal and financial conservative. Normally I would vote R; this time I only voted for one D.
 * Y: I agree that nationalist is correct, but ultra seems more accurate (please remember I am US and neither I or P). Similarly 'populist' seems less than accurate (based on vote totals), but (the choosing), like I noted immediately above, seems more popular than populist. Highest regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No the "Ultra" is redundant.Oren.tal (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

civil marriage and two state solution
I add this two because the are essentialist part of his ideology.Almost half of his voters (if not more) voted because both this,Mainly the Russian immigrants want civil marriage.Oren.tal (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Oren.tal, please feel free to add (if it is not already included) and expand upon this topic in its Platform section. Perhaps maybe Lieberman Plan can be included in ideology, but not those mentioned above as they are not political ideologies but rather part of the party platform. Thank you for your good faith edit. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic policy
Can someone properly define the economic philosophy Israel Beiteinu subscribes to? Here are their principles:

Yisrael Beiteinu supports the advancement of free-market economic policies and favors financial incentives, tax discounts and the reduction of bureaucracy, along with governmental assistance in the setting up of factories and research-and-development programs to attract foreign investment.

--Shamir1 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Secularism and Yisrael Beitenu, and further additions
Yisrael Beitenu is NOT even remotely secularist, their platform says they are opposed to separation of religion and state.

I have a few suggestions for changing the "ideology" part since it's wrong: Check and ratify those proposed changes.
 * delete Secularism (very wrong)
 * might be able to secularism with Pseudo-secularism (as you can see from "Organisation", they are only presenting themselves as secularist to attract votes and support from secular russians.)
 * might be able to add Halacha as they claimed in their platform it's the basis of their policy regarding religion and state.
 * might be able to add Populism.
 * add Centrism or Third way ( see "Lieberman Plan")

--5:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarfac3 (talk • contribs)

Headings
Putting "Criticism" under "Perceptions" is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, i.e. you're saying that all criticism are merely a perception rather than a fact. Factsontheground (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the edit, but it's true, criticism is a perception/allegation, not a fact. If something in criticism is a fact, it shouldn't be there in the first place, but should be under a 'controversy' section. This is why I always prefer to make sections like this 'controversy' rather than 'criticism'. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian Speaker
As an Israeli citizen, I know this party. Its ideas have no connection to Russian speakers, and it has no differnce with any other foreign-language-speakers. I'd like it to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.160.252 (talk • contribs)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yisrael Beiteinu → Israel beytenu or Yisrael beytenu

"beytenu" is the way the Hebrew is translated on the party's official site and the party's official English site. See also the previous discussion above, where many seem in favor of removing the second "i" and replacing the first "i" by a "y".

As to "Yisrael" or "Israel", the term "Yisrael Beiteinu" is a transliteration, and a bad one at that, but since the party is well know abroad, especially in America, there is no need for a transliteration, and "Israel" can be used freely. The two above official websites seem divided about this issue, so I added both options to the move proposal. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose both but could support Yisrael Beitenu per the Knesset, and the common transliteration of בית as "Beit". Also, any form of name other "Israel Our Home" is a transliteration ("Israel Bei/ytenu" would be a translation/transliteration hybrid that I think should be avoided). ;)  Number   5  7  18:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it some, I'm not so sure a move to any different title is a good idea - the two main English language newspapers in Israel (Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post) both prefer the "Beiteinu" spelling (Beiteinu: 5,720 & 16,300, Beitenu: 959 & 1,090, Beytenu: 16 & 52) and almost never use "Beytenu" (most of the hits on the Haaretz site actually seem to be reader comments). Number   5  7  18:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect Spelling of the "Yisrael Beiteinu" Article
The correct spelling for the party is "Yisrael Beytenu" according to party officials. This can be verified on the party's official website, "beytenu.org." How can this problem be fixed so the information is more accurate for future readers?


 * I proposed a rename like this in the section above. One editor oppose, and my proposal was dismissed as not finding consensus. I still think it is the right thing to do. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree - it's clearly not the common name. Number   5  7  08:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Beiteinu"? Huh ?
I don't know how this utterly garbled spelling ever could have gain assimilation in the distingished English Wikipedia database, but, I mean, <<"Beiteinu">>? Are you just serious?.. It's Beitenu. = "Our Home", that is; "Beiteinu" is purely an inexistent word, and this is a terrible transliteration mistake - do whatever you desire with it. There might be editors who believe this is just yet another one of "standardized errors" common among Israelis as a reliable reflection of our inconsistent public life, which enables embarrassing variations of latinized place names on road signs etc, but the truth is that this one is a too-much for an encyclopedia trusted by millions; indeed not even the Russian immigrants voting for that political party would say "Beiteinu", they know – like every reasonable Israeli – it's Yisrael Beitenu, so anyone with just minimal attention to proper Heb-to-Eng transcription around here, or you'd simpily and easily let thousands of readers be baffled? 37.46.46.85 (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the most common spelling used by the English language press in Israel. Number   5  7  11:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the previous editor is right. But the spelling is awful. I wrote about this also, higher up on this talkpage. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Israel Beitenu
Israel and not Yisrael is the right spelling. There is no y there, it's exactly like in "State of Israel".Ewan2 (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's Yisrael because it's the Hebrew name. You can't have Israel Beiteinu because it would be half English, half Hebrew. The English would be Israel Our Home. Number   5  7  08:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Y is not needed, in fact it is a wrong transription of the Hebrew letter Yud, which is pronounced here only due to the vowel khirik -simple i. Then the Hebrew pronunciation is Israel, if you want Issrael but never Yisrael. (In English in fact Israel is pronounced Izrael). The same is true about Yitzhak, which is pronounced Itzhak and not at all Yitzhak (Yitzhok  is  a Yiddish prononciation not a Hebrew one).Ewan2 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See the transliteration at the start of Israel or indeed the translation of רַכֶּבֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל at WP:HEBREW. Number   5  7  21:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Did this party move left, or has Israel moved right?
Because with much the same content as before, this article has erased mention of their political position as being "far right". Even having many of the same sources... still describing them as "far right". Curious. Likewise, there are many sources describing them as "ultranationalist", but for ideology we currently have merely the rather tame "nationalist".

We've been here before. Please let's stick with what the sources say, rather than continually drifting towards a "less controversial" version more to some people's liking. 79.97.71.180 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"Strong line" in intro

 * "It takes a strong line towards the peace process and the integration of Israeli Arabs."

I don't really know what "strong line" is supposed to mean here. It seems like the kind of emotionally loaded terminology you find in political rhetoric, not particularly encyclopedic...or informative. Is there a way of rephrasing this that actually says what the party actually believes when it comes to the peace process and Israeli Arabs? —  Swedishpenguin  &#124; Talk 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume it's mean to be along the lines of "hawkish". It is an accurate picture of the party's policy, but I agree it may be better to rephrase it. Number   5  7  12:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's indeed rhetoric for "somewhat rightwing" (in Israeli terms, meaning "eye-wateringly far-right" by Western norms). How to rephrase is a very good question.  The source given for that sentence is more directly for the "no loyalty, no citizenship" slogan, which would be a start, but unfortunately that article's very much focusing on their slagging match with Shas, rather than its original application to Arabs.  New Statesman uses the phrase "tapped in to populist anti-Arab sentiment", and quotes Isaac Herzog as saying the citizenship oath had the "whiff of fascism".  Not what you'd call the most sympathetic source, but possibly a useful starting pointing.  79.97.71.180 (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Yisrael Beiteinu. 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/20081201165124/http://www.foxnews.com:80/wires/2008Oct29/0,4670,MLIsraelMubarak,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct29/0,4670,MLIsraelMubarak,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215012639/http://www.foxnews.com:80/wires/2009Feb04/0,4670,MLIsraelHardlineHero,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Feb04/0,4670,MLIsraelHardlineHero,00.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 18:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Yisrael Beiteinu. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120814122824/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1229868806768 to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1229868806768
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110526004845/http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/8405/35/ to http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/8405/35/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 02:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yisrael Beiteinu. 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/20061108011348/http://www.yisraelbeytenu.com/ to http://www.yisraelbeytenu.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109051628/http://arsiv.setav.org/Ups/dosya/7691.pdf to http://arsiv.setav.org/Ups/dosya/7691.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217140532/http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/news/middle-east/20080116-israel-lieberman-ultranationalist-resignation-government-olmert-opposition.php to http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/news/middle-east/20080116-israel-lieberman-ultranationalist-resignation-government-olmert-opposition.php

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) 15:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Logo
They have a new logo, the one currently being used is from the 2009 elections. Can someone please update this? It can be found on the Hebrew Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhood97 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Perception section
I believe that this section is highly outdated. Almost all of it's sources come from 2003-2009. Since then, the party has changed quite a bit, moderating and changing many of it's stances and it's rhetoric. In addition, public perception of the party HAS significantly changed since 2009. Today, many right wingers believe the party is no longer part of the "national camp", for example: https://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Netanyahu-Liberman-is-now-part-of-the-left-591074, in addition, many left leaning figures have called for cooperation for the party, for example:https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-by-boycotting-lieberman-the-purist-left-cuts-off-its-nose-to-spite-its-face-1.7503366 , this is certainly not something that the current "perception" section represents.

I propose that we cut down much of what is currently written in this section, and frame what is left as the historical perception of the party. We should mention that perception of the party has changed, and write down the more updated perception of the party. Alternatively, we could delete this section altogether and move the most relevant information to the introduction or history section, as other parties, such as the Likud, Meretz or The Jewish Home, don't have a section detailing the public perception of the party. Gibzit (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Position
I'm starting a talk section as rquested — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.231.191.203 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Labeling Yisrael Beitenu ad a Right-wing would sort this matter out, on account of the fact that it's a further right-wing and more hawkish than the Likud on the vast majority of the cases.. Centre-right to right-wing slightly distorts the political reality of Israel, predicating my statement on that most articles and assertions label Libran as a more hawkish right-winger than the Likud.. Hence, O suggest deleting the centre-right classification Oren Metser (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure; on social issues the party is definitely to the left of Likud. On what issues is it to the right? Also, ultimately it doesn't matter so much what we think, but what the sources say, and there are several sources calling it centre-right. Number   5  7  19:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, the vast majority label them as right of the Likud, not that I concur with the assertion labeling it as a far-right party,but I'd definitely suggest mentioning Yisrael Beotenu as slightly right of the Likud..Most sources have branded it as more hawkish and steadfast than the likud, hence insinuating that it's noteworthy that it is ultimately  positioned as further right to the Likud on the political spectrum.. Not only have most sources called it a firm and definite right-wing party, but there are more sources calling it a solely right-wing party,thus it'd be more factually accurate ... Oren Metser (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Today, it's deemed on the internet as a party, being considered right-wing precisely as much as the likud is.. In my opinion, this might have been deemed as controversial, based on the fact that numerous editors have reverted the Centre-right classification.. Oren Metser (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's even considered 'right wing', as opposed to just center-right, the source saying it is right wing is from 2008 and the party has gone through massive changes since then. --2A00:23C7:C081:8000:D4C5:A428:36BD:1C3C (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree the position should be just center right... The party went through massive changes and is politically closer to center parties than rightwing one's.... Even in the current coalition it's under the center-left group and not the center-right one (Government is divided into those two official factions)... The party now opposes the nation's state law, supports 2SS, LGBT rights, civil marriage and more, it's a national liberal center-right party by now, even some Israeli sources consider it centrist.... Arjona123 (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Economic liberalism
The latest economic liberalism citation is from 2010. Is it still so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.244.85 (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)