Talk:Israel/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 → Archive 40

Member in the OECD

Israel was accpted as member to the OECD and will formaly be announced as member by the end of May according to this source[2], for instance. I add this information to the lead. Information on membership in the OECD does appear in the lead of virtually all countries member in it (e.g., Greece, Canada) -and in any case, isn't immapropriate in it.--Gilisa (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I support. The official entry is 27th of May. Benjil (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Urgent reduction of reference templates

I was advised by the VP that the extensive use of reference templates in this article is behind the lagging that at least part of the readers experiencing when they try to read the article. I suggest we would cite at least part of the references (including these that are already in the article) without using reference tamplates and removing templates we agree are unnecessary until the lag problem is solved.--Gilisa (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. Proper citation formatting is required for FA status, and I had to do a whole lot of work to get us to our current well-formatted state. Would anyone mind if we don't use these things? It would make changing the format much harder. okedem (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, it became clear that this template is behind the problem and we surely don't want readers to skip this FA because it just get stuck. I agree however that the FA status is important by itself and that we don't want to loose it. I suggest we would start with removing the number of citations. Many of the statements are cited more than once, let's reduce the number to one and save these we removed in an archive or something. We should also remove unnecessary templates. The purpose is to improve the article and not to degrade its quality and I'm sure that we can keep it FA without keeping the lag problem, we have no other option. So, what you think?--Gilisa (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
We can trim down a few sources, but I doubt that would help too much.
Reading Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates and tools, it seems the templates are not required. We should just make sure we preserve the same formatting (can copy-paste from the current rendered footnote), and use plain-text refs. okedem (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced anyone should do anything. I've seen the lag problem but only intermittently. The time it takes for the page to be rendered seems to vary quite dramatically at least for me plus it's 168 kilobytes long which may be more pertinent (see WP:SIZERULE). It seems unfortunate to remove refs because a template's code is inefficient. It makes more sense for someone to try to improve the template's performance. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
But there is no rule that force one to use templates. Infect, the citation format is what matter-and not the use of specific template. Mostly, the lag is not that serious, sometimes it's. It's really a severe problem. P.s. There are many articles larger the 100 kb that are not lagged (nor divided, unless there is a good reason).--Gilisa (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)--Gilisa (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The lag problem comes and goes for me as well. I don't understand why it even exists. Can this be brought to the attention of some developers here? okedem (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a way to do that, I forgot what it's :) Do you have energy left to search in Wikipedia?--Gilisa (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Anyone knows how much KB's each template adds? --Gilisa (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

request for change in intro

in the intro it says that jerusalem is the country's capital, but not oficially recongnized as such, but that is not the case. jeruslaem is recognized as the capital of israel, though east jerusalem is not recongnized as such.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we recently had a (very) long discussion about how to present the capital issue and decided on the current wording, which represents a compromise consensus. Neither West nor East Jerusalem is recognized as Israeli territory or as a capital, but Israel has moved most of its governing organs there and the currently agreed text reflects this. --Dailycare (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

alright--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


De facto Jerusalem is under Israel full sovernity. The UN decided not to akcnowledged one of world oldest cities, ancient Jewish city, as the capital of Israel-good for it. It's still de facto the capital of Israel. The goverment is sitting there, the suprime court, everything. The present wording is poor, but it's not the fault of all of those who suggested it I guess, given the facts I can't offer a better one.--Gilisa (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Economy section

The article says

  • "Since the 1970s, Israel has received economic and military aid from the United States, whose loans account for the bulk of Israel's external debt.[1]

The source (World Factbook) says

  • "Roughly half of the government's external debt is owed to the US, its major source of economic and military aid."

This is a much better source with aid data going back to 1949

Sean.hoyland - talk 14:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical Facts at a glance

If there is an accession to EU, can we incorporate an accession to OECD into these facts?

OECD and non OECD membership is a rather important economic and social indicator. Sagi Nahor (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Shock, Horror... it's official :Israel has Nuclear weapons

Israel attempted to sell nuclear weapons to apatheid South Africa.

Here's the link...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons

I'll try and add something on this later --86.138.113.101 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god, the Guardian has a slow news day! Actually, those documents were made public years ago, and there's absolutely zero new information here. The claims are well known, and remain unsubstantiated (note phrases like "believed to refer to"). Since it seems nothing actually happened, even if the offer is true, it's of little importance here. I'm removing this; it would, perhaps, be appropriate in Nuclear weapons and Israel. okedem (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you have link where those documents were available before this publication? --Dailycare (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
All infor on it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents. Important enough to add to the page on Israel, I think. --FortEuropa 20:36, 24 May 2010 (GMT+1)

And here is an AP report that has a bit of concrete facts instead of the fluff and hearsay that we have learned to expect from the Guardian. I think you will have trouble including any indication that Israel has been proven to possess any nuclear weapons. But nice try. [3] Breein1007 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All infor on it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents. Important enough to add to the page on Israel, I think. --FortEuropa 20:36, 24 May 2010 (GMT+1)

They were previously classified documents Okedem (likely released by the ANC as a little payback)... they have not been available 'for years'. The documents clearly indicate that deals regarding nuclear weapons were being negotiated... or did you not even bother to read the article (because Peres says it's naughty). Even the Israeli president accepts that the documents indicate that the Israelis attempted to sell South Africa nuclear wepons... he attacks it on the basis that he believes it's factually innaccurate (because it wasn't signed by Israelis... why would it be? It's a South African governmental document!).

Please do a little research and thinking before dismissing these things out of hand... I believe this is a confirmation of something important in regards to Israel as a country (not exactly unspeculated)... I think it warrants inclusion in the section of this article dealing with defense and other claims of Israeli nuclear weapons.

For the time being I would be happy with it being added to the article but qualified by the statement by Peres.

Even if it only warrants a setence it still warrants inclusion.--86.138.113.101 (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OF course Breein1007... because the Guardian are a bunch of nasty leftists out to get the perfect state of Israel. Facts have a well-known left-wing bias you know? Perhaps you could try refuting the facts? Whatever you say the claim still warrants inclusion... even if it is not unqualified.--86.138.113.101 (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I stated... Peres only attacks the article on the basis that the document was not signed by Israeli officials. Why would a South African document be signed by Israeli officials?

Is it common practice in the security services for random people to unnecessarily sign confidential documents which could be damaging to them?

If you don't know the anwser to that question... it is no.--86.138.113.101 (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Peres would be outspoken on this issue considering that he was the salesman: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents--86.138.113.101 (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to go very far - see South Africa and weapons of mass destruction#Alleged Collaboration with Israel ("In 2000, Dieter Gerhardt, Soviet spy and former commander in the South African Navy, claimed that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with "special warheads" for South Africa.").
To say "three sizes [of warheads]" refers to "nuclear, chemical and biological" (instead of, say, just three sizes), is a peculiar interpretation, and certainly is not proof of anything. okedem (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Okedem Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published." There are a number of third-party verifiable mainstream sources which discuss Israel's nuclear weapons program including: Vanunu's Photos of Dimona -1985 that showcase production models of Israeli nuclear weapons cores and the manufacturing facilities, The U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu [4]; Mordechai Vanunu: The Sunday Times articles, Times Online, [5]; The BBC, Israel's Secret Weapon (Google Video) [6] (Real media) [7]; Jeffrey Richelson, Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence from Nazi Germany to Iran and North Korea (New York: Norton, 2006); Avner Cohen, The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb (Colombia University Press 2010); Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb (Colombia University Press 1998); and The George Washington University National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 189, Israel Crosses the Threshold. harlan (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you really have a reading comprehension issue, don't you? Did I claim we shouldn't mention the nuclear program? Did I attempt to delete the info we have about it now? I said nothing about this at all. I was just referring to the claim regarding an Israeli offer to sell nukes to SA, which is neither new, nor well-grounded, nor important at all. okedem (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups: Jews in Ancient Japan?

http://www.moshiach.com/tribes/japan.html

What you think? 189.106.98.202 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC) (I am de facto portuguese brazilian speaker only)

Well, considering Jesus is buried in Japan ;) RomaC (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Arimasa Kubo's writings are already mentioned here. I think you should probably read this as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC

Jewish ethnicity?

Is there such a thing as being "ethnically" Jewish? In my understanding of things, isn't Judaism a religion and not an ethnic group? Because I know there are a lot of followers of Judaism from different backgrounds (including Arabic, African, Iranian, German, Russian, etc.), so I don't think there should be a separate "make-up" (specifically the side bar stating that 75% of Israel's population is Jewish, with around 20% being Arab, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.85.40 (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

judaism is very special in the fact that it is both a nation and a religion. its like 2 for the price of 1. so yes judaism is an ethnicity. and you are also correct there are jews all over the world, but they are all ethnically jews. the point for israel was to create a home for the jewish people, not the jewish religion. so there should be a special side bar recognizing that israel is a jewish state and that 75% of israels populace are jews.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And another 4% have Jewish ancestry (the non-halakhically Jewish new immigrants mostly from the former USSR). And some Muslim Arabs may have Jewish ancestry also. Benjil (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jews are both, a religion and an ethnicity, children of Isaac's son Jacob are Jews, the Israelites / Hebrews] started to be called as Jews in the book of Esther, yet, a German that converts to Judaism is as much a Jew as an Ethiopian black Jew, Yes, some Jews have been forced to convert to Islam, like about 5,000 in Morocco, for example.Rilahag (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Another "RS" The anti-Israel bigoted: 'The Guardian,' LOL

Wow, what a "reliable source" on Israel, that same biased anti-Israel The Guardian that Promotes Apartheid Slur [8], lies [9] about this "story" as well. note the "coincidence" in a stubborn trend in promoting the "apartheid" epithet - association.Rilahag (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

controversy

With all that is going on, shouldn't there be a "controversy" section, considering that Israel has been doing and lying about things, not to mention all the video around showing Israeli settlers in places like Hebron attacking children and so forth?

99.145.123.223 (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Every country in the world has "controversies" around it, but other country articles do not have such biased sections, and so neither does this one. okedem (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a section of criticising the "obsessed-critics" of Israel. Starting with what (some-of-them) their real motives are, given their pattern of "criticism." Rilahag (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Foreign relations

The article states that the USA was the first to recognize israel followed by the USSR but cites no sources. In Montefiore's book on Stalin (Stalin: the red tsar) he claims the USSR recognized Israel first. I think either a source should be provided or the statement rephrased. Telaviv1 (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In the book "The Arab-Israeli Conflict" (second edition 2004) T.G. Fraser writes on page 43 that "The new state was proclaimed at 6 p.m. Washington time; Trumans's de facto recognition followed 11 minutes later [...] An American recognition was quickly followed by that of the Soviet Union". This of course does not rule out that a third country recognised Israel within those 11 minutes. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Canada should be included in the list of countries mentioned as having extremely strong ties with Israel. http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/05/2010527184439863164.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.169 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Demographics error on emigration

The article describes it as modest. The New York Times has reported it at 800,000. Hardly a modest number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.33.130 (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi IP! I haven't read the NYT but you may have misread the number -being professionnals they cannot make such a big mistake-, you see the present population of the whole state of Israel is 7.5 millions, 800.000 is more than 10%, sure such a massive emigration would have been noticed ! no news so far about that other than your post, check again, thanks Hope&Act3! (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel's Defence policy

Where would I add an article on Israel's national Defence policy?120.16.255.31 (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC) PS. Although I log in as Koakhtzvigad, when the window is refreshed after save, the log in is lost and only my IP address registers! Not sure why this is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.255.31 (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical Facts at a glance

Historical facts of Bulgaria present a more accurate representation of its history and the history of its population.

I have added key facts onto Israel's historical facts at a glance to reflect this more accurate history.

The question is not why is Bulgaria different.

Its why other countries haven't adopted this more accurate approach. Sagi Nahor (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. The problem is that the State of Israel is not a direct continuation of the former Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. This is not the same entity that evolved along time but a new entity created in 1948 even if the Jews that live in Israel today or more or less the same people than the Jews of the past. But this can be discussed. Benjil (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The years of the distinctly different entities are listed for nations such as France and Germany. Why is this meeting resistance with Israel? It fits within the infobox if done correctly with the "established_event#" parameter.Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for not noticing your comment Benjil. Direct succession does make it slightly different. I assume (not totally clear on it) that modern Israel links its past with the ancient kingdom. If the modern government and historians give it any play then we should too. It is clear that it is not the same thing just like it is cear that the Holy Roman Empire is not Germany.Cptnono (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
As Benjil says, this article is about the modern State of Israel not the Biblical Land of Israel. The question is not 'why other countries haven't adopted this more accurate approach', the question is why Sagi Nahor is putting Biblical history in an infobox for the modern State of Israel, describing Biblical history as 'historical facts' and referring to it as a 'more accurate representation of its history and the history of its population'. I personally find this genuinely bizarre. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

______________

Thank you all for your input.

The First Bulgarian Empire was formed in 681. This year, and this momentous event in the annals of this nation, is recorded, as it should be, in the quick-glance historical facts section of Bulgaria.

A Second Bulgarian Empire was formed in 1185. This momentous occasion, and the year in which it occurred, are likewise displayed in the key facts section of Bulgaria, as they should be.

Bulgaria lost independence in 1396. This event, and the year in which it occurred, is recorded, as it should be, in Bulgaria's key facts box.

Bulgaria lost its independence to the Ottomon Turks for almost 500 years.

After almost 500 years, Bulgaria formed an autonomous government again in 1878. This event and the year in which it occurred, is once again recorded in the key facts box of Bulgaria, as it should be, because this is accurate and vital historic information.

The Jewish people have had a continuous connection with the land of Israel since the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel.

Since this time, the Jews were either active rulers of the land of Israel, such as the Hasmoneans , or were in exile from their homeland, awaiting the time they could re-establish independence.

Key historical facts, like those pertaining to Bulgaria, should also be recorded for Israel.

Sagi Nahor (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

These are not key historical facts about the State of Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Quite right.

The point is that just as Bulgaria did not appear magically through independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1878, rather was a pre-existing national entity from centuries prior, so too Israel did not magically appear in 1948, but forms a continuous national entity from the one formed centuries prior.

Sagi Nahor (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a continuous connection of indigenous Australians going back 40,000+ years with the land of the modern state of Australia. So what ? It doesn't make it pertinent to the infobox in the Australia article. And your non-Bulgarian based POV pushing arguments 'Israel is the inheritance of Jacob, of the Jewish people. It is the will of Allah' don't make it pertinent either. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
And I have reverted. So that is the third revert of this material by three different editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

__________________

Should the Australian Aboriginals gain independence from the Commonwealth, they would most definitely have dates in their key facts box relating to their original establishment, their period of self-rule, period of foreign rule, and period of renewed independence. This is in part what has happened with Israel. Surely you can see how this is a more factual representation of the history of the land and its people? With this in mind - ie more factual representation - I revert back to the more factual representation, unless, Sean, you have no interest in relaying factual history? As I've said earlier, any nation that can provide strong evidence of continuation from a previous kingdom should do so, as it provides ... a more factual representation of its history. With regards to my comment on fatima's page, I talk to different people in the language they understand. Sagi Nahor (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at France and Germany, some of this could be open to interpretation. Is Germany a straight continuation of the Holy Roman Empire? Does France date specifically from the baptism of Clovis? (Although there could be a French state largely continuously from around this time.) It could be a quagmire trying to deal with alleged continuity of countries over that length of time e.g. does modern Italy have some continuity with the Roman Empire? PatGallacher (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

All these comparisons are completely irrelevant. This article is about the State of Israel which was founded in 1948. If somebody wants to throw in Herzl or the Zionist Congress of the late 1800s, fine. Anything else doesn't belong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Well no. The article is about Israel which can encompass the State of Israel but also the land and the people of Israel. The article deals with the past and the former kingdoms. We are here debating about an info box. Benjil (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

After seeing the actual edit and reading this section, I thought this was one of the worst ideas I've seen on WP. But I've looked around at number of country articles and many are worse than this. Portugal starts with the County of Portugal, Iran ties the modern state to the Median Empire, the Czech Rep. to ninth century Bohemian principality, etc. Lithuania starts off with the "First mention of Lithuania" in 1009 and follows while Poland starts off with "Christianisation" (966). Japan was the worst I saw, starting with the mythical National Foundation Day, from the (semi?)mythical reign of Emperor Jimmu which that infobox dates to Feb. 11, 660 BC. This seems like a very bad idea to me but it isn't Sagi's bad idea. Just another infobox problem with editors trying to cram nuanced information into single-word categories. Somebody should probably fix that.

That said, the circa 1050 BC founding is mythological and shouldn't be included even by the loose standards of those other articles. Even the Japanese example I mentioned links to the celebration of the mythological founding without swallowing it whole. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The history of ISrael is not just about a piece of territory but also about the Jewish people, as such the history needs to have two seperate threads. This is unusual and one of the things that makes it different from other countries. I think the expulsion from Spain and the holocaust may deserve a larger mention - definitely the Holocaust - but I also think the history should be kept short. Perhaps the stuff on Zionism should be made shorter. Do people really need to know about each 'aliya'? Telaviv1 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"The modern State of Israel has its historical and religious roots in the Biblical Land of Israel, also known as Zion, a concept central to Judaism since ancient times"


Thankfully, this sentence displays prominently in the introduction of the article.


Why not continue this factual representation into the key?


I refer you also to the country of Portugal where its key facts box reflects a more accurate picture of its past.


The Jewish nation did not appear out of thin air in 1948. 

             Why not provide more key information regarding its roots?


I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia made for furthering people's knowledge.


Maybe I was mistaken.

Sagi Nahor (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC) ___

Jews' roots in/to Israel, general-historic and religious

It (Jews' roots in Israel) is both: 1) Historic AND 2) religious/Biblical = central to Judea-Christians (and to some Muslim scholars like Sheik Palazzi who areb not afraid to talk about Zionism, Jews (Bani-Israel) & the land of Israel in Muhammad's book the Koran.). Here's a publicized example of continuous Jewish presence for 2,000 Years.[10] Here's in general about it [11]Rilahag (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The state of Israel is connected to Kingdom of Judah, which all Jewish are part of the 2 last tribes. The 10 tribes have disapeared. So if there is kingdom which is connected to, its the kingdom of juda and not kigdom of Israel, although the name is confusing. --Sipio (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous

I feel sad the only mention of the word "indigenous" has to do with a satellite. Jews are indigenous to Judea, right? AThousandYoung (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The barrier

The West Bank wall is not built "for the most part" within the West Bank. It is built entirely in the West Bank. Even those sections of the wall that follow the 1967 Green Line are on the Palestinian side of that line. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The UN says ~85% when it's completed. "When completed, the majority of the route, approximately 85%, will run inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem rather than along the 1949 Armistice Line (Green Line). The total area located between the Barrier and the Green Line amounts to 9.5% of the West Bank including East Jerusalem and No Man’s Land (See Barrier Facts and Figures, p. 8)" OCHA, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Five Years after the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, A Summary of the Humanitarian Impact of the Barrier, July 2009 Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Golan

@Supreme Deliciousness I guess you've got a short memory span but you still can read, can't you? so I refer you to the above section 'incorrect statement' (hope your condition will improve rapidly), stop pushing it can be construed as vandalism, all the relevant data concerning the political aspects are in the Golan article as I'm sure you already know, take care, Hope&Act3! (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing good will come from this kind of comment. I suggest you remove it or move it to Supreme Deliciousness's talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Since you seem to be friends you can explain her/him that it is unadvised to sneak back and delete anything as a rule and this specific item in this article specially after such a lenghty dicussion which told her/him not to, have a good day both of you,Hope&Act3! (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
See my previous comment. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First district is Jerusalem

Someone has decided to edit the districts table "by the map", although the map is wrong. Jerusalem district is counted as the first district just like most of the capital districts in the world (for example Beirut Governorate is the first Governorate and north is the next). I have made this table by myself and I know very well how the division in Israel is. Despite those reasons, I dont get "permission" by the viewer for this edit, for unknown reasons. --Sipio (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean this revert? I assume that was a mistake or at least it's not clear to me either what was wrong with the re-ordering. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes it was me, I was in my laptop so I didn't sight that I was log off with my account. Seems like the viewer just reverted my edit with no any explanation or reasons. --Sipio (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

'Foreign relations' section

The 'Foreign relations' section counts Turkey as one of the nations with whom Israeli relations is strongest. Really? Maybe Wikipedians should try living on Planet Earth for a change, because they are only causing embarassment to themselves, and evoking ridicule and derision. Either that, or Wikipedia is deliberately lying to promote its own agenda, whatever that may be.
If anything can be gleaned from the events of the last few years, it is that Turkey has among the strongest relations with Israel's enemies. In fact, it behaves like a enemy of Israel. At the very least, take Turkey off the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to be nasty. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
No way should Turkey appear as a "friend" of Israel. 86.176.105.58 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading graph under Demographics section

Under the section Demographics there is a graph describing population distribution in Israel (Jews/Arabs/Druze/Others).

At a first glance, it appears that there is a trend towards equal distribution between Jews and Arabs in the last decade.

However, when looking closely at the graph, it is revealed that the Y-Axis intercepts with the X-Axis at 60% and not at 0% as expected, thus creating a misrepresentation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.2.25 (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it's pretty confusing, I think the graph should start from 0% to 100%, otherwise it's juts confusing and uncelar. I'll edit it for the full graph. --Sipio (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

i also think the graph is misleading. --Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that the graph has been changed but still the true misleading thing about it was not corrected - it aggregates together Christians (Arabs and others) and people without religion who are mostly immigrants from the former USSR who are not halakhically Jewish but many see themselves as Jews and they are part of the secular Jewish population. It gives a false impression about the decline of the Jewish population. This has to be changed. Benjil (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
So fix it, if you have sources. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Participation of Lebanese army in May 15 invasion

According to this edit the Lebanese army "attacked Israel" on May 15:

On May 14, 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, the Jewish Agency proclaimed independence, naming the country Israel.[1] The following day, the armies of five Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq—attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War;

However, this does not appear to be the case: On page 258 in his book "1948" Benny Morris writes:

But at the last moment, Lebanon [...] opted out of the invasion.

I suggest this to be reverted. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Morris is referring to, but Lebanese and Israeli forces fought each other on May 15 in al-Malikiyya. okedem (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
According to Morris the forces in al-Malikiyya were ALA supported by Lebanese artillery. So they attacked, by didn't invade. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Read Morris for yourself: [12] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you get a preview? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please double-check the page numbers cited in the article (page 50 in Karsh, The Arab–Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948; page 1058 in Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People). It appears to be on page 11 in Karsh, and I can't find the information in Ben-Sasson, but I'm using Google Books. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You can find the information on multiple pages in Karsh, including the ones I cited. Ben Sasson p.1058 (referring to the night between May 14 and 15): "On the following night five Arab armies simultaneously invaded Israel. ...The Lebanese did not cross the border at Rosh Hanikra, but entered Malkiyyah and Kadesh-Naphtali." okedem (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The Arab armies entered Palestine, but that was not necessarily Israeli territory. According to the report made by the Government of Israel to the Security Council on 18 May 1948, Jordan did not invade the territory of the Jewish state and Lebanon had fired its artillery at settlements in northern Galilee from across the frontier. See UN Doc. S/766 22 May 1948 and also "Doubting the Yishuv-Hashemite Agreement" starting on page 7 of the .pdf file of "Refabricating 1948", by Benny Morris, Journal of Palestine Studies [13]
Declassified public records in the Israeli, British, and US state archives also say that the Israeli militias had been conducting full time offensive operations beyond the borders of the Jewish state for several weeks by 15 May:
  • In March of 1948, Presidential Advisor Clark Clifford wrote a memo to President Truman advising that the United States should take the initiative in branding the Arab states as aggressors and move in the Security Council that Arab action constitutes a threat to peace. See American Zionism: Mission and Politics, Jeffrey S. Gurock, ISBN 0415919339 Taylor & Francis, 1998, page 17 [14]
  • Internal US State Department memos reported on Israeli militia operations and predicted that the Arab armies would enter Palestine. They said the UN would be confronted by a very anomalous and intolerable situation: "The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the SC in scarcely ten days' time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.
    The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack. ... Given this almost intolerable situation, the wisest course of action might be for the United States and Great Britain, with the assistance of France, to undertake immediate diplomatic action seeking to work out a modus vivendi between Abdullah of Transjordan and the Jewish Agency. This modus vivendi would call for, in effect, a de facto partition of Palestine along the lines traced by Sir Arthur Creech Jones in his remark to Ambassador Parodi on May 2, as indicated on Page 3 of USUN's telegram [549], May 2, which has been drawn to your attention. See Memo from Rusk to the Under Secretary of State Lovett, May 4, 1948, Subject: Future Course of Events in Palestine. Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848 -- cited in "The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951", William Roger Louis, Oxford University Press, 1984, ISBN: 0198229607, page 545; Zionism and the Palestinians, Simha Flapan, Croom Helm, 1979, ISBN: 0856644994, Page 336; and Fallen pillars: U.S. policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, Donald Neff, 2nd Edition, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, ISBN: 0887282598, page 65.
  • On 9 May UN Representative Austin advised the US Secretary of State that the French representative, Mr. Parodi, had called a meeting of the British, Belgian, and American, representatives to discuss the situation regarding possible action which the Security Council might be called upon to take following May 15. He said that as of May 15 they would be faced by declarations two states of Palestine coupled with the entrance of Abdullah. Regarding the latter, two ideas were current. The first is that if Abdullah moved beyond his own frontier it might constitute an "act of aggression". The second idea was that if he entered on invitation of the Arab population of Palestine his act might not constitute aggression. Parodi said he was inclined to the second theory and thought a conclusion to that effect would avoid endless argument. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948, Volume V, Part 2, page 946. harlan (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Long and irrelevant, as usual. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The fact that reliable published sources say that Jordan never invaded Israel and that the Arabs were launching a counter-attack is certainly NOT irrelevant. It is a significant published viewpoint that isn't reflected in the content of the many Wikipedia articles on the subject. There have already been discussions about the Benny Morris article under "Multiple articles - the founding myths of Israel" at I/PCOLL and during an RfC at the United Nations Partition Plan article. [15]. There has also been a discussion about the FRUS memos at the State of Palestine article [16] and the UN Partition Plan article [17] I suggest we add this material to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article as an opposing viewpoint to the existing narrative and put a sync tag on the other articles, like this one, with the information about the invasion of Israel by the five Arab armies. harlan (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You are playing fast and loose both with wikipedia policy and your sources, as per usual.
Your first source talks about reports from April, unless Cunnigham was clairvoyant, how are these relevant to whether or not Arab states attacked Israel in May?
Your second source is from March. How is it relevant to whether or not Arab states attacked Israel in May?
Your third source is the opinion of Dean Rusk which you try to pretend is the opinion of the US by attributing it to FRUS. We've been over this little favorite trick of yours at least on half a dozen articles. Quoting extensively from primary sources in an attempt to lead the reader to the conclusions we want is not the way we do things around here.
Your last source is again from before May 15th and at best can be described as the French not minding if Abdallah invades. Not relevant to the issue at hand. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
NMMNG the published secondary sources that I cited above answer those questions. I cannot be "playing fast and loose" by quoting reliable secondary sources. The Rusk memo is self-explanatory. Morris, Louis, Flapan, Gurock, and Neff explain why the various governments predicted that the Arab states were going to counter-attack. By May 15th, there were already thousands of Palestinian refugees in all of the neighboring countries saying that Jewish militias had either threatened, attacked, or destroyed villages like Deir Yassin. Morris relates that UK Foreign Minister Bevin had long-since given the okay for the British-subsidized Arab Legion to occupy the territory allocated to the Arab state after the British withdrawal. That was done in response to the many requests that Transjordan had received from Palestinians asking for protection.
The Foreign Relations of the United States is the official documentary historical record of major US foreign policy decisions. The Office of the Historian selects the documents on US policy that appear in the series. Dean Rusk was the Under-Secretary of State who managed United Nations Affairs, including votes in the Security Council. I think that you already know that Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris, Eugene L. Rogan, David Tal, and dozens of other historians have written about the many declassified documents in the relevant state archives which say that the US, the UK, France, and other governments did not object to the actions taken by Transjordan.
The government of Jordan actually cited the works of Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, and Ilan Pappé as evidence in its written statement to the Court in the 2004 ICJ Wall case. It noted that the declassified documents cited by those authors regarding Plan Dalet and etc. are now a matter of public record. The cited works also discussed the modus vivendi agreement with Abdullah. See Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and in particular Annex 1, "ORIGINS AND EARLY PHASES OF ISRAEL'S POLICY OF EXPULSION AND DISPLACEMENT OF PALESTINIANS [18]
Frederico1234, the article does not say Israel was invaded, it says Israel was attacked. I'm suggesting that it include the very relevant published viewpoints of the French, British, and US government officials who said the Arab states counter-attacked in response to Jewish armed attacks on Arab communities in Palestine. harlan (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the claim that Jordan attacked Israel is false. But still, it is a topic for another discussion. Creating a new section for that discussion would be a good idea. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You know how things work here. You can't provide a source that doesn't specifically say something and interpret it to say what you want. That's called WP:OR. All of the sources you provided above are about things that happened before the attack by the Arab states. Your OR that these things support the position you want to put in the article is just that, OR.
As I said above, you are playing fast and loose both with your sources and with wikipedia policy. You're doing it on purpose, too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
NMMNG on page 65 of Fallen Pillars Donald Neff says that "The immediate result of Israel's declaration of a Jewish state in defiance of the Arab majority was the entry on 15 May of army units from the Arab countries. He says:
  • "The Arab troops invaded in order to prevent Israeli forces from continuing their conquest of Arab land beyond the UN partition plan."
  • "The US State Department had predicted such an intervention less than two weeks before the British withdrawal."
  • He then quotes the Rusk memo cited above and says "Indeed, that was precisely what happened".
I believe you know the rules, and that material is certainly is NOT WP:OR. Frederico1234: at the moment, this article does not characterize it as an "invasion". It says Israel was attacked by five Arab armies. We are discussing the view of many that it was a counter-attack by the Arab armies. We have already established that Lebanon did not invade, but only fired artillery shells across the frontier. They were assisting the village of al-Malikiyya. harlan (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your new source doesn't say "counter-attack" either. They attacked. This is a fact. Why they attacked is another issue which is outside the scope of this article. There were several reasons given by the Arabs for their attack, which should be discussed in full in the appropriate article. For this article it's enough to note that the vast majority of RS specifically say that several Arab countries attacked Israel on May 15th.
You should stop trying to make the reader come to the conclusions you want by selectively using sources that don't quite say what you're claiming they say. As I mentioned above, that's WP:OR. I'm sure you know this by now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Neff is not a new source. I explained in my original post that he, Flapan and Louis each cited the Rusk memo in their books. He very definitely does say counter-attack:

In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.[44]
Indeed, that was precisely what happened."

You've made a regular habit of assuming bad faith and arguing about the content of sources without actually bothering to read them. I suggest you drop the matter. harlan (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty difficult to assume good faith when you provide a source that says Jewish broadcasts were like Nazi broadcasts and claim this supports the idea that the Arab states didn't attack Israel.
I will certainly not drop the subject. The vast majority of sources say that the Arab states attacked Israel. I think we both know this is a fact. The discussion of the minority views should go into the main article about the 1948 war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of published sources that compared the military operation against Deir Yassin, the pamphlets, and broadcasts of the Irgun, and the Herut party to the Nazis. Here for example is the Einstein, Arendt, et al letter to the New York Times which does exactly that: [19] Wikipedia policy is to let the published sources speak for themselves. The vast majority of sources were published before the official minutes of the Knesset cabinet meetings from May 1948 through April 1949 were opened for public inspection (in March of 1995). They were also published before all of the US, UK, and French archival records were published. Those viewpoints were not in the minority or insignificant. harlan (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Please only discuss the question of Lebanese army involvement in May 15 invasion. Thanks. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and make a change which I think is in line with what has been discussed here. Please let me know what you think. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. This was just a WP:WEASEL worded way to say "attacked". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. The current version of the text is divided into two parts. The first part lists the major Arab belligerents and the second the minor ones:

The following day, the armies of five Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq—attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War; [75][76] Saudi Arabia sent a military contingent to operate under Egyptian command; Yemen declared war but did not take military action.[77]

Based on Morris, I think it's fair to say Lebanon belongs to the second category. Quoting Morris:

Lebanon decided to deploy its army defensively. But to cover itself politically, in the inter-Arab arena, it also agreed to serve as a base for a small ALA "invasion" of Palestine and to provide that force with covering artillery fire, a handful of armored cars, "volunteers," and logistical support.

and later (HIS=Haganah Intelligence Service)

But the HIS had it right; one agent later reported that "the Lebanese army ... did not join the invasion

The current text leads the reader to believe that Lebanon was one of the major Arab belligerents when in fact it was not. Moving Lebanon to the second sentence gives the reader a more truthful picture. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it's clear (including from Morris) that the Lebanese military attacked Israel. In the two other cases, either there was no participation at all in the case of Yemen, or a contingent fighting under some other state's military hierarchy like SA. I agree that Lebanon's part was relatively minor, but they did attack. The place to go into detail about this, again, is the article about the 1948 war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Frederico1234, NMMNG says that Morris never mentioned Lebanon's aggressive actions. Morris did mention that, under Plan D, the Yishuv was engaged in a war of conquest weeks before 15 May. The Rusk memo cited Consul Wasson's telegram about the Deir Yassin massacre and the seige of Jaffa. Wasson mentioned that Irgun had started the operation against Jaffa, but that the Haganah had taken over the operation. Neff, Flapan, and Louis explained that the members of the Security Council found that situation intolerable and did not view the entry of the Arab armies as an act of aggression. They viewed it as a counter-attack.
Victor Kattan wrote that the United Nations Security Council never condemned the Arab intervention as an act of aggression. He cited Sir John Bagot Glubb's memoirs:

Yet although the British Army insisted on the withdrawal of the Arab Legion, war had already been in progress in Palestine for several weeks. The Jewish forces were already well across the United Nations partition line and were in occupation of considerable areas allotted to the Arabs, even while British troops were in nominal control.

Kattan also cited Benny Morris:

If there were any aggressors in 1948, it was the Yisbuv (the Jewish-settler community in Palestine) which initiated a large-scale assault on that part of Palestine which had been allotted to the Arabs in the UN Partition Plan six weeks prior to its declaration of independence. In the words of Benny Morris: 'During the first half of April [1948], the Yishuv had gone over to the offensive and was engaged in a war of conquest. That war of conquest was prefigured in Plan D. Moreover, had Transjordan's Arab Legion not come to Palestine's defence on 15 May 1948, Israel could quite easily have gone on to conquer the remainder of it. -- See Victor Kattan, "From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1891-1949", Pluto Press, 2009, ISBN: 0745325785, page 176

David Ben Gurion noted that the Security Council had not taken any action in response to the Arab intervention

"The United Nations wiped out the credit due to it for its decision on November 29, 1947, on May 15, 1948. If the UN had been worthy of its name it should have defended its honour when certain countries tried to destroy the people of Israel in its Land. But there was not a single state -not even the United States or the Soviet Union- that lifted a finger on the 15th of May." -- See Michael Brecher, The Foreign Policy System of Israel, Yale UP, 1972, ISBN 019215186X, page 257

The general sanctions say that Wikipedia aims to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the issues and the positions of all the interested parties. We need to add this material to the 1948 article and apply a {{sync}} tag to articles, like this one, which supply a one-sided viewpoint. harlan (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed this article is under general sanctions. Please keep that in mind when you continue to flood this talk page with irrelevant information. We do not need to add material just because you think it will lead the reader to the conclusions you want about what happened. That the civil war in Mandate Palestine was going on for months prior to 15 May is not in dispute. That this changes what the Arab states did from "attack" to something else is your personal OR. They announced they were going to attack for weeks prior for crying out loud. Stop trying to massage the facts and terminology to fit your POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
NMMNG, it is not irrelevant to point out that Transjordan did not attack Israel on 15 May 1948. Do you have any sources which pinpoint the location of the alleged "attack"? Glubb, and many other sources, have written that the British had not been able to maintain public order in Palestine during disturbances with a force of nearly 100,000 (which included the Arab Legion garrisons in Ramallah and Gaza). Glubb explained that it was beyond the capacities of the 5,000 man Arab Legion, with no heavy artillery or air force, to defend an area the size of Arab Palestine. During discussions with Glubb and the Prime Minister of Tranjordan in the spring of 1948, British Foreign Minister Bevin okayed the occupation of the proposed Arab state, but had forbidden the use of the British-supplied and led Arab Legion in the territory of the proposed Jewish state. Glubb had explained then that the Arab Legion could not occupy the areas of Gaza or the northern Galilee that had been allocated to the Arabs. See Sir John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier With The Arabs, Harper, 1957, pages 62-63
The authors that I've cited wrote that the Rusk memo, and other FRUS documents, say the Jewish Agency had been declining offers of a truce for several weeks prior to the 15 May declaration. A truce would have ended their on-going Plan D operations. For example, during an 8 May meeting of Shertok and Epstein with US Secretary of State Marshall, Lovett and Rusk, Shertok turned down a truce proposal. He also reported that it was not part of Abdullah's designs to attack the Jewish state. He read a cable which said Brigadier Glubb's assistant, Colonel Desmond Goldie, had made contact with Shlomo Shamir of the Haganah in order to coordinate their respective military plans in order to avoid any clashes. Goldie made it clear that the Arab Legion had no desire to attack the Jews and that the Legion wanted very much to stay in contact with the Jewish forces. See Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel, Pantheon, 1987, ISBN:039455588X, page 178. Flapan cited "Political and Diplomatic Documents of the Central Zionist Archives and Israeli State Archives: December 1947-May 1948" (Jerusalem 1979), Document 483, pages 757-69. The same meeting and cable are documented in "Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Volume V, Part 2, page 940.
According to Benny Morris

At no point in May, or thereafter, did the Arab Legion attack the Jewish state's territory. See page 9 of 15 in the .pdf file of "Refabricating 1948", by Benny Morris, Journal of Palestine Studies [20]

I have been quoting reliable mainstream sources like Morris, Neff, Flapan, Louis, Kattan, et. al. on the subject verbatim. In many cases they are discussing declassified official records from the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series, Documents on British Foreign Policy (DBFP) series, Documents on Foreign Policy of Israel (DFPI) series, and etc. which speak for themselves. I am sure you know that the ARBCOM sanctions were imposed in the first instance so that users would not have to "flood" talk pages with good faith discussions in order to include published historical viewpoints from high quality mainstream sources. I am suggesting that the views of all the interested parties be included per the guidance from ARBCOM and have NOT suggested that Israeli viewpoints be removed from articles. As for your repeated comments about massaging the facts, that appears to be a classic case of psychological projection. I suggest you drop the matter. harlan (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain how that Ben Gurion quote you posted in your message before last is relevant? Or maybe that thing about Nazi propaganda?
You post screenfulls of stuff, most of which is not directly relevant to the issue at hand. For example the stuff about the truce offer you're talking about above. Lets say it's all true. So what? Does it mean the Arab states didn't attack? Of course not. We know the Arab states attacked because practically every single source says they did. That is what's relevant to this article. That Flapan thinks Ben Gurion and Abdallah were in cahoots can go into the 1948 war article, where we can also quote Karsh demolishing that argument. It is not relevant here. That's what main articles are for.
And let me assure you once again that I will not be dropping the matter. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Victor Kattan explained that the UN Security Council did not condemn the Arab intervention as an act of aggression. Donald Neff noted that Rusk predicted Israel would complain to the Security Council, and that indeed, is exactly what had happened. The Ben Gurion quote says that the UN chose to do nothing about the Arab intervention. The New York Times article compares the Irgun's methods to the Nazi and Fascist parties and cites the terrorist attack on the village of Deir Yassin as an example. It is a matter of public record that on 16 May 1948 Abdullah cabled the Secretary-General of the United Nations and said "Secretary-General we were compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin." See Press Release PAL/167, 16 May 1948.[21] The U.S. State Department does not mention Simha Flapan in its official historical accounts, but on 9 May 1948 Secretary Marshall told the Consulate General in Jerusalem that the previous day Shertok had rejected the truce proposal and had plainly reflected the view that the Jewish Agency was planning to arrange the partition of Palestine between the Jews and Abdullah. Many authors including Flapan, Morris, Shlaim, et. al. have written about "Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Volume V, Part 2, page 944-45. harlan (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
And again I ask, so what if the Security Council did not condemn the Arab countries?
So what if Abdullah said he was "compelled to enter"? Is that not an attack? Did someone attack Jordan before he moved in?
So what if Flapan, Morris and Shlaim think the Jewish Agency and Abdullah had a deal? I'm sure you're aware that Karsh and others specifically address this theory. And even if it were true, did Abdullah not commence to ethnically cleanse every Jew from the areas he annexed, not all of them part of Arab Palestine according to the Partition Plan? Would you like it better if that's what this article said rather than Jordan attacked? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see new section below. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) NMMNG, we've already been discussing the Morris paper which discusses the subject of population transfer. Entire volumes have been written on the topic, e.g. Baksheesh Diplomacy: Secret Negotiations between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of World War II, by Rafael Medoff. Simha Flapan's Birth of Israel, page 177 mentions a FRUS memo written on 4 May 1948 during the Second Emergency Session of the General Assembly on the Question of Palestine:

John E. Hor­ner, adviser to the delegation at the UN, supported Abdallah's annex­ation of the Arab part of Palestine and saw it as "compatible with the UN resolution." It was acceptable to the Jews, eliminated the mufti, and accorded with "the inescapable fact" that the Jewish state already existed. He reported that his viewpoint was shared by [Rabbi] Silver, who had also suggested adding a population transfer to the scheme.

Rabbi Silver said an agreement could be made directly between the Jewish Agency and Abdullah for Transjordan forces to occupy the part of Palestine set aside as an Arab state. Horner wrote that the exchange of population between Transjordan and the Zionist state should take place with generous US and UNO financial assistance for resettlement. See "Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Volume V, Part 2, pages 900-01 According to Yisrael Medad, for several years, Israeli citizens were considered candidates for UNRWA care. These were the Jews who became refugees after Arab forces overran Jerusalem’s Old City and smaller agricultural communities such as Atarot, Neveh Yaakov, Bet Ha’arava, and the four Gush Etzion kibbutzim. According to B. Scott Custer Jr., chief of the international law division of UNRWA 17,000 “internally displaced Jews coming from original mandate Palestine who resided in Israel were provided support from the UNRWA. In July 1952, Israel assumed responsibility for 19,000 “refugees,” which included 3,000 Jews, and UNRWA ceased its operations inside Israel. See Azure Online [22]

The fundamental Wikipedia policies of "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability" and "No original research" determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. I think I've always made it clear that I have no problem including well-sourced material that represents the views of all the interested parties. harlan (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not every bit of information that is NPOV, and V should go into every article it is tangentially related to. There are several guidelines that cover that sort of thing too, as I'm sure you're aware. For example, in this article we do not need 3 paragraphs detailing all the views on whether or not the Jewish Agency and Abdullah had a deal. That would be WP:UNDUE, would make the article WP:TOOLONG and would probably require WP:SPLITTING. WP:Main article fixation is also relevant here, I think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:Main article fixation is an essay. It cannot be employed to violate core WP:NPOV policy or the ARBCOM sanctions which require that the views of all the interested parties be fairly represented. I have suggested that this material be added to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article and that Template:Sync be applied so that its contents can be adequately summarized in other articles. There is already a problem in that Plan Dalet and 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine are not adequately summarized here. In this case it certainly is a violation of the neutral point of view to head-off inclusion of a specific POV on a controversial subject, while retaining the opposing POV in the body of the main article.
The majority of editors and authors of modern textbooks and bestsellers, which deal with the creation of the State of Israel, include material on the subject of the understanding or agreement with King Abdullah regarding the occupation of the West Bank. Scholars on both sides of the divide have devoted entire volumes to the subject, e.g. Shlaim's "Collusion Across the Jordan" and Karsh's "Fabricating Israeli History". The issue of notability or undue weight simply do not arise. harlan (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to have to repeat myself. In this article, several paragraphs about an understanding with Abdullah would be UNDUE. This is a top level article about Israel. It simply can't go into this much detail about every little thing. That's what other articles are for.
Putting a sync template in a place where the alleged sync problem will never be fixed sounds a bit disruptive to me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to repeat yourself. I'll just go ahead and add the material above and edit the articles. If you think the article needs to be split-up, start an RfC or just do it. harlan (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't need to be split, there's an apropriate article for this information already.
Perhaps you should try to gain some consensus before adding information you know there's a good chance is going to be challenged. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
First you complained that I was flooding the talk page. Now you suggest that I try again to obtain consensus before I edit. The policy on consensus actually says that it is achieved through the editing process. The policy contained in the general sanctions requires the inclusion of the views of all the interested parties. It stressed the fundamental WP:NPOV policy that requires inclusion of all significant published viewpoints. Those particular policies are non-negotiable. No one is suggesting that the existing viewpoint(s) be removed, only that these others be added. The policy on including material that is likely to be challenged simply advises to provide inline citations. I've been supplying the sources here that I intend to include. There is also guidance from ARBCOM that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. harlan (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Jordan attacked Israel in 1948

I propose the following sentence in the article to be changed (changed text bolded):

The following day, the armies of five Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq—attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War

to this:

The following day, the armies of five Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq—invaded the former Mandate, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War

See previous discussions. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we have already established that Lebanon attacked but did not invade.
I don't mind splitting Jordan out of the five, if we note that they attacked Jewish communities protected by Israeli forces in the parts of the former Mandate not under Israeli control. Note that the Legion didn't invade, it was already there (they took the Etzion Bloc on the 13th, for example). The other four attacked Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds acceptable to me. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
On 14 May, the Yishuv said Israel had been established within the boundaries contained in the UN resolution. The article cites David Tal who says only two states, Syria and Egypt, actually entered the territory of Israel. The Arab Higher Committee said it solicited the assistance of the following Arab countries: Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Trans-Jordan, in order to reinstate peace and order in Palestine. [23] So, Saudi-Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and Transjordan didn't invade Palestine. While Israel said it was protecting outlying Jewish settlements in the Arab state, Egypt said it was protecting Arab villages from Jewish terror groups.[24]
The inhabitants of Kfar Etzion were armed combatants who had been attacking trucks and convoys on the nearby road since April in support of Operation Jebussi. The Arab Legion had regular company garrisons in Gaza and Rafah that were part of the Mandatory forces in Palestine. They were directed by their British superiors to remove the Legion's supplies from warehouses in the Canal Zone and withdraw to Amman before 15 May. That's what they were doing when they were attacked by the residents of Kfar Etzion. See pages 77-78 of John Bagot Glubb's, A Soldier With the Arabs. harlan (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Glub is not exactly a neutral observer. I'm not surprised he has some kind of excuse for why his troops slaughtered everyone at Kfar Etzion. It's not really relevant here, so I won't provide one of the multitude of sources that document what the Arab Legion did there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:SOAP. Even accounts that favor the Zionist viewpoint support Glubb's account, e.g. Collins and Lapierre's, O Jerusalem!. It reports that the Arab Legion protected the Kfar Etzion prisoners and saved them from the local irregulars who were inflamed by the recent events at Deir Yassin (pages 363-64 and 386-7).
O Jerusalem! also says that when thousands of refugees were pouring out of Palestine, Abdullah told the Arab leaders that before plunging into war, they should stop shooting at the Jews and demand an explanation to see what possibilities were offered (page 310); that Col. Goldie of the Arab Legion met Shlomo Shamir and offered to divide Palestine according to the partition plan and to avoid any clashes (page 312); that Goldie had indicated the Legion would be executing an agreement between Ernest Bevin and Prime Minister Abou Hoda page (341); that the settlers of Kfar Etzion had been assigned the military task of harassing Arab traffic between Jerusalem and Hebron on April 12th and that they were subsequently ordered to cut the road on April 30th (page 347); That both Arab Legion and British mandatory forces took part in the initial May 4th attack on Kfar Etzion(page 347); that Ben Gurion was awaiting a massive arms shipment when he turned down Secretary Marshall's truce proposal(page 355); and that the borders of the state that Ben Gurion was proclaiming were not the result of the UN decision, but rather the result of that would come out of the war (page 356). Glubb observed "The Jewish forces were already well across the United Nations partition line and were in occupation of considerable areas allotted to the Arabs, even while British troops were in nominal control." harlan (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, not that any of this is relevant to this article, but Morris in 1948 says the Legion participated in the massacre, although a couple of officers protected the three survivors (out of over 100), that the attack on 4 May was carried out by the Legion ("perhaps supported by a few British tanks and armored cars") and that Abdullah Tall claimed he initiated the 12 May attack without Glub's authorization but that that's unlikely. Karsh says that there was no agreement between Bevin and Abu Hoda, etc, etc.
I believe you are aware of this, so perhaps it is you who should read WP:SOAP as well as WP:NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Karsh has never written a book or journal article that mentions the Rusk, Lovett, Horner, or Marshall memos from the FRUS series. The Morris journal article cited above also mentions that Karsh does not discuss the documentary evidence (page 87 and 93). According to Morris, a Cabinet Minute by Burrows, 9 February 1948, PRO FO 371-68368/E2696 says that Bevin discussed the agreement with Prime Minister Abou Hoda and said it was alright to discuss it with the US State Department. Morris also quotes a cable, Foreign office (Bevin) to Amman (Kirkbride), 11 February 1948, PRO FO 371-68818/E1788 in which the details of the agreement were discussed.
I've never read any account, including those authored by Morris, which said there was evidence that Glubb ordered a massacre. Collins and Lapierre's account say the photographer and machine gunner were Arab irregulars (page 363). Morris does not actually describe any of the participants in the atrocities as Legionnaires. In fact, he does not attribute any specific act to a Legionnaire. He certainly does imply that an unspecified number were involved when he says "Not all the Legionnaires participated in the massacre.", but he did not mention any direct evidence which implicated any Legionnaire (page 170).
According to Ami Isseroff, the Gush was under orders from the Haganah to interfere with the supply of the Legion by firing on the road. They certainly were not trying to avoid clashes. Isseroff says some survivors claimed Legion soldiers were not involved, while others insisted that they were. [25] Morris mentions that some of the defenders were unaware of the surrender and continued firing. The IDF Historian interviewed a Legion officer who said that there was no organized surrender. He said that after some of the defenders had surrendered, the others continued to fire at the Arabs - and that the Legion continued to experience casualties while guarding prisoners. Isseroff said the prisoners "were photographed by someone" and says "an armored car, apparently belonging to the Legion, approached and opened fire". He says all accounts agree that Legion officers rescued several survivors. harlan (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Well bravo to the Legion for protecting the three (3!) people who survived out of over 100. And bravo to you for trying to minimize their participation in a massacre. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You haven't cited a single source yet that describes any Legion participation in a massacre, although you implied you could "provide one of the multitude of sources that document what the Arab Legion did there." The Legion transported approximately 320 survivors from the Etzion block to POW camps in Jordan, so they certainly prevented a lot more than just three people from being massacred. See Moshe Dayan, 'The Story of My Life', William Morrow, 1976, ISBN 0688030769, Page 130. harlan (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have indeed cited a source and we were talking about Kfar Etzion, not the whole block. See your own post above.
Good job diverting the discussion to something completely irrelevant though. I apologize to the rest of the editors reading this page for getting dragged down this irrelevant path. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is you who has been trying to distract attention from the published sources which document the fact that France, the UK, US, and other members of the Security Council did not view Jordan's entry to Palestine as aggression. They viewed the actions of the other Arab states as a counter-attack made in response to Jewish militia attacks against Arab communities in Palestine. harlan (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Even if it were a "counter-attack", how does that negate an invasion? Allow me to quote the definition of "invasion": "A military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government". They invaded, by definition. No amount of muddying the waters will change that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Why are you quoting Wiktionary? The entry you chose doesn't even mention Transjordan, Palestine, or Israel. You are the one "muddying the waters". At the top of the thread you said "Note that the Legion didn't invade, it was already there (they took the Etzion Bloc on the 13th, for example)." I already provided you with links to the Security Council questionnaires. The self-appointed Provisional Government of Israel said the territory wasn't under the control of any duly constituted authority. The League of Arab States had been asked to enter the territory by the Palestinians to help restore law and order - and Palestine had been accepted as a member that was represented in that organization. harlan (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm quoting wiktionary because you apparently don't understand what "to invade" means.
You're now saying the Egyptian expeditionary force did not invade? That's too funny. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
No your position is too funny. There were hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees pouring into the neighboring states before 14 May 1948. The leaders of the Jewish community declared that they were the duly constituted provisional government without consulting the wishes of the Arab population or the UN. The US only recognized the regime de facto within the boundaries of the UN resolution. The Arab armies entered Palestine before any country extended de jure recognition to the provisional government of Israel (PGI). By then, Israel was occupying territory that had been allocated to the Arab state. An Ad Hoc Committee report, A/AC.14/32, dated 11 November 1947 contained population figures from the British government which said: "It will thus be seen that the proposed Jewish State will contain a total population of 1,008,800, consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State." In their response to the Security Council, the PGI said they were occupying areas with Arab majorities and had dissimulated about the extent of the territory they were occupying by claiming they had only conducted sallies into the territory of the Arab state. harlan (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]Just wondering how Harlan can say that "The Arab Legion protected the Kfar Etzion prisoners and saved them from the local irregulars"?

  • The Arab Legion(ie the Jordanian army) assisted by villagers from the area, stormed the settlements of the bloc and forced their surrender. The Arab villagers massacred the Israeli fighters captured at Kfar Etzion--127 of them were killed that day while only 4 survived.[26]
  • Between January and May, 300 defenders of the Kfar Etzion complex...were overrun by 2000 volunteers of the mufti's Arab Liberation Army. Many who surrendered were machine-gunned. Twenty girls were blown up in a house. [27]
  • Some 129 Jewish inhabitants were mowed down by Arab irregulars. [28]

Looks like a piss-poor job of saving anyone. BTW Morris says we will not know for sure the extent of the Legion involvement until the Jordanian archives are opened ,[29] and you can bet it will be a cold day in Hell before that happens. In the meantime we use what we know and our common sense. Stellarkid (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that I was citing what relevant published sources say, i.e. Ami Isseroff says all accounts agree that Legion officers rescued several survivors. [30] Collins and Lapierre's, O Jerusalem! reported that the Arab Legion protected the Kfar Etzion prisoners and saved them from the local irregulars who were inflamed by the recent events at Deir Yassin (pages 363-64 and 386-7). I never said the Legion didn't participate in the attack, that hardly means they massacred anyone.
Norman Finkelstein discusses Morris' account and an attempt to misrepresent the Gush Etzion bloc combatants as villagers or civilians and to claim the massacre was committed by an Arab army instead of Arab irregulars, e.g. see Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, 2nd Ed., California UP, 2008, ISBN: 0520249895, pages 305-306
Collins and Lapierre also report that on the evening of May 11 the commander of the soldiers of Kfar Etzion had said they faced the prospect of becoming another Masada (page 348). So, the reports of Abdullah Tal and the other Legionnaires that there was no organized surrender and that some defenders kept shooting can hardly be dismissed. Neither Mark Braverman nor Saul Friedman mention the Legion's role. Braverman says the facts about the irregulars actions are disputed and that it isn't even clear if someone gave an order or if someone started shooting and the others followed. Morris' footnote 398 says Yakobson inflated the figure by including all of the casualties from 12-13 May and the massacre in the 127 figure.[31] Michael Feige said the defenders of the other villages in the Gush became prisoners of war. So, using common sense and what we know, the Legion protected between 320 (Dayan) and 350 (Morris) Jewish combatants.
Researchers have questioned the Israeli accounts contained in Rabin's memoirs, and have made similar complaints that 'for reasons of "security," significant portions of the documents-addressing Israel's 1948 expulsion of over 50,000 from Ramle and Lod-remain classified.' e.g. [32] Rashid Khalidi cites Morris complaint and provides several examples of other researchers who have used Arab state archives and published their results here in the US and in the UK. See footnote 37 [33] harlan (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

incorrect statement

The sentence here is speaking about the variety of geographic features that Israel is home to, but this area is not in Israel:[34] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

well, must be acknowledged here the fact that the Golan Heights as a security measure have been administered under Israeli law since the Yom Kippur war, and that if ever one wants to visit them s/he should better come through Israel; the article is descriptive of a geographical reality, don't consider that sentence as if it were a political declaration issued by the Israeli government, if you want to fight for their reconquest WP is not the right arena, cordially, Hope&Act3! (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly "come through", but that's just it. It is not a part of it. The geography of the occupied territories can be described in their own articles. How is it a geographical reality if a region that is internationally recognized as in Syria is in "Israel is home to a variety of geographic features" That region is not Israel. This article is about Israel, not the Israeli-occupied territories, in the geography section it is describing the geography and climate of Israel, so this region that is not in Israel can not be in it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

the golan heights is controlled by who? -israel. so when we speak about the geography of israel it should be included as it is part of israel according to israeli law. perhaps you dont recognize that but that doesn't matter its still part of israel. so until a peace treaty is signed with syria and israel officially gives back the golan the golan will remain as part of israel.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, no. The Golan Heights is recognized as Syrian territory held by Israel under military occupation. Countless sources of the highest quality confirm that the Golan is Syrian territory. I am not aware of any state that recognizes the Golan as Israeli territory, excepting of course Israel. It is an extreme minority position that the Golan is "part of [I]srael". nableezy - 03:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The argument "it should be included as it is part of israel according to israeli law" has no merit whatsoever. The contents of articles aren't decided by Israeli law. That is a notion that flies in the face of policy and the discretionary sanctions. The Golan Heights aren't part of Israel because RS say that the Golan Heights aren't part of Israel. It's really very simple. Editor's inability to see this very obvious policy compliance issue is troubling. The Golan Heights material needs to be moved to its proper policy compliant location. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said it's simply descriptive. It's the reality on the ground, if you sit in a boat on the lake and look accross towards Syria you won't see any border, anyway one can't both describe it as administered by Israel and say it is in Syria -considering the friendly attitude of Syria towards Israel I'm pretty sure it would never accept that Israel puts up and enforces a lawful system -complete with army and police, etc.- on its territory! So even Syria acknowledges that this territory is not as for today in Syria, follow her example, wp is not dedicated to fantasies, sorry.... if ever any change occurs during your life time you will then make the relevant contribution, Hope&Act3! (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing in what you said that has anything to do with policy based article content decisions. You might as well delete it. This is simply about compliance with mandatory Wiki policies. That's all. Wiki article content isn't based on 'the reality on the ground'. Yes, it is simply descriptive but it discribes a state of affairs that is inconsistent with state of affairs represented by reliable sources. It is therefore inconsistent with mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
well, I guess that you wd have it that the State of Israel doesn't exist, it's really Palestine, or maybe southern Syria or a province of greater Syria, since "its existence is iconsistent with the state of affairs represented by some reliable sources", Syria lost twice and presently is not ready to try again or even to negociate, so it seems that you are on your own in this fight and that's probably why you feel so frustrated but as I already said wp is not the right arena for war, it's a collaborative entreprise, not confrontational, 'Israel' has been written with the necessary concensus and recently declared a featured article for its fine quality, don't try to spoil it, there exist lots of article where you can contribute constructively and peacefully, Hope&Act3! (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Supreme Deliciousness you can yell how much you want "Golan is not in Israel" but the reality is, that Israel is the administrative country of the golan (as well as Jerusalem is the capital although it is not recognized as such). You have nothing to seek here, stop to corrupt the article by you're political points of view. --Sipio (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that all reliable sources and all countries in the world say it is in Syria. No country except Israel say its in Israel, so according to Wikipedia rules undue weight, we must follow the vast majority viewpoint and not the extreme minority. The same way the vast majority of people say the earth is round, so we do not say it is flat, see: Due and undue weight. And please also see this discussion:[35] So we can not say that the region is in Israel because that's not the truth, only an Israeli-occupied territory. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that: Wikipedia cannot apply just for "claims", but for the reality as well. Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel capital, but, does it makes the reality changes? no! Jerusalem is still the capital, the seat of the government. The Golan Height is administrative by Israel, and it is part of Israel, unlike West Bank and Gaza Strip. Many sources does refer to the territory of Israel as 22.072 including the Golan Heights, like "Factbook" which is highly used by wikipedia as believable source. It's funny you know, just on Israel article people let themselves the permission to edit by their own PoV's. For example, chaina article, although it has some dispute areas, they are still mentions in the articla as part of the country. You can't just come here and edit it by your're PoV's, you've got no permission for that. Do not edit again, and again, stop corrupt the article. --Sipio (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The comparison with the issue of Jerusalem as capital is misleading. International recognition does not hold the same weight for capitals as it does for international borders. This was discussed extensively in the Jerusalem as Capital discussions. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Professor Ian Lustick (an expert on Middle East History and Politics) Has made a detailed study of East Jerusalem's status. I think it is safe to assume beyond reasonable doubt that he has studied all of the significant official documents relating to Israels claims over E Jerusalem. In the conclusion to an essay on this subject he made the following observation: "There has never been an official act that has declared expanded East Jerusalem as having been annexed by the State of Israel. Though politicians have referred to it as part of the territory over which Israel is sovereign, there has in fact never been an official declaration of Israel's sovereignty over this area." [2] Prunesqualer (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

With the revelation that Sipio who added the text into the article is a sock of a topic banned user. I think it is time we follow the rules of Wikipedia and remove the pov statement in the article presenting Golan as a region in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

In my opinion there are also some other etymologies of the name Israel which must be included.193.92.181.203 (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and these other etymologies are...? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

template group

Does anyone know what is going on with the template groups at the bottom of the page ? They don't appear to be displaying although the code looks okay e.g. if you copy/paste it to a tmp page it works fine. It looks like something broke it a while back. Not sure what or when. It looks like it's related to the size of the article in some way i.e. remove some text, it doesn't seem to matter what it is and the problem goes away. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLIMIT - there are too many templates in the article, meaning that the last ones aren't expanded. Some template substitution is in order. Rami R 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
ah..yes, that's it.
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 197453/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2001706/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 791296/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 9/500
Sean.hoyland - talk 17:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Developed country

Israel is a developed country as written in the third paragraph. What makes israel a developed country? I think the proper term to describe it is developing.

O.waqfi (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

See the Economy section "In 2010, Israel ranked 17th among of the world's most economically developed nations, according to IMD's World Competitiveness Yearbook. The Israeli economy was ranked first as the world's most durable economy in the face of crises, and was also ranked first in the rate of research and development center investments.[249]" based on this Sean.hoyland - talk 20:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Biased Passage

The sentence "efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success and some of Israel's international borders remain in dispute" suggests that it is only the Israelis that have sought diplomacy, which is incorrect. I have corrected the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.77.246 (talk • contribs)

Wait, what? The passage you just quoted is true in it's entity - I don't know if you've read the rest of the article, but it seems pretty obvious that Israel disputes it's boarders, as it wishes some were 'foreign territories'; as stated in the article. Further, several American presidents have tried to resolve the conflict (there's even a picture of them). What would you rather write: "Efforts to resolve conflict with Israelis has been met with limited success, and some of Palestine s boarders remain in dispute" for an article that is explicitly about Israel? Seriously?--Tyraz (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It is certainly wordy. How about we fix it, then discuss its possible bias? Is it a sentence about conflicts or disputed borders? If it's about conflict, "efforts to resolve conflict have had limited success." If it's about borders, "efforts to resolve the issue of international borders have met opposition." If both, "efforts at resolutions to the issues of conflict and international borders remain largely unsuccessful." Or "...remain minimally successful." if you're an optimist ;) DavidBetzer (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence above is completely biased. Israel has constantly broken United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. Therefore, it is not taking any effort to acquire peace. (Abbas Alidina) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.138.197.228 (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Here is an Israel related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrol 35. Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The correct place for notices of this type is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Rami R 15:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Independence and first years introductory paragraph

Oiriginal) After 1945, Britain found itself in fierce conflict with the Jewish community, as the Haganah joined Irgun and Lehi in armed struggle against British rule.[67] At the same time, thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe sought shelter in Palestine and were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps by the British. In 1947, the British government withdrew from the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.[68] The newly created United Nations approved the Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, which sought to divide the country into two states—one Arab and one Jewish. Jerusalem was to be designated an international city—a corpus separatum—administered by the UN.[69]

Proposed) After 1945, conflict arose between Britain and the Jewish community in the Mandate of Palestine, as the Haganah joined the Irgun and Lehi in armed struggle against British rule.[67] At this time, thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe were seeking shelter in Palestine and being turned away or placed in detention camps by the British Authorities. In 1947 the British government withdrew from the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.[68] The newly created United Nations approved the Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, which sought to divide the country into two states—one Arab and one Jewish. Jerusalem was to be designated an international city—referred to as a corpus separatum—administered by the UN.[69]

--'conflict arose' as opposed to 'found themselves' ie 'suddenly' intended to de-POV British perspective in the conflict. Included "Jewish community in the mandate of Palestine' because although Jews in the diaspora may have been in opposition to British policy, the text is referring to opposition within the borders of the mandate by specific groups. Limited the dissociative effects caused by "At the same time" as these events were correlative (at the very least geographically). Removed 'Rounded up" as it seemed repetitive. Added a few gerunds. Clarified the use of Corpus Separatum, though I think linking through the word international to the article on corpus separatum would be more friendly to the average user. I recognize I'm at the point in the wiki where a misplaced indefinite article could be debated endlessly, so I humbly submit my ideas here. Tell me what you think? DavidBetzer (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

no problem with those changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

the helicopter picture

I think it should be repalced, because this isn't an Israeli helicopter. 84.111.73.64 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems an Israeli helicopter would be more relevant and consistent with the other photos in the section on the one hand--on the other hand, as the section is describing military, and not only military hardware, US/Israeli joint training exercises seems an appropriate photo as well. The captioned photo sits alongside text which mentions US involvement in military aid and joint training, which gives it weight per context. Perhaps you have a photo in mind which shows joint exercises while depicting Israeli hardware? That would be ideal. DavidBetzer (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, makes sense to have an image there of joint ops. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

who and where are the lost tribes of isreal

can any one tell me who they think the lost tribes of isreal are, and can it be linked to native americans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.124.138 (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

See Lost tribes of Israel. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Overgeneralization?

"Jews living in the Diaspora have long aspired to return to Zion and the Land of Israel". Maybe some Jews? RomaC TALK 08:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This recent report by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research has 22% of surveyed British Jews being very or fairly likey to live in Israel in future and 70% being not very likely or unlikely at all to do so.
Incidently, on another on the appropriateness of whose coverage I've disagreed with Jaakobou on occasion, the majority of the survey group tend to agree or strongly agree that both non-Jewish and Jewish minority groups suffer discrimination in Israel with higher educated respondents being more likely to believe so.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Source cohen? I know discrimination exists in Israel but I have yet to see any empirical data that demonstrates the racial inequalities to an extent greater than the inequalities in the USA/Europe. The sentence Roma's list is not an over-generalization, it is a lie. I don't know how it got into the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
If you find some normalized minority discrimination metrics with global coverage I would be interested in seeing them. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Return" ? "return to Zion and the Land of Israel"? Where is the evidence that all Jews who came from many different places all over the world previously lived in: "Zion and the Land of Israel"? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhh...cause Jews come from "Zion?" "Return" as in return from when they were kicked out during the roman wars. But it's just an expression. We all come from Africa in the end. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've understood that recent research has cast a bit of doubt on the idea that Jews would have been "kicked out" by the Romans. They largely stayed put, and eventually most converted to Islam so saying "return" may be a bit misleading if most of the people aren't descended from anyone living in the area. --Dailycare (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I've understood that recent genetic studies put your wishful thinking in its proper place. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Note: source not provide for either viewpoint. --Tyraz (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't realize a source was called for. Here is a source where the dean of humanities of the Hebrew University says:

Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions.

Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
What is this non-sense ? The book of Zand is a joke by all academic standards and no historian took it seriously. Anyway, the genetic studies have closed the debate - most Jews come from the same core population is the middle-east:[36], [37], [38], [39]. 79.179.15.78 (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating revelation! So who are all these Jews that claim to be returning to the semi-arid climate from the west and the east? Who converted them to Judaism? Who brainwashed them into believing this myth of exile and this idea of 'aliyah'??? --Shuki (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

'Left' rather than 'fled' Arab lands in Israel's early years

Jews who fled Arab and Muslim lands and their descendants constitute approximately 50% of Jewish Israelis.[321][322][323]

Whether virtually all Jews fled from other lands in Israel's first years is a matter is in dispute, and that requires the non-committal 'left' rather than the POV 'fled'. Please note that the three current sources for the sentence's notion of virtually everyone fleeing do not meet RS standards:

  • 321: A Lyn Julius opinion piece,
  • 322: Jewish Virtual Library is a POV source.
  • 323: This blog interview/opinion piece does not contain the words 'flee' or 'fled'.Haberstr (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Common sensically, the reasons for emigration to Israel in its early years were complicated and varied: ". . . the Israeli revisionist historian Tom Segev summarizes emigration immediately after the founding of Israel, especially in relation to North Africa: “Deciding to emigrate to Israel was often a very personal decision. It was based on the particular circumstances of the individual’s life. They were not all poor, or ‘dwellers in dark caves and smoking pits.’ Nor were they always subject to persecution, repression or discrimination in their native lands. They emigrated for a variety of reasons, depending on the country, the time, the community, and the person.”[40]Haberstr (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Then it is more accurate to say, Jews who either fled or left Arab and Muslim lands. Using only left assumes a normal movement of peoples. --Shuki (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
No, 'left' doesn't assume anything about why they left their homelands and came to Israel; its meaning subsumes 'fled'.Haberstr (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec) If they indeed were varied, according to the one revisionist historian you quote, we should not change it from one specificity to another specificity. Perhaps we can have both "fled" and "left." Regardless, we should request the input of other editors before changing longstanding sourced material. See also Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands for further clarification of this subject.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
See it indeed! What an incredibly non-neutral article. --FormerIP (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
'Left' doesn't assume anything about why they left their homelands and came to Israel, and subsumes the word 'fled'. Example: "We left the room immediately because of the fire."Haberstr (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
"left" on its own has a distinctly different meaning then "fled" on its own. Your version just says they "left" and leaves it at that, not explaining that it was due to a "fire."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it has a distinctly different meaning, that's the point. It has the neutral 'not ascribing motives' meaning, while 'fled' ascribes a motive to the movement from one country to another. Surely we all know that 'left' on its face is accurate as the entire verb phrase, while 'fled' is inaccurate as the entire verb phrase. 'Left or fled' is a reasonable compromise.Haberstr (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
"Left" is certainly not the correct terminology. It is estimated that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were forced from their homes or fled the Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s; 260,000 reached Israel between 1948–1951, and 600,000 by 1972. [3][4][5] The Jews of Egypt and Libya were expelled while those of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa left as a result of physical and political insecurity. Almost all were forced to abandon their property.[4] By 2002 these Jews and their descendants constituted about 40% of Israel's population.[5] One of the main representative bodies of this group, the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, (WOJAC) estimates that Jewish property abandoned in Arab countries would be valued today at more than $300 billion[6][7] and Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands at 100,000 square kilometers (four times the size of the state of Israel).[3][7] The organization asserts that a major cause of the Jewish exodus was a deliberate policy decision taken by the Arab League.[8]
  1. ^ Clifford, Clark, "Counsel to the President: A Memoir", 1991, P 20.
  2. ^ Ian Lustick (1997). "Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?". Middle East Policy. V (1). Retrieved 2007-07-08. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ a b Schwartz, Adi. "All I wanted was justice" Haaretz, 10 January 2008.
  4. ^ a b Malka Hillel Shulewitz, The Forgotten Millions: The Modern Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands, Continuum 2001, pp. 139 and 155.
  5. ^ a b Ada Aharoni "The Forced Migration of Jews from Arab Countries, Historical Society of Jews from Egypt website. Accessed February 1, 2009.
  6. ^ Warren Hoge, [1] "Group seeks justice for 'forgotten' Jews", International Herald Tribune, November 5, 2007.
  7. ^ a b Lefkovits, Etgar. "Expelled Jews hold deeds on Arab lands. Jerusalem Post. 16 November 2007. 18 December 2007.
  8. ^ "www.wojac.com/history.html".

    9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marokwitz (talk • contribs)

    None of what you've written contradicts 'left'.Haberstr (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    The use of partisan sources is certainly problematic. Professional historians should be used as sources instead.--Frederico1234 (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    Even if we ignore the nature of some of the sourcing, it doesn't support "fled". The Haaretz article is primarily about one indiviudal, who can fairly be said to have been persecuted in Egypt. But in relation to the migration of Jews generally during this period, it says "left" rather than "fled". The HSJE site says: "Jews arriving in Israel after 1948 were similarly inspired by the Zionist ideal of returning to their homeland. However, for the most part, they were forced to become refugees overnight, to flee ... as a result of persecutions" - coming from a partisan source, this suggests to me a mixed picture. The Jerusalem Post piece is a Reliable Source for the view of World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (ditto their website) and similarly the New York Times piece is an RS for the views of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries. The Forgotten Millions says that the migration was "the outcome of mutual pressures: on the one hand, that of anti-Jewish populations and governments and on the other that of Jews, internally and externally, on those governments". So, I think this is not good support for "fled", and it appears to me that our article on that topic is even less neutral than these partisan sources. --FormerIP (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

    P.S.: It was good to see us arrive at the 'left or fled' compromise and to see it sticking. This exchange is a good example of collegial I/P editing.Haberstr (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

    No mention of ethnic cleansing??

    Israel has a well documented history of using many tactics to push out the Arab population living in Israel, including not allowing Arab citizens to return to Israel when traveling abroad, Evicting Arab families from property they legally own, etc. I'm somewhat shocked there's no mention of this in the Israel article. I'm Canadian, and if Canadians spent the last 60 years evicting minorities from the country they're legal citizens of, you can bet the wiki-page on Canada would include a section on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.74.248.49 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    The article provides information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and there are other articles covering the whole issue. I do not see a need for any changes to the article on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    Arab refugees are not citizens of Israel. However, a little less than half are citizens of Jordan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    I tend to agree that the ethnic cleansings can be covered in the respective articles, this one is supposed to be quite high-level. Concerning the refugees, legally they are Israeli citizens (according to the Partition resolution and Israel's declaration if independence, as well as normal state succession laws. --Dailycare (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Dailycare - Wikifan was referring to Arabs and Arab refugees living in the West Bank. There is no such cleansing done with Israeli-Arabs - their receiving fewer rights (conceived as "cleansing" by some) has to do with several factors such as their being a minority group, their general resentment of the concept of a Jewish State, general support of Israel's enemy views and their less than equal participation in civic duties such as paying taxes properly. Nor is there any systematic cleansing done with West Bank Arabs since essentially all of Israel's neighbors resist the absorption of Palestinians in their countries, so Israel really has nowhere to actually cleanse them to. In fact, Israel's neighbors holding Palestinian refugee camps readily support the "right to return" as a means to cleanse the Palestinians from their land, this supported by the fact the refugees have not been granted nationality and equal rights where they have lived for over 40 years. Further reading about ethnic cleansing: the Syrian Hama event, the Armenian Genocide as well as the Kurdish situation in Turkey and Jordan's Black September among others.109.253.69.226 (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

    Edit request from Alphamoro, 22 September 2010

    {{edit semi-protected}} Well... yeah! I thought I will have done a great thing to humanity by clearing the contents of this page. Sorry to ask! How much should I wait until you've accepted my request? Alphamoro (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

    Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

    Capital According To Whom?

    To be accurate and fair this article must clearly state... Capital: Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognised by the international community.

    A capital is a 'designation', not a 'claim'. I can't see how a "designation" can be "not recognized". Do you have reliable citations that verify your proposal? Marokwitz (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    Why do you think most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.185.182 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    Marokwitz, there are dozens of high-quality sources that state that Israel's declaration of Jerusalem as capital is not recognized and the UN Security Council has explicitly said the declaration is "null and void". --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    Yeah, it is clear that perhaps only Israel is the only one that recognises Jerusalem as its capital city. If Wikipedia is to be neutral, it should at the least describe Jerusalem as the OP suggested. At the moment, is just looks like Wikipedia is being used for Zionist propaganda without an regard to any international law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmie (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. A sovereign state has the right to decide its capital, it does not need approval or recognition from other nations. If wikipedia is simply used for zionist propaganda then you should know the proposal to change this is going to be rejected. Lets not waste our time :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    I do not even see the problem, there is a huge reference note explaining the situation anyway if you click the [a] next to Jerusalem in the infobox. There is also extensive explanation on the matter within the article itself. I see no reason for any change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    Whether it "is" or "isn't" the capital isn't the point. The point is that it's a contentious issue that isn't being presented clearly as such, since the text in the article embraces the minority view. --Dailycare (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    The infobox states the capital, it links to a note explaining other nations do not recognise it as such. The article is full of text about the situation, i do not see any zionist censorship here. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    The point is that the infobox states Jerusalem is the capital, which is a contentious point reported here by embracing a minority POV. WP:NPOV says "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." Saying Jer is the capital, but this is rejected by everyone else is a policy violation since we're presenting Israel's claim as a fact. Now if we said Israel has proclaimed Jer to be the capital, but this is rejected by everyone else, we'd be cleam from a policy POV. In fact as WP:NPOV also says that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not", we'd also be policy-compliand if we omitted Israel's claims to having their capital in Jer. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    But that is the whole reason for the note, to ensure neutrality by explaining others do not recognise it as the capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    I hesitate to comment on this issue again but if Jerusalem were a gas field we wouldn't be able handle the information this way in an infobox by simply presenting Jerusalem as a unified object in Israel. For example, the South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field doesn't say 'Country: Iran' and it wouldn't say that even if Iran decided to proclaim ownership of the entire field. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    There are many reliable sources saying Jerusalem is the political capital of Israel. We are not whitewashing anything, the disputed status is already mentioned in details in this article. Marokwitz (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    Marokwitz, that's not the point. See my comment timestamped 11:53, 20 August 2010. --Dailycare (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    I really do not think there will be consensus to make the sort of change you are wanting. The infobox states Jerusalem but there is a note that clearly explains the situation and it is explained throughout the article, there for the article is neutral. As a compromise id be prepared to support changing that [a] to [note] so its more clear there is a note, or have an explanation in the infobox note section itself. But i see no reason to remove Jerusalem from the infobox, it is the capital of Israel. Reliable sources prove this to be the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    Changing the link to the note from [a] to [proclaimed] has always struck me as a sensible approach but it hasn't been possible to make changes like that in this article using the consensus process so far. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    The status of Jerusalem is disputed, no doubt about that fact. The legality of Israeli unilateral annex of Jerusalem is also disputed. To date, no country recognises Jerusalem as capital of Israel, it is a fact. So, this should be clearly stated in Article "Jerusalem is capital of Israel (disputed)".-- Jim Fitzgerald post 19:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

    The current wording and note is the result of multiple very long discussions. The likelihood of you getting consensus to change it is very slim. I for one object to changing it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

    I would say that Tel Aviv is the de facto capital, and that Jerusalem (according to Israelis) is the official capital. To the international community Tel Aviv has long been accepted as the only true capital of Israel.--Gniniv (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    That's not how "de facto" works. Israeli governmental offices and the like are in Jerusalem, that would make it (from a world perspective) the de facto capital, if not the de jure (again, from an international perspective). From an Israeli perspective, it is the de jure capital as well as de facto. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    My bad! I meant (vice-versa): Tel Aviv is the official internationally recognized capital, and Jerusalem is the de facto capital (You are correct about the Israeli government offices, all of which are located in Jerusalem, excepting the Ministry of Defense).--Gniniv (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    Tel Aviv is not the capital by any mean. Show me a reliable source saying so. Marokwitz (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    Tel Aviv is used instead of Jerusalem as a metonym for Israel,[41][42] and the Times Online Style Guide notes that Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as the Israeli capital.[43] --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    The first post in this thread demands the inclusion of a clear statement that has already been incorporated in the text of the Conflicts and treaties subsection of the article for quite some time:

    The position of the majority of UN member states is reflected in numerous resolutions declaring that actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the whole of Jerusalem are illegal and have no validity.

    There is also a Further Information template there that references the Positions on Jerusalem article. It leads-off by saying, among other things, that many countries do not recognize Jerusalem as a city that is properly Israel's. harlan (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

    Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital, but . . . Why not follow the example of the British Foreign Office Country Profile of Israel: "Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognised by the UK and the international community."[44]Haberstr (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

    Okay, so recognizing the 'de facto' situation but also that the international community does not recognize that Jerusalem as Israel's possession or capital should be our goal, along with wanting a reasonably short sentence. How about "Jerusalem is de facto Israel's capital, but the international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over the city and there are no foreign embassies there."[45] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

    It is the de jure Capital as well. The international community's non-recognition does not change the factual reality, and is mentioned several times in the article. Please let this long standing consensus wording stand. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    Setting aside the merits of the content, I just want to say that "the capital is where the seat of the government is" as in this revert by Dosbears is not a valid reason to revert an edit. The capital is where the sources say it is and we could do without reverts like this based of editors beliefs about what things are. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

    Like i have said before, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. That is what the infobox must say. The article text and a note go into far more detail about the situation explaining the issues, that is all that is needed. So no change is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

    Agree with you BritishWatcher. And to you Sean.holyland, you come here to complain that someone made revert of POV and controversial statement that was already discussed 50 times on this talk page which can be found in archive if someone cares to look. But you don't say anything bad about person who went and made edit without any discussion, without reading talk page first and seeing that they have really no consensus to do such a change. Very interesting way to go around here. LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    No, it's not interesting at all, nor is your opinion of it. It's interesting what you have done with my surname though. Yeah, I came here to complain about editors doing whatever the hell they like based on their personal models of reality. Happens all the time in the I-P conflict area and not only is it against policy, it's one of the root causes of much idiocy in this topic area. 'No consensus' is not a policy based reason to revert either. Consensus can change and I have no problem whatsoever with what the editor is trying to do step by step which includes trying to engage people on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    What editors feel is the "factual reality" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what the best sources say on the subject, and they say pretty much what the British foreign office says above. --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    Sources say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. A country can decide its own capital, it does not need formal permission from other nations, shown through were they set up their embassies. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    If it's your territory you can put your capital where ever you want and no one can tell you otherwise. It's not so much that the international community rejects Israel's right to decide its capital's location but that Jerusalem is in Israel. And since recognition is the basis for a claims legitimacy the international community Jerusalem is only the de jure capital under domestic law. If the infobox were changed to what the British Foreign Office says (but not based solely on its assertions) I think that would be ok but, since theres a foot note and a link to the positions on Jerusalem article, I don't have a dog in this fight. Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    Britishwatcher, some sources (e.g. Israeli sources) do, others say that Israel claims it's the capital but this isn't recognized. Per WP:NPOV we can't adopt one of conflicting narratives as the truth, but we must present the issue in terms of a dispute ("The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view). --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    That is why there is a note and within the article we explain the situation regarding Israel. That is all we need to do to stay within NPOV. Nothing says a country's capital must be recognised by the international community. A state has the right to decide what its capital is. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    Unless the capital isn't in your country. On further reflection, I think putting the controversy into the infobox is worth doing. Even with the footnote it doesn't make sense to adopt one side of the controversy in the most notable spot. Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    I agree in that we only need to change the wording a bit to fall right within WP:NPOV. But we do need to change it, since the present wording is "endorsing a particular point of view" which we shouldn't do. Once more, what you or I think makes a capital is irrelevant to this article content issue. What is relevant is what the best sources say on the subject, and they say that the matter is in dispute. --Dailycare (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    Sources clearly state that Jerusalem is the declared capital of the Jewish State. Just because other states dont recognise it is why we have a note. As long as there is a note clearly explaining the status is disputed there is no problem. What exactly are people proposing we put there instead? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    That's a great word, "declared." So why not something like: "Israel has declared Jerusalem as its capital, but the international community does not recognize its sovereignty over the city and there are no foreign embassies there." (Please note that I'm doing all I can to be collegial and flexible here.} The bottom line is that the facts of 'what is Jerusalem's capital' are complex, and the entire "international community" (the British government's words) finds false this encyclopedia's present assertion that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital." Editors' personal opinions about 'how a place/city becomes a nation's capital' are POV and irrelevant. You just don't have an NPOV encyclopedia when we make the assertion of one country, Israel, into 'Wikipedia fact'. Not when, if you ask nearly any government in the world except Israel what Israel's capital is, they don't answer 'Jerusalem'.Haberstr (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    The State of Palestine article in its infobox simply says "Jerusalem (proclaimed), Gaza, Ramallah(administrative)". So the state of palestine which does not exist simply has "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" in its infobox despite having no control over the city at all. Jerusalem is in Israel, not "another country" BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    No to this: "Jerusalem is in Israel." West Jerusalem no doubt is in Israel, but East Jerusalem is annexed territory not recognized by the international community as 'in' Israel. A matter about which there is a near consensus internationally ("Jerusalem is not in Israel") must not be denied by omission if this encyclopedia is going to achieve its ideals of being NPOV.Haberstr (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    I find myself agreeing with BW. I also wonder why the Palestine article can go unmolested of weasel-wording, but this article has to suffer every possible pov-push.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    I always thought it was just East Jerusalem that was disputed but it looks like the international communities/various governments aren't just talking about E. J'Lem but the whole city. Otherwise they'd have no reason not to put the embassies in the western part. Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    The international community/various governments object to Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. That's why the embassies that were in West Jerusalem were moved elsewhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    Perhaps the confusion derives from a misunderstanding and misuse the terms 'suffer', 'unmolested', 'weasel-wording' and 'every possible pov-push'. What is actually happening is that some editors are trying to improve policy compliance in this article very slightly by discussing minor changes to content based on what sources say. That is what people are supposed to do here. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    If there was no note about all of this and we did not mention the situation within the article then i agree there would be a POV problem and changes would be needed. But we explain it fully within this article and with the note. So many of us believe the article is already in compliance with policies. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    So would you want to put (proclaimed) in the Israeli info box so the two sides match? I know a lot of people hate it, but no other country officially considers Jerusalem a part of Israel(if you know of one or more, please add them to the Positions on Jerusalem article)or Palestine, they use some version of "Jerusalem's status has yet to be negotiated". That's not a rejection of cultural and religious ties and claims for either side, just that no one can have clear title until the conflicting claims are resolved diplomatically. It was the same way when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem; they'd passed internal laws annexing the city section but even the countries recognizing their claims to the West Bank drew the line at Jerusalem. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    To do the same thing as the Palestine box would be totally unacceptable. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, there is no such state as Palestine and it has no control of Jerusalem to declare it the capital. The introduction of the Jerusalem article simply states it is the capital of Israel, this whole issue of how to treat Jerusalem status as a capital would be better debated there. However as a compromise id support changing the link to the note from [a] to [officially], we clearly can not say proclaimed if that is what the Palestine article says. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    Saying "proclaimed" would be something I'd be OK with. "officially" doesn't work since it's officially the capital only according to Israel. Once more, what editors think is the ultimate truth is irrelevant. What is relevant is that sources say that Israel has proclaimed it to be the capital, and the international community has explicitly rejected this. According to WP:NPOV we can't adopt the narrative of one side in a dispute, and especially we can't adopt the minority viewpoint. Saying proclaimed in the infobox, and following the British FO in the lead, would correct the issue. The Jerusalem article, being a wikipedia article, can't be used a source in this discussion. --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    As I said above, the current wording is the result of a very long discussion. There is obviously no consensus to change it, although it seems the same people try to on a monthly basis. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus can change"--Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    Has it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

    BritishWatcher, what about something along the lines putting "Internally recognized" in place of the current infobox footnote marker? I'd like to see at least something next to Jerusalem hinting at what the footnote covers. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    Capital According To Whom? arbitrary break1

    Question: If France 'proclaimed' Lyon its new capital, AND moved its government offices to Lyon, but no other country accepted this, would Lyon be the capital of France, or would it stay Paris because no one wanted to move their embassy (for any reason). --Shuki (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

    Lyon would be the capital of France and wed have to include a note explaning it was previously Paris and other nations have not recognised the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    Lyons would be the capital with no note. It would be a strictly internal affair (unless someone can dig up a source on it) that the international community has no say in. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    It would depend on what reliable sources say on the matter. Question 2: What if France kicked the Israelis out of Tel Aviv and "proclaimed" it the French capital, but the entire international community refused to recognize it and sources said so? The operative phrase here is what the sources say. We don't need to be (and in no case should we try to be) experts in international law. --Dailycare (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

    My two cents: Most of the area of Jerusalem is referred to as West Jerusalem which has been a recognized part of Israel by the UN since 1947. East Jerusalem was part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan until 1967 when they lost the whole West Bank and East Jerusalem at the Six Day war. Years later King Hussein declared the West Bank not to be part of Jordan, hence making it a territory under Israel's control, de facto making it part of Israel, until the Palestinians are granted rights to the land. Therefore, and regardless if a country needs authorization to declare its capital, Jerusalem IS Israel's capital (at least it's West part - without any dispute whatsoever), while the only dispute could be if East Jerusalem is also part of the capital. Hence, it could be said that West Jerusalem is the recognized capital of Jerusalem, or that Jerusalem is Israel's capital while it's Eastern part is internationally not regarded as part of sovereign Israel and is therefore disputed as part of its capital.109.253.69.226 (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

    It is a good thing this article was demoted from FA if his is still a question. It realistically is not that hard. Mirror tertiary sources and be done with it. Add a note if it makes people happy. It is not worth this much discussion since Wikipedia does not say how it is. That is what the sources do. And at most the sources add an asterisks so then you get a note.Cptnono (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    Cptnono, we're supposed to primarily rely on secondary sources, not tertiary ones (WP:RS: "Tertiary sources (...) should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion"). We've identified from high-quality secondary sources that this is a matter of dispute, so it should be presented as a dispute without embracing either narrative. (WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia describes disputes. (...) The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view") --Dailycare (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel/Archive_34&oldid=1136828334"