Talk:Israel/Archive 39

The first paragraph under "Science and technology" says "Israel's eight public universities are subsidized by the state. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel's oldest university, houses the Jewish National and University Library, the world's largest repository of books on Jewish subjects." However a quick check (List of Israeli universities and colleges) shows that:

• The Technion was established over half a decade before the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• There are nine public universities

Am I missing something? --CyberXRef^talk 05:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• There are now nine universities in Israel. Ariel was added in July 2012. Note that Ariel is located in Shomron (west bank) and as such is in disputed territory.
• According to the Hebrew wiki, Technion was founded in 24 and Hebrew uni in 25.

It's probably time someone updated these. 109.186.29.25 (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Roy

Well 1912 and 1925. Thanks for the clarification. I will look for some references and update that section. --CyberXRef^talk 16:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up, I see what you mean about Ariel: JPost Article: On 17 July 2012, the Council for Higher Education in Judea and Samaria voted to grant the institution full university status. --CyberXRef^talk 16:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry guys but Ariel is not in a disputed territory but in an occupied territory and as such cannot be counted among the Israeli universities. The article [[[List of Israeli universities and colleges]] is clear and well-written regarding this issue.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The disputed territory issue left aside, it is a founded by Israel and in 2012ref it was upgraded to a University statues by the Council for Higher Education in Israel, thus making it a 9th public university. It's not up to us to excluded just because it's in a disputed area (WP:NPOV). --CyberXRef^talk 18:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Reading some more about this, by being upgraded it to a University status, Ariel gets a serious increase in Educational funding since it gets treated as another public university. This can not be overlooked and ignored, despite the fact it's the first beyond the Green Line. From all practical purposes it's certainly a ninth public university. (accreditation, funding, and status) --CyberXRef^talk 18:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not disputed that it is a 9th Israeli university.

Anyway it is no more disputed that it is not the 9th university in Israel.

A way to solve this is to add to avoid misunderstanding that it is in the occupied territories.

Nb: we have no time for childish quarrel. So, stop talking about "disputed territories" and don't try to use these wordings. You will be reverted.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't use "Disputed Territories" this is not disputed territory. It is in the West Bank and not Israel. Israel recognizes this. The Council for Higher Education in Israel did not grant full university status to Ariel University. It is the only body that can award academic educational accreditation colleges and universities in in Israel. The Council for Higher Education in Judea and Samaria can not offer accreditation in Israel. They do not offer any accreditation for colleges or university for Israel. They offer accreditation for universities and colleges in the West Bank for Israelis. They aren't the only body that accredits Colleges in the West Bank. They were set up thru military authority. This may be the 9th Israeli University but it is not the 9th university of Israel. This is an article about Israel. It should include the education of Israel but you are talking about the education of Israelis outside of Israel.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

where it says state of israel add dawlat israeil under it 79.177.138.167 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Why ? It already says دولة إِسرائيل Sean.hoyland - talk 16:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  Not done

To Quote the page: "State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל‎, Medīnat Yisrā'el, IPA: [mediˈnat jisʁaˈʔel] ( listen); Arabic: دولة إِسرائيل‎, Dawlat Isrāʼīl, IPA: [dawlat ʔisraːˈʔiːl])"

While it does not say dawlat israeil specifically as you have written it, it does say دولة إِسرائيل as Sean has pointed out. Also it says Dawlat Isrāʼīl and the Pronunciation [dawlat ʔisraːˈʔiːl]. In addition to it in Arabic it also has it in Hebrew. I don't see the purpose for your change exactly since it seems already included.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  Not done

You forgot to mention the Druze, Bedouin and Circassians in the ethnic groups. 213.57.32.206 (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's just not in the box to the side. It's opening and else where. Armenians are also missing from the box. The Druze however I think they include along with Arab as per this article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The section Israel#Sports contains the following formulation:

Israel was excluded from the 1978 Asian Games due to Arab pressure on the organizers, and because many teams from Muslim countries refused to play with Israel.

In common parlance, teams or individual atheletes compete and play against each other. Playing "with" each other is far less common. Please adjust to:

Israel was excluded from the 1978 Asian Games due to Arab pressure on the organizers, and because many teams from Muslim countries refused to play against Israel.

Thank you! --89.0.205.5 (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Fixed! Inkbug (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a correction. Play with has the same meaning. The usage is also common. You'll see it more in an informal setting, how ever. Pick up games for instance. Games like chess which is listed as a sport in the sports section can be played with. The change is fine however.

The thing striking to me is that the article used as a source does not include anything about the 1978 Asian games. This article along with other sources seem to point to Israel's exclusion being related to security concerns: http://www.jta.org/1976/07/26/archive/israel-barred-from-asian-games It seems to me a reliable source would be more necessary than this change.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Changed it to: "Israel was excluded from the 1978 Asian Games due to security and expense involved if they were to participate."

Couldn't find a reliable source to say that it was due to Arab pressure on the organizers, and because many teams from Muslim countries refused to play against Israel. The official reason given seems to be related to security.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The official Olympic Council of Asia website says "On the political front, Israel was expelled from the Asian Games." (http://www.ocasia.org/game/GameParticular.aspx?9QoyD9QEWPe5ikIBubFL4g==).

The book Dishonored Games: Corruption, Money & Greed at the Olympics says that on the eve of the games Israel was allowed to attend - but only during the opening an closing ceremonies, no athletes were permitted. (http://books.google.com/books?id=aJnbMoJ_IbwC&lpg=PA122&ots=SgPw1YOef-&pg=PA122#v=onepage&q&f=false)

The book goes on to talk about the severe Arab pressure (and funding promisis) on the organizers, including sources like Mr Sathiavan Dhillon, general secretary of Singapore's national Olympic committee. The book goes on to say "The Indian organizers came up with a novel grounds for excluding the Israelis. They insisted that they could not provide adequate security. As the Israelis always traveled with a squad of armed bodyguards, it was a thin argument."

Many other news stories question the real reason for the resolution that was passed to ban Israel. (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9MNaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dl0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2458%2C2075469, http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_VZIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xRQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1839%2C1941318, http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xwojAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Ic0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2046%2C4448898)

--65.78.114.251 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Security and how to pay for it is a part of the political front. While I'm not opposed to including the questions of the real reason for the exclsuion it should be pointed out that the reason for expulsion was the security concerns. I'll make that change when I can get to it as I'm involved in something else out the moment. However anyone feel free to make that change with the above sources from the IP if they can get to it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Some users have cited the General Assembly resolution that recognizes a state of Palestine in order to make edits that Israel shares borders with Palestine. Resolutions of the General Assembly are not binding, even at the United Nations. The United Nations Charter makes clear that only the Security Council can recognize states. (An editor made a baseless and unexplained accusation of "Palestine denialism" in his/her edit summary, which is completely unprofessional and non-collegial). Greater explanation of Israel's borders, the West Bank's borders, the status of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations, and Palestinian statehood is already included in the article, and in many cases already in the lead. We need not POV push when discussing which entities it currently shares a border with.

In addition, these territories are controlled by separate entities, with Hamas in effective control of the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority (along with the Israeli military) controlling the West Bank. The World Factbook has no entry on the Palestinian territories; it has entries each for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. See its map of Israel and its neighbors here. Most maps likewise name those territories as such. For the sake of neutrality and readability, the article states that Israel shares its border with the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Symbolic UN recognition, though significant, is a side issue here. No mainstream news source systematically refers to the territory as the state of Palestine. For more information, see this article, explaining how "the gap between the symbolic U.N. nod and the reality on the ground remains wide." Indeed, mainstream news reports and comments by government officials all indicate that a Palestinian state has not yet been established. See examples below, all published after the symbolic UN nod:

• "However, Palestinian officials close to the talks have said Israel proposed to keep control of the valley and of West Bank border crossings with Jordan for 40 years after a Palestinian state is established. ... The Palestinians seek a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war." [1]
• "The U.S. says a Palestinian state should be established alongside Israel, with the border between them based, with some modifications, on Israel's 1967 frontier, before it captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem." [2]
• "The Palestinians want a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in 1967, but are ready to accept some modifications..." [3]

--Precision123 (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why you want to remove the term 'Palestinian territories' ? Setting aside the mention of a State of Palestine, I am unable to understand why anyone would oppose a statement that said "the Palestinian territories comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the east and southwest respectively" given the extensive use of that term to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip by government, media and NGO sites. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. The first part of the sentence is about geography--Israel's borders/neighbors--not about choosing names for territorial entities. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are in a state of flux, with their final status to be negotiated. I strongly recommend following the examples set forth by CIA World Factbook [4], the Congressional Research Service [5], BBC [6], the Associated Press [7], Merriam-Webster [8], and others when it comes to this matter. Keep it simple, readable, and stick to the geography. As many of these maps note "Final status of Gaza and the West Bank is to be determined by Israel and the Palestinian Authority." (See, e.g., World Factbook and Merriam Webster).

The CIA a reliable source??? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This point has a lot to do with readability as well. The way it stood before, as you or another editor wrote it, was: "Israel ... is a country in Western Asia, on the south-eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It shares land borders with Lebanon in the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories (or State of Palestine) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the east and southwest respectively, Egypt and the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea to the south, and it contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area." This is a run-on sentence. It should go simply in relevant order (i.e., north, south, east, west) as this is just about geography. Any editor could click either the "West Bank" or the "Gaza Strip" and see its status as a Palestinian territory--a status which is now different between the two of them. As I noted, this first part of the introduction is about geography. Any discussion of politics or greater explanation of who controls what and to what extent should follow in the next paragraphs in the article. --Precision123 (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

But is going in order optimal if it means that readers are not made aware that there is an object called the Palestinian territories comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip ? This seems like a rather important piece of information. The Palestinian territories, not "Palestinian territory", is a description at the same level as the other objects listed, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt which are also made up on sub-regions. The only difference for the Palestinian territories being that it is comprised of 2 spatially separated objects. Why the shift in regional level ? Do you not think that readers should be made aware that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are, as far as many RS are concerned, one entity called the Palestinian territories ? Why do you strongly recommend following the examples set forth by those samples when you could have picked other samples such as US State dept, BBC, UN etc ? There are many others of course. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and including examples. I absolutely agree that readers should be made aware of all facts, and the article does not (or at least should not) hide any. I address the sources you included. Because the status of the West Bank remains unresolved, as the following paragraph indicates, it is better to keep it simpler and avoid confusion. Note that the State Department deals with political entities, not geographic ones. Furthermore, despite your use of examples, none of the sources you cited refer to the entity as Palestine. Nor do any of them explicitly refer to it as a country. Also, as noted the UN Charter makes clear that only the UN Security Council can approve statehood. Resolutions of the General Assembly are not binding.

The definition, borders, and status of the Palestinian territories is currently in flux and is a political question. Note that most maps and descriptions, such as these from the Washington Post, Geology.com. Indeed, even the BBC states that for Israel, "Some borders are in dispute," and the map (like all others) names only the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not "the Palestinian territories (or State of Palestine) comprising of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip." The CIA World Factbook, which does not include Palestine as a country either, also just includes West Bank and Gaza Strip on its borders. Last, Encyclopedia Brittanica says: "It is bounded to the north by Lebanon, to the northeast by Syria, to the east and southeast by Jordan, to the southwest by Egypt, and to the west by the Mediterranean Sea." [9] Similarly, the Washington Post says this: "It is bordered by Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, the Mediterranean Sea on the west, Egypt on the southwest, and the Gulf of Aqaba (an arm of the Red Sea) on the south."[10] We ought to follow the lead of other prominent sources like these. --Precision123 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you perhaps point the section of of The UN charter that allows only the UNSC to recognize statehood? Do you perhaps mean that the UNSC is responsible for admitting new states as active members of the UN? Maps are made by map makers. The Indian Government has map makers put disputed territories of the Kashmir conflict into India while Pakistan does the same. Further States cover 80% of the worlds population recognize the state of Palestine diplomatically. That is their state departments by what ever name their state departments have. I can't think of any reason to remove it as it is. The only justifiable reason would be that none of the sources used are reliable to assert this claim.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what much of your argument says, but I will do my best to respond and address your concerns. First, this is about borders (Israel's borders, to be exact). And it seems as if your argument is going in the territory of "Is Palestine a state?" I have already addressed this issue at length. The sources above indicate that the General Assembly resolution was symbolic and not binding, and while agree that world recognition is significant (to recognize a political entity), let me put this clearly: There are no mainstream, reliable sources that systematically refer to Palestine as a state. No source put forward, either by me or by Sean.hoyland, does so. Indeed, all such sources indicate that a Palestine state is yet to be established. So that question has been answered.

Second, the trend among reliable sources put forth above, in the context of Israel's borders, is the following:

• Encyclopedia Brittanica says: "It is bounded to the north by Lebanon, to the northeast by Syria, to the east and southeast by Jordan, to the southwest by Egypt, and to the west by the Mediterranean Sea." [11]
• The Washington Post says: "It is bordered by Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, the Mediterranean Sea on the west, Egypt on the southwest, and the Gulf of Aqaba (an arm of the Red Sea) on the south."[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/israel.html
• Encyclopedia Columbia says: "It is bordered by Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, the Mediterranean Sea on the west, Egypt on the southwest, and the Gulf of Aqaba (an arm of the Red Sea) on the south." [12]
• The CIA World Factbook, which does not include Palestine as a country either, also just includes West Bank and Gaza Strip on its borders.

I repeat that we ought to follow the lead of other prominent sources like these. The borders of a Palestinian state are in flux, and subject to dispute and further Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Explanation of this political question is left (briefly) at the following paragraph of the lead and (extensively) in other parts of the article. --Precision123 (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The CIA world Factbook isn't a reliable source. Encyclopedias are Tertiary sources. Your Washington Post article notable lacks mention of it's border with any Palestinian territory. Your prominent sources lack a bit of prominence in the reliability department. States that Govern 80% of the Worlds population recognize the State of Palestine. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/sep/20/palestinain-state-israel-un-interactive

Perhaps we should look at the Russian counterpart to the CIA world Fact Book. If you have a Wikipedia policy argument it would be much appreciated. I see no reason on the basis of what you have said to make a change.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed Serialjoepsycho's point with "the UNSC is responsible for admitting new states as active members of the UN". I think the point was that admission, statehood and recognition are separate issues. See Admission to the United Nations (Legal Aspects of International Organization) page 146 and page 251 for relevant info. For example, "Possession of a more or less definite territory frequently is mentioned as a core criterion of statehood. An established State - which for present purposes may be defined as an entity whose statehood is generally accepted - well may continue to exist despite deprivation of territory due to unlawful occupation; and the contours of a State's territory need not be precisely agreed in order for the State to exist as such." As for sources referring to Palestine as a "State", there are plenty and they are easy to find. And bear in mind that "The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government." from the UN site, About UN Membership and Non-member States Sean.hoyland - talk 14:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Recognition by the General Assembly is symbolic. You seem to be blurring the lines of what constitutes sovereignty. The Palestinians lack full membership status at the United Nations. That is clear and true. Please avoid nuances and stick to clear facts as stated by reliable sources.
2. You then cite some irrelevant WP:Original research about an unlawful occupation. This does not merit a response.
3. You make a claim that "As for sources referring to Palestine as a 'State', there are plenty and they are easy to find." Untrue. Wikipedia is not a world forum or an NGO, but an encyclopedia that relies on WP:Reliable sources. The fact is all mainstream, reliable sources do not treat Palestine as a state. If this were not true, then every news service would have it wrong. In other words, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." Pointing to little quotations in one book that may (or may not) even state what you suggest is not substantial use of commonly accepted reference texts.

See, again, the following:

• For more information, see this article, explaining how "the gap between the symbolic U.N. nod and the reality on the ground remains wide." Indeed, mainstream news reports and comments by government officials all indicate that a Palestinian state has not yet been established. See examples below, all published after the symbolic UN nod:
• "However, Palestinian officials close to the talks have said Israel proposed to keep control of the valley and of West Bank border crossings with Jordan for 40 years after a Palestinian state is established. ... The Palestinians seek a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war." [13]
• "The U.S. says a Palestinian state should be established alongside Israel, with the border between them based, with some modifications, on Israel's 1967 frontier, before it captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem." [14]
• "The Palestinians want a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in 1967, but are ready to accept some modifications..." [15]

--Precision123 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your points

1. Please try to stop making statements based on the assumption that you know what you are talking about. You are conflating all sorts of things. I am blurring nothing. What constitutes sovereignty is already blurred. What constitutes statehood is blurred. This is just how it is. Not my fault. Regarding "Palestinians lack full membership". And ? This doesn't tell you whether they have achieved or the degree to which they have achieved statehood or anything about sovereignty. This is why I provided the Admission to the United Nations source so you can read for yourself about this issue.

2. It is not OR. My point is simply that your argument "because X didn't happen Y isn't a state" is false. That is not how it works. If you are looking for simple answers you are wasting your time.

3. "The fact is all mainstream, reliable sources do not treat Palestine as a state. If this were not true, then every news service would have it wrong."...sigh. This is, I have to say, one of the most ridiculously circular arguments I have read for a while. The fact of the matter is that there are RS that refer to it as a state and a future state even in the same article. This is the reality in RS world. They are easy to find e.g. UN vote recognizes state of Palestine and statehood is achieved through recognition not through the UNSC. There is recognition of Palestinian statehood. What that means in practice, very little, is a different question. In that very same article it talks about the future "establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem". This is how it is in the sources. There is a State of Palestine now that has achieved the recognition of ~2/3 of states and is a non-member state of the UN and there is the future State of Palestine that will, no doubt, have different attributes. These things can coexist in RS presumably because they are not driven by an urge erase the notion of a Palestinian state, they just tell it how it is, warts and all, as we must. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually you don't need to mention East Jerusalem apart from the West Bank. Only thru illegal means did Israel gain East Jerusalem. I'd call it annexation but have yet to actual attempt de jure annexation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Also other than being UN members these individuals recognize Palestine separately from the UN. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/sep/20/palestinain-state-israel-un-interactive That was before a request for UN membership and as In recall the change in sttus vote. That's representatives of 80% of the Worlds population.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Refrain from personal attacks. The rest of #1 is--aside from being "not your fault"--WP:original research. If any of those definitions are blurred, what does that have to do with this context? The fact that such definitions may or may not be blurred does not allow us to make our own conclusions just by stating that the definition is blurred. See WP:SYN. The conclusion must explicitly come from a WP:reliable source.
2. This is absolutely original research. Did the source state anything about Israel or the Palestinian territories specifically? And, if it did, did it state that Israel shares borders with a sovereign Palestine? Again, read WP:SYN. Also, and to address Serialjoespyscho's point, Wikipedia is not an NGO or a world forum counting how many or which countries recognize a Palestinian state. We use a collection of reliable and neutral sources (e.g., major newspapers)--not recognition by one country or another--to see how the territory is generally identified by such sources.
3. You claim this argument is "circular." You cite an article by the Associated Press. The Associated Press--even in the article you cite--does not refer to the entity as Palestine. The article refers to "the Palestinians," "a Palestinian state," or "a state of Palestine" (which is either hypothetical [in the context of recognition by certain states] or future-looking), but never--even in the latter context--the state of Palestine. Indeed, article after article, source after source, refers only to "the Palestinians" (e.g., the Palestinian President, not the President of Palestine), the "Palestinian territories," (or the West Bank and Gaza Strip), or the Palestinian Authority. All reference to a Palestinian state or--explicitly--a state of Palestine, indicate (whether or not some countries recognize it) that it is not yet established. Again, this includes the very source you just cited. The Associated Press never refers to the entity as the state of Palestine, and consistently indicates that such a state is yet to be established. See article; [16]; [17].

• Read The New York Times: If the use of Palestine were a neutral factual term, why does the New York Times not refer the territory as such? [18] In addition, why is this article entitled, "Palestinian Leader Seeks NATO Force in Future State"?
• Read the BBC, and ask the same question. Importantly, why does it say, "Nabil Shaath complained that the issue was preoccupying Mr Kerry even though it was not included in past talks or any signed documents or agreements between Israel and the Palestinians"[19]?

Last, assuming arguendo that all this were the opposite, we would need several WP:reliable sources to substantiate the claim explicitly that Israel is bordered by Palestine. Per WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Thus, it is not enough to state, which you have done so, that reliable sources refer to the territory as Palestine. (Indeed, they all continue to refer to it as the Palestinian territories.) We would need reliable sources that stay explicitly that Israel shares a border with Palestine. From reliable sources:

• Encyclopedia Brittanica: "It is bounded to the north by Lebanon, to the northeast by Syria, to the east and southeast by Jordan, to the southwest by Egypt, and to the west by the Mediterranean Sea."[20]
• Encyclopedia Columbia: "It is bordered by Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, the Mediterranean Sea on the west, Egypt on the southwest, and the Gulf of Aqaba (an arm of the Red Sea) on the south." [21]
• Library of Congress Country Studies: "It is bounded on the north by Lebanon, on the northeast by Syria, on the east and southeast by Jordan, on the southwest by Egypt, and on the west by the Mediterranean Sea." [22]
• The Washington Post Country Profiles: "It is bordered by Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, the Mediterranean Sea on the west, Egypt on the southwest, and the Gulf of Aqaba (an arm of the Red Sea) on the south."[23]
• Infoplease (by Pearson PLC): "It is bordered by Egypt on the west, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Lebanon on the north."[24]
• Altapedia: "It is bound by the Mediterranean Sea to the west, Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, Jordan to the east and Egypt to the southwest."[25]
• The Routledge International Handbook of Globalization Studies: "Israel shares borders with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, and these borders have been heavily contested in war."[26]
• Brittanica Digital: "Israel is bordered by Egypt to the southwest, Syria and Jordan to the east, and Lebanon to the north."[27]
• Fodor's: "Israel shares borders with Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria."[28]

We should follow the examples of other reliable and encyclopedic sources. I encourage a move back to West Bank and Gaza Strip. --Precision123 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Your sources here forgo even the mention of a border with the Palestinian territories. These are internationally recognized borders. I'm not aware of any wikipedia policy that says that we should copy other encyclopedias. To follow the example of these sources we would have to forgo the mention of Gaza or a West Bank border all together. Let's not call them Encyclopedic sources. Let's use the term Tertiary source. All of the sources you use above are tertiary other than the Washington post. I see no reason to remove mention of the state of Palestine based on your arguments.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

These are reliable sources I found that had country profiles of Israel, and some of them are indeed encyclopedias. They are being used for their referential value in evaluating the WP:Accuracy and WP:Neutrality in treating this subject matter. (See also WP:PSTS for a discussion of what value reliable tertiary sources can provide). It is true that some do not include the disputed frontiers with the West Bank and Gaza, which I support including, and you are also right to say none include "a border with Palestine." (Indeed, such boundaries do not yet exist.) I have found a source that includes the West Bank and Gaza Strip as bordering Israel, although it might be a bit less reliable than most of those included above.

Citing a General Assembly document as one editor did above is using a primary source. Reliable secondary sources do not refer to the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as the state of Palestine. If the term "Palestine" is used, it is used hypothetically, as in "Thursday's vote won't immediately create a state of Palestine" or "security proposals presented last week to Abbas and Netanyahu include arrangements for the border between Jordan and a state of Palestine", language indicating that a Palestinian state is not yet established. In contrast, there is never a reference the "president of Palestine," "foreign minister of Palestine," etc. To use an illustrative example, this BBC piece refers to "negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians", not "between Israel and Palestine." The mainstream media continues to identify reports coming from Palestinian cities as, e.g., "Ramallah, West Bank", not "Ramallah, Palestine."

This list is not exhaustive: I encourage any editor to read the Associated Press, Reuters, Los Angeles Times, etc., and view their treatment of the matter and chosen terminology. If a statement is a neutral fact, from a neutral point of view, it should be readily verifiable. However, we have a point of agreement in that we believe that Israel should be stated as bordering the West Bank and Gaza Strip. --Precision123 (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Tertiary sources can be used to provide broad summaries. It's a rather narrow summary however that the State of Palestine doesn't exist. Further those tertiary sources fail to offer that broad summary. With your usage these sources can in no way be considered reliable. One thing that is unclean though is if you are still also trying to remove mention of the Palestinian Territories as the Palestinian territories or have you decided that only the State of Palestine should be removed? Interesting Ramallah, West Bank? I guess Nashville, Tennessee isn't a part of the United States. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-v-whitbeck/the-state-of-palestine-ex_b_2431690.html John V Whitbeck views which he has posted in numerous publications. Need I also point out the Constitutive theory of Statehood? Governments 80% of the worlds population recognize the state of Palestine. The Majority of Governments of the World recognize the state of Palestine. 134 UN members have independently of the UN recognized the State of Palestine is what that means. 2 great powers are among those, Russia and China. For a state not to exist it seems to strangely exist. Again I see no reason to change this. The entity Known as the "State of Palestine" claims sovereignty over the Palestinian territories. With the exception of East Jerusalem (which is disputed) Israel has no claims over the Palestinian territories.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a few red-herring arguments here, most of which have already been addressed.

1. I used a combination of reliable secondary and tertiary sources. All secondary sources (newspapers) indicate that a Palestinian state has not yet been established. They do not refer to the territories of the West Bank and Gaza as the state of Palestine. The tertiary sources were given for perspective on neutrality and accuracy. When discussing Israel's geography, they note no such borders with a state of Palestine.
2. You write: "Interesting Ramallah, West Bank? I guess Nashville, Tennessee isn't a part of the United States." Not a good comparison. Compare it to Vancouver, Canada (as opposed to British Columbia), Thessaloniki, Greece (as opposed to Greek Macedonia), Recife, Brazil (as opposed to Pernambuco), or any other non-American city. This is made clear in the Associated Press and New York Times style manuals. State names (as opposed to country names) are generally used for American cities only.
3. You then refer to recognition by certain countries. Those would be primary sources each. Our standard here is WP:Neutral point of view. Every secondary source found does not refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as Palestine and they all suggest that a Palestinian state has not yet been established. This is overwhelmingly the case. Additionally, when discussing Israel's borders in an introduction to its geography, sources at most refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip (not the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Autonomous Areas of the West Bank, or the State of Palestine). These political issues (the status of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and Palestinian statehood) are already discussed in the following paragraph, and discussed more at length in the body of the article. Per WP:RS, we should include the West Bank and Gaza Strip among bordering territories. --Precision123 (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

1) Your are arguing for a negative. Your sources are reliable because of what they don't say as opposed to what they do say is your argument. Sorry I don't see why I should give such an argument any weight. I can't help but consider this original research. So if you don't mind I'll jut go ahead and ignore it. 2)So there's a book of rules that tell them how to write specific things? ......... 3)Those would actually be a secondary source. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/sep/20/palestinain-state-israel-un-interactive The Guardian isn't a Primary source. It's a secondary source. Governments that represent 80% of the worlds population and it's from a reliable publication.

The question was whether or not you now feel mention of Palestinian territories should be removed and not whether you think Gaza and the West Bank should be included. I see no reason to remove either. The State of Palestine exists. This is the official position of the majority of the world. We should avoid it because it makes a minority of people feel politically uncomfortable? I think I'll go ahead and pass on that.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

All reliable secondary sources (including The Guardian) do not refer to the West Bank and Gaza as the state of Palestine. From the BBC: "This has earned them the right to use the designation "State of Palestine" on UN documents and possibly to challenge Israel's occupation of Palestinian land before international courts. However, in real terms a sovereign Palestinian state remains as elusive as ever."[29] Check the sources, read the newspapers. None refer to "the prime minister of Palestine, for example." Reliable secondary sources guide us to neutrality. (Also, the reference to the style manuals of the news agencies was to rebut a point you made, where you insinuated that the name of the place after the comma was not usually the name of the country. It is. I am sorry if you did not understand that.) --Precision123 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Precision123:Reuters recognizes the State of Palestine as a De Facto state on the basis of that UN vote as many other sources do. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121130 The Guardian has provide a map of States that offer de jure recognition of the state of Palestine and these are the majority of States. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/sep/20/palestinain-state-israel-un-interactive I know all about style manuals. Do not misrepresent what I said. I did not say "the name of the place after the comma was not usually the name of the country." I in fact insinuated that was not always the case. Since WP:BALL Wikipedia is not a crystalball I have no way to know how the New York Times Style guide will change when Palestine meets the NYT definition of statehood. So if I'd just prefer to ignore that irrelevant information. In real terms a sovereign Palestinian state remains as elusive? As elusive as the landless Sovereign State Known as the Holy See. Allow to refer you back to Sean.hoyland's final statement above. I've provided reliable secondary sources. You just don't like them. Palestine is a recognized State. If you would like to make a note to point out that only the majority of States, 134 of 193 states, recognize the State of Palestine go ahead.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if you do not seem to understand this. Does Reuters refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as Palestine? Does it refer to Mahmoud Abbas as the president of Palestine? Does its coverage treat Palestine as a country? The answer to all these questions is no.

Thank you offering a map of countries that offer de jure recognition of a Palestinian state. Does that say that The Guardian itself (the secondary source) treats Palestine as a state? No. It merely suggests what you said: that those specific countries recognize it.

You write: "In real terms a sovereign Palestinian state remains as elusive? As elusive as the landless Sovereign State Known as the Holy See. Allow to refer you back to Sean.hoyland's final statement above." Complete and utter WP:OR (in part by using sources that do not mention Palestinian statehood and in part by using personally made arguments). The language of the BBC (a reliable secondary source) is clear, and repeats the same conclusion of other secondary sources: A Palestinian state is not yet sovereign. In addition, the New York Times makes clear, a Palestinian state is not yet established. (Palestinian Leader Seeks NATO Force in Future State)

As to the baseless allegation that I "don't like" certain sources, I like all reliable sources actually, including the AP, Times, etc. (I am the only one citing sources consistently). But the problem is that you are making inferences from these that do not exist. In other words, the AP reporting that the X number of countries recognize a Palestinian state does not = AP treats and refers Palestine as a country. It does not. I propose moving this to dispute resolution. --Precision123 (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Precision123:There won't be any dispute resolution. It has ended due to unwilling participation. You don't understand Reuters recognizing De facto statehood? I'm unsure of how I can help you with that. The words in the article seem pretty clear to me. Do you need more sources of a de facto recognition? I'm not familiar with the international law that requires the recognition of news papers before one becomes a state. Could you give me a source for that? Russia recognizes The State of Palestine. As do the Majority of other states.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Reuters reporting de facto Palestinian statehood at the UN does not = Reuters itself—the news service—recognizing a state of Palestine, which appears nowhere on any maps published by the service. The latter would also entail Reuters reporting stories from the West Bank as from Palestine. It would involve introducing Mahmoud Abbas as the president of Palestine. Indeed, Reuters is clear that a Palestinian state has not yet been established. See this recent Reuters article, discussing the negotiations over the "borders of a future Palestinian state." Or any others here: [30] ("land the Palestinians want for their future state"). Reuters does not describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip as the state of Palestine.

In addition, Reuters' recently updated style guide (2014) discusses the neutrality of geographic terms:

When we are dealing with material from disputed territories, we often name the place regionally, rather than by country, to avoid appearing to ‘take sides’ in our country names. For example – GAZA, JERUSALEM, or WEST BANK rather than ISRAEL or PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES. For a mix of any of the above we say: MIDEAST.

Importantly, it says "Palestinian territories," not Palestine, as even a possible option for a name. Reliable secondary sources are in agreement. --Precision123 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Press TV says that Palestine borders Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. I wonder if it has to do with the non recognition by the local government or if Israel really doesn't exist? I really don't care what bias media says, Palestine borders Israel, the end. Sepsis II (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Precision123: De facto Here's an article on what de facto means. And take a moment and look at your argument. I really can't help but laugh. What Reuters article does equal is that Reuters does recognize is a De Facto statehood from this matter. You move then to an article on De Jure recognition. While doing this you ignore the ignore the De jure recogniztion by 130+ states (the majority to states). Then you mention Reuters style guide. You ignore "When we are dealing with material from disputed territories, we often name the place regionally, rather than by country, to avoid appearing to ‘take sides’ in our country names." Then mention hey guys they said Palestinian Territories.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I did not ignore any part of the style guide. I just pointed out a secondary point to it (i.e., that they describe why not to use "Palestinian territories" for describing the West Bank and Gaza Strip--let alone using "Palestine"). When describing geography, they use West Bank and Gaza Strip. This is for the sake of neutrality.

Also I am fully aware of what de facto means. I think you miss the point over and over again. These sources do not refer the West Bank and Gaza as the state of Palestine. They do not treat Palestine as a state. They say, over and over again, that a Palestinian state is not yet established. Their maps do not include a state called Palestine. And for starters, you have submitted not one reliable secondary source that says explicitly that Israel and a sovereign Palestine share a border. None. If this were actually the case from a neutral point of view, there would be several sources that repeat this. None do. (See WP:SYN and WP:RS.) The sources refer only to the territories of the West Bank and Gaza.

If you are going to continue to disagree with these facts, then you should suggest some sort of dispute resolution to resolve these differences. --Precision123 (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Precision123: Facts? You mean reliable sources? The facts are that the existence of the state of Palestine is disputed. Dispute resolution? You can mention that the existence of Palestine is disputed. I recommend one of those reference notes. Beyond that all I'm going to do to resolve this dispute is tell you to make your case.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, I and others have state our cases, and I have only used reliable sources. I strongly believe that this issue can and should be resolved. I hope that you will cooperate in resolving the disagreement. --Precision123 (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Precision123:I have established my case with reliable sources. The State of Palestine is a recognized State. I do not disagree that your reliable sources say that the state of Palestine is not a recognized state. What this proves is the Status of Palestine is disputed. You and others? Where? I just see you in this conversation saying the State of Palestine should be removed. The others I see are saying it shouldn't be removed.I have cooperated in this. I have been the one making sure you have been aware that a conversation is still taking place thru WP:ECHO. I am the one of us two that has offered a compromise.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is about Israel's borders. Any state of Palestine has no borders. (This is despite the fact all neutral secondary sources say it is not yet established.) Israel cannot share borders with an entity that has none. Furthermore, these arguments are becoming redundant. You are insisting that a Palestinian state is already sovereign, but you have submitted not even one source that says the state of Palestine shares border with Israel. Per WP:SYN, this is not acceptable.

You are giving WP:undue weight to a political issue that is already treated and discussed in both the article itself and in the lead. And if your position were really the case from a neutral point of view, then it should be "easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts," all of which, on the contrary, do not place a state of Palestine on the map, and when discussing Israel's borders, do not say Israel borders Palestine.

This is not a discussion of whether or not Palestine is a state. It is a discussion of how to neutrally describe Israel's geography, namely, its borders. Commonly accepted reference texts say it borders those countries and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Again, I strongly favor dispute resolution if needed. --Precision123 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, the article does need to be changed, the current "It shares land borders with" does imply all boundaries of Israel are borders while the boundary between it and Palestine are only boundaries not borders. I suggest this be changed to "It shares land boundaries with". Sepsis II (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So now there is a state of Palestine but it doesn't border Israel. I suggest it remains the same and and source note is used to say there is disputed territory. Specifically the East Jerusalem portion of the West Bank is in dispute.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(1) I never said there was "a state of Palestine but it doesn't Israel." I said even if there were one established, it currently has no borders. Its status is in flux, and Israel cannot share borders with an entity that has none. (2) If you are being sarcastic in an attempt to show how ludicrous is the idea of there being a Palestinian state but not bordering Israel (which I think is probably the case), I point you back to the argument: "If your position [that it is a state and that it borders Israel] were really the case from a neutral point of view, then it should be 'easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.' all of which, on the contrary, do not place a state of Palestine on the map, and when discussing Israel's borders, do not say Israel borders Palestine." Again, our discussion is not over whether or not Palestine is a state, but only about neutrally describing Israel's geography.

As to your suggestions about the disputed parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, this is already very well treated in footnotes in the lead, infobox, etc. These are all political questions that deserve (and already get) treatment in the article. Our concern here is only over describing Israel's borders neutrally, the way reliable sources. Please, if you still disagree, it is not fair to either of us to continue this. We should be civil and pursue mediation or other dispute resolution. --Precision123 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

130+ states recognize the state of Palestine. States that do not recognize the state of Palestine recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. Under international law Palestine is not Terra Nullius made clear in The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective By John B. Quigley. The 1967 border is the border to the Palestinian territories. Only the Palestinian people have the right to claim Palestinian Land. The PLO is the recognized representative of the Palestinian people. They have claimed the land as part of the State of Palestine. Aside from East Jerusalem Israel makes no claim for any Palestinian land. That claim isn't recognized. You are welcomed to pursue any mediation or dispute resolution you wish. My participation in informal mediation or dispute resolution is contingent directly upon there being no idiocy in there air like there was in your last attempt and the participation of the others. Beyond that you can find formal proceedings, take the compromise I've offered, or just go away.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is not between editors who agree, but between editors who do not. Please be civil and cooperative. If there was any "idiocy," it should easily be detected by admins or mediators. I am glad that you are warming up more to the idea of dispute resolution. I look forward to resolving this. --Precision123 (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware that dispute resolution is not between editors that agree. I don't agree with you. You don't agree with me. We however aren't the only parties concerned. The last attempt as dispute resolution was full of idiocy. The mediator was unable to deal with it before I came there to sign up. And with that since I am in no why required to take part in informal dispute resolution I will not be taking part in it when it is ran like that. I have always been warmed to dispute resolution. I'm just not warm to an organized exercise in futility. You can either get everyone else on board for an informal mediation process or find a formal binding mediation process.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion How about:

It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) to the east and southwest, Egypt and the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea to the south. It contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area.

This way we also avoid the run-on sentence. Should be good. Best, --Precision123 (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That's great and all except for the fact that you remove the state of Palestine. "Oh look it's not a run on sentence now." Don't insult my intelligence. This conversation is over. If you would like to go and attempt formal binding mediation go ahead. If you make this change it will likely be reverted.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding the run-on sentence was actually in reference to splitting the sentence with the next one ("It contains geographically diverse....). Please assume good faith. We have a disagreement, and I will request mediation. --Precision123 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

All BCE and CE references be changed to BC and AD. Lord of the Rinks (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:ERA. You must develop a consensus on the Talk page for making such a change. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems slanted: "In 2012, Israel proper was ranked 92nd according to Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index – the highest ranking in the region.[198]" I didn't see the source saying that. The definition of "region" is debatable--Kuwait is ranked higher than Israel by that source. It's rather odd to pick a single positive thing to say about a 92nd ranking, rather than pointing out any of 91 negatives (e.g. "worse than so-and-so", "worst among developed nations", etc.). It would be more neutral to cite the fact, and let readers follow up with their own comparisons if they wish. Minorview (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Even closer is Cyprus which scores much higher than Israel. The "highest ranking in the region" remark is clearly unnecessary false commentary and as such I have removed it. Sepsis II (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

While Palestinians live in the area of the district Judea and Samaria, which is most of the West Bank, they should not be counted in the population figure of that district because they are not part of that district officially. This is clear but here is a link to Population, by District, Sub-District and Religion by the Israeli CBS that shows this. This is accurately reflected at Districts of Israel and Judea and Samaria Area. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct, I just fixed this. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

please change:

Consequently, the population of Israel rose from 800,000 to two million between 1948 and 1958.[96] During this period, food, clothes and furniture had to be rationed in what became known as the Austerity Period. Between 1948–1970, approximately 1,151,029 Jewish refugees relocated to Israel.[97] Some arrived as refugees with no possessions and were housed in temporary camps known as ma'abarot; by 1952, over 200,000 immigrants were living in these tent cities.[98] The need to solve the crisis led Ben-Gurion to sign a reparations agreement with West Germany that triggered mass protests by Jews angered at the idea that Israel could accept monetary compensation for the Holocaust.[99]

to

Consequently, the population of Israel rose from 800,000 to two million between 1948 and 1958.[96] During this period, food, clothes and furniture had to be rationed in what became known as the Austerity Period. Some arrived as refugees with no possessions and were housed in temporary camps known as ma'abarot; by 1952, over 200,000 immigrants were living in these tent cities.[98] The need to solve the crisis led Ben-Gurion to sign a reparations agreement with West Germany that triggered mass protests by Jews angered at the idea that Israel could accept monetary compensation for the Holocaust.[99]

Between 1948–1970, approximately 1,151,029 Jewish refugees relocated to Israel.[97] Immigration between 1970 and 2013 was just under 1,800,000. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

Aliyahwisdom (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

  Done thanks for helping improve Wikipedia :) --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.water-technology.net/projects/israel/

  Triggered by \bwater-technology\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a policy discussion going on at Talk:Russia#Request for Comment regarding the coloring of Crimea on the Russia location map that also may affect this article. My comment there:

It is argued that the de jure status of Crimea is disputed by NATO, EU, the "international community", Western media, of whomever. This is irrelevant. When zooming in to File:Israel (orthographic projection).svg I see the same coloring as in File:Israel Map by The Legal Status of The Territories-3.svg. The occupied West Bank is shaded light green but the de jure annexed Golan Heights are colored dark green – despite the fact that the annexation is recognized by no other country.

If Crimea were colored light green as "disputed territory" then the that policy would dictate that Golan Heights are similarly colored light green. Please state your opinion in that discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's because File:Israel Map by The Legal Status of The Territories-3.svg is wrong. File:Israel (orthographic projection).svg is probably too small to care about but it doesn't appear to show the Golan Heights as part of Israel as far as I can see. Of course Wikipedia shouldn't show the Golan Heights as part of Israel. That would be a serious NPOV violation so File:Israel Map by The Legal Status of The Territories-3.svg is a very bad example to use elsewhere and the map is not used in any articles. If it were added to an article it would be removed. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is de-facto part of Israel. Access to the Golan is possible only from within Israel and not from Syria, the people of the Golan pay their taxes to Israel and live under Israeli law and jurisdiction. MathKnight 22:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Golan Heights is not part of Israel. It is part of Syria. When you are standing in Golan, you are standing in Syria. Attempt to implant Israeli law and jurisdiction in Syria's land is illegal and not accepted by the international community. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors who violate NPOV policy on this issue by using Wikipedia to portray part of the Israeli occupied territories as if it is part of Israel can be reported to arbitration enforcement and topic banned from WP:ARBPIA. It's pretty much a guaranteed way to lose editing privileges in this topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I would have to disagree Sean. Portions of the occupied territories annexed by Israel and under the authority of the Israel government can be said to be a defacto part of Israel. With the apropriate sources of course. Defacto being the key word however.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should first look at how sources describe the situation and based on that decide how to present it here, rather than first decide how to present it here and then fish out sources that support that view. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ditto, User:Serialjoepsycho. "De facto" is the key word. Simple as that. --Precision123 (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the decision by Crimea. They had a vote in Crimea itself, Russia is annexing and Ukraine removed there troops acknowledging defeat. Wikipedia is not the government. Wikipedia does not have the right to decide how things should be rather how they are in practice. Crimea for all practical purposes is no longer acting as part of Ukraine none of the parties directly involved will argue other wise. The Ukrainians may think this is unfortunate but they understand unless and until anything changes Crimea is not part of Ukraine. Golan Heights is the same thing in that regard for all practical purposes is part of Israel no matter how little Syria likes is. Since when did Wikipedia become the prosecuter in world diplomacy? YonahR (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Besides Russia and a few other places no one is arguing that Crimea is a part of Russia legally. There is Dejure and there is defacto. Wikipedia has the responsibility to represent both. It doesn't matter which POV you want to push. As much as you want to remove all mention of the legal status of Golan someone else wants to remove the facts on the ground. Neither of you get to win. The facts are that Golan Heights is not a part of Israel and Israel is in control of it. All you are really saying here is, "I just don't like it." That's great. You don't have to like it. The other side doesn't seem to like it either.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Israeli census doesn't count or differentiate between the different Jewish ethnic groups, and it only lists country of origin (the countries of origins themselves don't determine which ethnic group the immigrants belonged - e.g. large numbers of Mountain Jews immigrated from Russia, and the majority of French Jews are Mizrahi), so what he has added to the lede is known to be an unsupported claim (it's regularly discussed that the information is deliberately made inaccessible by the government). Moreever, at least 35% of Israelis are also of mixed ethnicity (between those groups), so the differentiation between the Jewish ethnic groups in the lede doesn't make any sense, since it implies that these are separate groups, when they are substantially inter-married in Israel.

And even then, the edits are highly confusing and illiterate. The edits seem to imply that there are only three Jewish ethnic groups? And the edits claim there are more Bedouin and Druzim, than Ethiopian Jews or Yemenite Jews (neither of whom are listed, even though they are both larger groups). Avaya1 (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Avaya1, thanks for responding. Do you have any WP:RS that justify that Ashkenazi Jews are not the largest ethnic group in Israel? I have presented (and cited) a few that show they are. Secondly, the edit is not confusing nor incompetent, it gives the reader an overview of the major ethnic groups in Israel before going into the Israeli goverment designations and population data after. Lazyfoxx (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Another point I forgot to add, is that the Israeli government only counts the country of origin by paternal line in the family. As the majority mixed families in Israel began with a father of European origin, this is also said to increase the over-counting of 'European origin' families. The sources usually say that Jews including Mizrahi heritage are at least half of the Jewish population in Israel, one goes (Drucker 2005) as high as 63% of the Jewish population of Israel (http://www.academia.edu/1804726/Mizrahi_Feminism_and_the_Question_of_Palestine_JMEWS_). However, the reality is that nobody knows, since the Israeli government deliberately doesn't count it. The categories themselves are not clear cut (how would we count Uzbek Jews or Georgian Jews, let alone the 35% of Jews from mixed backgrounds?). The sentence you added is factually incorrect, but the categories you use are themselves not clear cut either. Avaya1 (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Avaya, the source you quoted saying Mizrahi make up 63% is from 2005, I suggest we find some more recent sources. The Statistical Abstract of Israel, 2009, CBS. "Table 2.24 – Jews, by country of origin and age" (PDF) says that 47.5% of Jews in Israel are of Ashkenazi descent. Either way, depending on more sources we can find, those three ethnic divisions of Jews are undoubtedly the most populus in Israel and they should be distinguished in the lead, like the other large ethnic groups such as Palestinians, Bedouins, and Druze. I encourage more editors to chime in here if they have sources we can use. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's list the main ethnic groups without making controversial statements about their size. The Israeli census, doesn't distinguish the ethnic groups, but simply lists the paternal country of origin. A large proportion of Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews immigrated from Europe and Russia. And a large proportion of Israeli Jews are mixed. Avaya1 (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That is fine with me, however I believe Ashkenazi should be first considering based on the sources put forth thus far they are the most populus, on the Mizrahi page, it says Mizrahi + Sephardi make up over 50% of Jews in Israel while citing one of the sources I provided on this article. Ashkenazi by definition make up 47.5%. I know you have stated Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews immigrated from Ashkenazi countries but no sources for that have been presented to indicate that the 47.5% of Ashkenazi origin are Mizrahi or Sephardi and not Ashkenazi. Lazyfoxx (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm missing the relevence. Is this the diff that we are talking about? Are complaining because only Israeli recognized demographics are being used?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This article from The Guardian caught my eye: Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups--Other Choices (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Article title: "Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups: Two Israeli groups set up training courses in Wikipedia editing with aims to 'show the other side' over borders and culture" -- Very interesting reading. Thanks for posting the link. Charvex (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That reminds of WP:FORUM.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

new president has ben elected today, Jun 10 2014: Reuven Rivlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.145.121 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This should be changed slightly; Eichmann was not executed by an Israeli court, he was sentenced to death by an Israeli court, and the execution was (I presume) carried out by the prison service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.239.197 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It was on their authority that it happened.. While they may have not directly pulled the trigger that means little.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. What do you think of my edit just now?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly your change does little to actually change it.

"Eichmann remains the only person ever to be executed by an Israeli court." vs "Eichmann remains the only person executed by the Israeli judicial system." Effectively you've reworded but you haven't actually changed it. To key in more on what the IP is saying you'd have to go with, "Eichmann remains the only person executed under the Israeli judicial system." or "Eichmann remains the only person sentenced to execution by the Israeli judicial system."

I don't know, what do you think?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Executioners are part of the system. Courts are another part of the system. He's not the only person sentenced to death. Sa'id Badarnah was also, but he wasn't executed. There may be others besides Badarnah that I don't know of. We can't say the natural thing, which would be that he was the only person executed by the state of Israel, because that's not true either. They've executed lots of people extrajudicially, like many modern states. He is the only person judicially executed by Israel. Hence by the judicial system. Anyway, feel free to try to do better, but be careful, because the facts are complex.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

While The correction system is a part of the Criminal Justice System it isn't actual a part of the court. While it acts as a arm of the court that is generally all, as the court is an arm of the criminal justice system. Though it maybe in the case of Israel. It should be confirmed. Consider the American system. The death warrant. Some times that's set by an executive. The guy that sets the exuction time could be considered just as responsible as the guy the rules for execution, and the guy that does the execution. As far as the executioner consider the old practice of using a blank on the firing squad. This was an attempt to try to absolve such a person of guilt.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. How do they do it in Zambia? Meanwhile, since you won't suggest language to express what we all understand perfectly well but can't seem to find a way to say both succinctly and truthfully, it looks like this book has the story in it. Thus, when I get my hands on a copy I'll explain what actually happened in Israel to Eichmann, that being the subject of the sentence we're trying to write.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggest: the only person executed in Israel after conviction by a civil court. The "civil" is required because of Meir Tobianski. Zero^talk 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Do you mean "civilian"? I'd be pretty surprised if a civil court in Israel has ever sentenced anyone to execution. Formerip (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I meant civil as in the opposite of military. Since "civil court" has a stronger meaning than "civil"+"court", I should have written "civilian court". Zero^talk 23:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work, as always. Do you have a better source than the one that's in there? I'm already nervous about using it (and rightly so it turns out, due to Tobianski, who I didn't know of but the author of that Justice Ministry report surely must have). It'll take me a couple days to get my hands on Yablonka's book but if you have a good source we can change it any time. Do you know her book, and is it worth anything?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have Yablonka's book, but Yablonka is a good historian/sociologist so her book would be reliable. However, I'll use a journal source. You are right to be doubtful about the source that is there. Zero^talk 08:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not completely aware of the Zambian System. It seems they do use Death Warrants. I think there system works on the Federal level. Anyway the point being the IP's complaint was directly about wording. You can attribute the sentence to the court but not completely the execution. The excution can attributed to the court but not solely.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Although the editors on this talk page are unlikely to engage in anything less than polite discussion, this Yellow Smiley will nonetheless serve as a reminder for any future editors who may occasionally be tempted to lapse. Courtesy of the Random Smiley Project.

Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:AmirSurfLera, re your last edit comment, see Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries#Egypt. As it explans, the vast majority of Jews in 20th century Egypt were not "Egyptian Jews" by ancestry or nationality / citizenship. Of those who were known to have been expelled post the suez crisis, more than 90% were British or French (per the figures in Laskier). Oncenawhile (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

These Jews had French or British citizenship but had been living in Egypt for centuries. They were not foreigners. Benjil (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Israel is not a state. There are Jews in Palestine who call themselves Israelis. This self-proclaimed Israelis stealing the Palestinians their country. 109.91.154.207 (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor ^Sing 05:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel actually has 4th, not 3rd, highest standard of living in Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaxovskiy (talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sirs,

It is well known in the occult world, that the Star of David stands for the Hindu Occult of Astral worship and crytal gazing as noted in the well known text of L.W. De Lawrence published in 1909 in multiple nations, of which I am sure Hitler himself accessed as he was an occultist wearing the swastica of Theosophists. Please present this accurately on this webpage, so that the lay non occult person can annotate this in their life an act accordingly. As Wikemedia, is after the name of Witchcraft, the least you could do is represnt what you stand for in truth being the basers of free encyclopedic information after the cyclopedes. I am not about to end my sitation with the mark of a stupid slithering serpent.

Sincerely,

Melissa

173.58.100.70 (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This sounds like a WP:fringe theory to me. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm requesting an edit to the uncompleted definition of Israel,it is said,in its article,that "Israel is a country" which signifies to any visitor that is a state recognized by all countries of the world,unfortunately that's logically a false statement,the truth statement must declare clearly that Israel is only recognized by 160 country out of 192 around the world (reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel),so in order to keep the trust given by our readers and visitors,we should add/modify an/the information that shows the fact mentioned above,concerning the international recognition,in the definition,otherwise,it would be considered as a biased article in favour of Israel,therefore,the content of Wiki will be doubted,reviewed and critically analysed,moreover,the public opinion about our reliability will be negatively influencing visitors,as a result,the Wiki Traffic will decrease which will lead eventually the Wikimedia Foundation to collapse and to be considered as unreliable source of information. Larossi (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Arjayay (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Country" doesn't imply that a state is recognized by all countries of the world. Oxford University Press' "A Guide to Countries of the World", ISBN 978-0199580729 has an entry for Palestine on page 245, but it's inclusion doesn't in any way imply universal recognition of the State of Palestine as opposed to the current level of recognition by 137 states. The foreign relations section of this article says that "Israel maintains diplomatic relations with 157 countries" so Israel's status as a partially but widely recognized state is mentioned, albeit implicitly. Maybe it would benefit from being a little more explicit, but the way it's done now isn't really any different from the way information is presented at State_of_Palestine#International_recognition_and_foreign_relations and it would be wise to treat them in a consistent way. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The claim that the population of the Palestinian mandate was 33% Jewish at the end of the war leads to a empty page. Please remove this claim or preferably replace with accurate claim citing a reliable source. Thanks. Pnuwb (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm just trying to read this straight through, but it looks like a sentence was either removed or awkwardly re-arranged to form this non-sequitur:

"In the early years of the state, the Labor Zionist movement led by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion dominated Israeli politics.[97][98] One such policy, the One Million :Plan, led to an an influx of Holocaust survivors and Jews from Arab and Muslim lands, many of whom faced persecution and expulsion from their original countries.[99]"

What's supposed to be going on here? 216.164.56.98 (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem (if East Jerusalem is included) is the country's most populous city and its designated capital."

If East Jerusalem is included? Why wouldn't it be included? If you want to allude to the controversy why don't you allude to the controversy? I would remove that (if East Jerusalem is included part).

I also do not see the importance of listing Tel Aviv. It's the financial center. Why don't you mention Nazreth as the second most populous city? If you want to mention Tel Aviv I would probably mention that it is the city that that hosts foreign embassies. I'm curios why that isn't mentioned actually.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

changed to: Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv,[20] while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally the East Jerusalem section of the city is not considered to be a part of Israel.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering that internationally West Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel, shouldn't it be changed to just, "though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel." Sepsis II (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It will need a source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Victor Kattan, "Competing claims, contested city: the sovereignty of Jerusalem in international law" states on page 2, paragraph 2 that no country recognizes Israeli sovereignty in West or East Jerusalem. Kattan is an academic in the relevant field so this source is reliable for the statement. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv,^[1] while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally the Jerusalem section of the city is not considered to be a part of Israel.^{[note 1][2] [3]}"- Proposed change in relation to all of the sources involved.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think saying this is simpler: "though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel" --Dailycare (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

lol Ya that's much better.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv,[20] while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel." is what it has been changed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialjoepsycho (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Kattan is just one scholar. The issue is far more nuanced and complex than this. See for example "Whither Jerusalem?: Proposals and Positions Concerning the Future of Jerusalem", by renown scholars of international law such as Prof. Ruth Lapitdot. In particualr, pages 15-17, quoting Lauterpucht, Gruhin and Cassese. Avusi nabusi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Avusi nabusi: Certainly, Katan is but one reliable source. However are you arguing that Katan shouldn't be used? That argument can made certainly. It is more Nuanced and complex than this. Far more so than originally written. How do you think it should be written?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We can't be stating, in Wikipedia's voice, that "no country recognizes Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem". That is simply Kattan's opinion (from an advocacy piece he wrote for the Arab League, not an academic research paper, and other scholars disagree with that view. As to how it should be written - I think it was fine the way it was written for a very long time - "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem (if East Jerusalem is included) is the country's most populous city and its designated capital." We have an entire article dedicated to the more nuanced positions. Avusi nabusi (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What does the Lapitdot source say on pages 15-17? Google Books doesn't display those. And as far as I know, no country does recognize Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem, this is reflected also in several UN resolutions, and isn't a question of someone's opinion, rather it's a question of fact. See this summary of the US position, for example. The UN said in resolution 63/30 of 2009 that "any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void" Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I now found the Lapidot source, it says (page 17, 2nd paragraph and page 18, 1st paragraph) that "most states" haven't recognized Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem. It says that Israel itself and "various international jurists" support the notion that West Jerusalem would be in Israel, which isn't inconsistent with what Kattan says. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Saying "most states haven't" implies some states have, and is thus very much consistent with the false claim of Kattan that "no state has recognized it". Further, now that you found the source, you could spend some time reading it carefully and see for example, on p17 that Cassese is of the view that Egypt recognizes, at least implicitly, Israel's sovereignty in West Jerusalem. Bottom line : we can't state in Wikipedia's voice as fact the opinion of one scholar which is at odds with others. Avusi nabusi (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well for one, that's a logical fallacy on top of well poisioning, two you're still banned from wikipedia nocal. Sepsis II (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have two points to make here: 1) saying "most states haven't" doesn't imply that some states have. It states that a majority of states have not, and implies the writer doesn't know of any that have. 2) Both sources are consistent with the actual edit we're discussing: " internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel". This text doesn't mean that no-one anywhere thinks Jerusalem is in Israel, only that it's the consensus view that Jerusalem isn't in Israel. So the wording does accurately reflect both sources, and I'm OK with citing Lapidot as well as Kattan to support it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "considered" and "recognized". To consider is to think or believe, while To recognize is to acknowledge. There is no way of telling whether the international community considers Jerusalem to be part of Israel. Furthermore, the international community (specifically, the UN) has only dealt with the question of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Therefore, it can only be stated that Jerusalem has not been recognized internationally as the capital of Israel - as is mentioned in the relevant page on Jerusalem. --Caliban19 (talk) 12:25, 07 March 2014 (UTC)

Again (if East Jerusalem is included).... Why wouldn't it be included? If there is no point in having here why it wouldn't be included then there is no point in even mentioning it here in the first place. The more nuanced positions in the article will cover that ground as well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally the East Jerusalem section of the city is not considered to be a part of Israel. It is questioned if West Jerusalem is a part of Israel." Proposed change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialjoepsycho (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I object. Today, West Jerusalem is internationally considered as part of Israel - it's the Eastern part that's disputed. -Shalom11111 (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

EJ is not disputed and WJ is not recognized as part of Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

We have sources, including sources cited in this thread, which say that West Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as being in Israel. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dailycare and the other editors. I respond to the statement that "we have sources" WJ is not considered part of Israel. "Having source" does not mean source corresponds to Wikipedia's views of neutrality and objectivity. Please consider that on page 3 paras 1-4 the author (Kattan) states that he disagrees with the commonly accepted view of "sovereignty" the "international law view" of "sovereignty" as "territorial sovereignty" or the "legal competence which the state enjoys in respect of its territory." (para 1-2). He posits an alternative view of "sovereignty": as akin to the notion of "title" as when comparing a succession of title, and "legitimacy", which must take into account a history of colonialism. It is through this framework that he supports his earlier statement that WJ is not considered part of Israel. This framework of sovereignty is not objective but based on Kattan's subjective view that Israel power over WJ (gained in 1948 armed conflict) and it legitimacy (part of alleged colonization) does not yield sovereignty. Wikipedia has a definition of sovereignty which more closely aligns with territory sovereignty and international law, not a historical perspective on title and legitimacy. The majority view of int'l law, int'l scholars and the worlds' nations is that the land of WJ conquered in 1949 by Israel is part of ISrael. Please see UN map which places WJ in Israel, EJ in disputed land: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

Accordingly, I propose to change the sentence from "...though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel." to

"...though internationally East Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel."

I further propose to delete FN 21 and to replace it with the UN cite above, as the UN is on this question more neutral and more likely to correspond to generally accepted notions of sovereignty, int'l law, and what is "considered" part of a country. Jonmayer18 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a change based on the notion that "The majority view of int'l law, int'l scholars and the worlds' nations is that the land of WJ conquered in 1949 by Israel is part of ISrael" would be a good idea. Have you seen the Opinions on the Legal Status of Jerusalem According to International Law section in "Whither Jerusalem?: Proposals and Positions Concerning the Future of Jerusalem" for example ? Perhaps you could explain what led you to believe that the majority view of int'l law, int'l scholars and the worlds' nations is that Israel has sovereignty over West Jerusalem as it is not obvious. What about the EU for example ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

One example would be Wikipedia's page on West Jerusalem says that Israel's authority over the WJ is de facto recognized, if not de jure. The citation provided there is much stronger than FN 21 here. There is also the UN map I posted. As stated, Kattan relies on an argument for sovereignty which, by his own admission, not in accord with int'l law. please see paras 1-4 on page 3. http://www.qatarconferences.org/jerusalem/doc1/doc31.pdf Note also that his paper says that it shall not be cited without permission. Is there authority for his permission? Has Wikipedia's IP policy been complied with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmayer18 (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. I've already read Kattan because I was involved in the very lengthy and detailed preparations for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem where it was provided as one of the sources for the statement "Few or no countries recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel". Your proposed change appears to be based on the false premise that "The majority view of int'l law, int'l scholars and the worlds' nations is that the land of WJ conquered in 1949 by Israel is part of Israel". This view is inaccurate as far as I'm aware so it can't form part of the encyclopedia or be a premise upon which decisions about content are made. Israel's de facto authority over the occupied territories is also recognized in the sense that it's recognized as the occupying power that administers those territories. That doesn't mean they are de facto recognized as part of Israel and wouldn't justify removing something that said that they were "not considered to be a part of Israel". I think you are going a bit too far. There are plenty of sources out there that talk about the variety of views on West Jerusalem. It would probably be better to focus on those if your intention is to provide a more nuanced description than "though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel". Sean.hoyland - talk 07:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

OK fair enough. How about: (1) How about Dumper, Michael (1997). The politics of Jerusalem since 1967. Columbia University Press. pp. 38 (1949 peace treaty gave Israel int'l recognition of power in WJ in exchange for peace); (2) House of Lord recognition of Israel control over WJ in 1949 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UKrecognizesIsraelJordan.pdf); (3) Armistace agreement with Jordan 1949 (Jordan recognizes Israel control of WJ (Art V), attaching a map which divides EJ and WJ and recognizes that WJ is part of Israel under its control (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/F03D55E48F77AB698525643B00608D34)), and (4) 1950 Tripartite Decl. of US/Britain/France supporting Jordan -Israel peace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Declaration_of_1950). These imply positive affirmations of Israel's de facto control and less questioning or censure, as distinguished from Int'l reaction to Israel's control of WB or EJ.

I also reiterate a concern with IP issues and reliability of Kattans paper, as it is unpublished. Jonmayer18 (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to pick up the discussion but as a general comment I think the lead statement "though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel" could perhaps benefit from a bit of very carefully considered nuancing. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Concerning Kattan's document, it's available on the net so I'm not sure what is meant by "unpublished". Further, Kattan is a scholar active in the area so he's reliable concerning such issues, and he doesn't seem to be using any unusual definition of sovereignty in the sections of the document where he says Israel's sovereignty in WJ isn't recognized. Of course, this is quite easy to square with the fact that no embassies are located in WJ, either. Concerning the UK document, it explicitly provides that "His Majesty's government are unable to recognize the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies". So, in fact, they refer to West Jerusalem as occupied territory, not as Israel. They do say Israel has "de facto" control there. This in-line with the UK's current view, too. In the UNISPAL doc, or the wikipedia page on tripartite, I don't see mentions of sovereignty over Jerusalem. Of course, a wikipedia page isn't a source anyway. See also Lapidot, "Whither Jerusalem", page 17: "Israeli control in west Jerusalem since 1948 was illegal and most states have not recognized its sovereignty there". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know if it has any value here, but I am Israeli and has also French citizenship and I can testify that all French documents that I receive say that I live in Jerusalem, with no State. In fact sometimes "Israel" had been written and then crossed. So, yes some, many, countries do not recognize any sovereignty to Israel over any part of Jerusalem for whatever reasons. Some country by the way do recognize Israel's sovereignty over Israel, Australia for example and over all of Jerusalem (a recent development). Jerusalem is fully under Israeli control, is an Israeli city, and is Israel's capital de facto and de jure. Regarding this last point, a capital is not defined by other countries recognizing it as a capital. It is a capital because it is. The issue is not recognized as capital as Israel because it is not recognized as part of Israel. I think Wikipedia should just state the facts as they are: Jerusalem is Israel's capital and biggest city. Many countries do not recognize Israel's sovereignty over the city. That's all. You can improve the phrasing of course. Benjil (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That isn't quite what the Australian government said. They simply decided to stop referring to the parts of Jerusalem across the green line as occupied territory anymore, but there's probably no need to get into a discussion about that here. It's not clear to me how to improve the phrasing but a statement like "internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel" looks like the kind of statement about abstract things that might benefit from something being added to the end that starts with "but" or "although" + <something about reality/in practice>. If it's going to reignite a conflict over content though it's probably just not worth it. It could burn for a decade as it has before. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Dailycare, hello. What about the 1949 Armistice Agreement itself and its attached maps? Dumper? The House of Lords document says that "His Majesty's Government regard the territory to which the Anglo-Jordan Treaty is applicable as being bounded by the Armistice Line" until further agreement. Further, if one reviews a compilation of the views of scholars active in the area, one sees that Prof. Lauterpacht, Prof. MI Gruhin, and Anthony Cassesse support the notion that Israel holds sovereignty over West Jerusalem. Against this, FN 21 and 23 cite Lapidot and a Kattan paper (one that is pdfed online but is unpublished by a publisher and expressly asks not to be cited) as the sources on whether WJ is "considered part of" Israel. This seems to be not neutral or at least incomplete. He is "a scholar active in the area" true but so are the forgoing. Presence of embassies relates to capital status, less so what is considered part of a country. Then there is also the issue of a lack of a competing claim; the main competing claim is to EJ, not WJ. Per the forgoing and Sean.Holyland, I suggest a more nuanced view: instead of "while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel" suggest "while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and final status and sovereignty remain contested." This accommodates your point Dailycare about embassies and it accommodates scholarly debate on sovereignty (without getting into the nature of sovereignty, "taking a side", or starting 10 years of debate ... it appears this was a recent change on 9 February 2014.) Jonmayer18 (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again - I don't see what conclusions could be drawn from the map, this is a nuanced diplomatic issue. The accompanying text certainly doesn't suggest that the map implies any kind of recognition, it rather says the opposite: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question". Concerning the UK doc, see my earlier comment. Your suggestion, however, is quite good. How about amending it to "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Palestine and Israel's designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." This would avoid saying the city is "Israel's". --Dailycare (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Let me give you my humble opinion: I think that saying "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Palestine..." is more POV than saying that Jerusalem is in Israel's (not to mention incorrect, because the Palestinian Authority has no real control over the city). I support the current version, because it clearly states in a single sentence that Israel controls the city and designated it as its capital, but it's not internationally recognized as such (at least the eastern part). Something similar says in the article about Palestine. We have to present the facts, which is that Israel (not Palestine) controls the city, but it's not internationally recognized. That's all.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but Jerusalem is the most populous city in Israel and there is no reason to avoid it because that is just the reality on the ground whether you like it or not. Saying anything else is at best hypocrisy or POV pushing. And why "Israel's designated capital" and not "Israel's capital". Jerusalem is Israel's capital. This is a just fact. And then the issue is not that Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital, as other countries are not required to recognized capitals, but the fact that they do not recognize Israel sovereignty over part or all of the city. Benjil (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason to avoid saying "in Israel" is the WP:NPOV policy and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. This has been discussed at length and there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that Wikipedia is going to state as fact that Jerusalem is in Israel or that it is Israel's capital. It won't happen so forget it and move on. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So "Wikipedia" refuses to accept facts ? Jerusalem is Israel's capital. It is. It is not a matter of opinion. Just go there and see for yourself. So if we can't write it, it means this article has no value and is a joke. The fact that other countries does not recognize it has to be stated but it does not change that. But if it is "forbidden" to state facts here, it seems that I understand why more and more people do not see wikipedia as a credible source of information. This is ridiculous. So whatever you decide to write here will have no value whatsoever. Benjil (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia accepts facts. It explains and attributes opinions. You are proselytizing. I don't understand why so many Israel supporters behave this way when it comes to Jerusalem, but it won't change anything here. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No you don't accept facts, you deny them. There is no proselytizing here. Jerusalem is Israel's capital. The government is there, most ministries, most national institutions. Israel says it is its capital. A capital is decided not by international recognition but by the simple decision of each country. All these are facts, not opinions. The issue about Jerusalem is sovereignty. Because many countries do not recognize Israel's sovereignty over part or all of the city (and the truth is many of these countries just have no idea what their exact position is on the issue), they obviously can't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital if they don't think it belongs to Israel. I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to take a side in the argument. It is supposed to be neutral and describe the facts on the ground. What you propose does not. It puts facts and opinions on the same level, it is propaganda. If you want this article to be serious, you need to stop doing that. Benjil (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not about me. I'm not proposing anything. I am telling you how it is. The fact that you disagree with it doesn't matter now. There was an RfC. It ended 10+ years of conflict over this issue in Wikipedia. You are shooting the messenger. I understand your views on Jerusalem. They are made up of facts that Wikipedia can and already does report and your personal beliefs about the city, beliefs that are held by many people. Beliefs of that nature aren't relevant here no matter whether it's that Jesus Saves, God is Great or Jerusalem is Israel's capital. I'm sure there was a time when you didn't have beliefs about Jerusalem and didn't care in the slightest about who it belongs to, whose capital it is etc. Can you remember that ? I hope so because if you can remember what that was like it will make dealing with this issue within the constraints imposed by Wikipedia a lot easier. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sean and Dailycare: Lets keep up the good work. The current proposal is "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Palestine and Israel's designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." It think saying that Jerusalem is "in Palestine" does comprise POV, while saying that is "in Israel" papers over the EJ issue (though it says nothing about the capital issue). How about we turn to the pre-February text: "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Israel (if East Jerusalem is taken into account) and its designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." De facto control plus lack of contested claims amounts to a region being "part of" a country. The 1949 Armistice is now in effect 65 years with little int'l and scholarly hostility to Israel's claim there, just a forbearance on recognition of de jure contorl until resolution of EJ and 1967 war. Former US presidents speak there; the final status negotiations with PLO since 1988 have never proposed WJ to Palestine. Jonmayer18 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(Sean: Respectfully, for me, for Benji to say that Jerusalem is clearly part of Israel is not "behaving this way" any more than one who identies with the Palestinian cause is "behaving that way" when s/he says that Jerusalem is in Palestine. Each person considers different sources to be authoritative. The 10 year debtate on wikipedia ended, but history moves on and facts may change. I'm responding to a Feb 2014 revision (one that drew an "lol" from a supporter of one side here). Lets achieve neutrality in this sentence. It's important. Jonmayer18 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand but your comment seems to be based on an implicit but false premise that I think there is a difference between an Israel supporter expressing their beliefs about Jerusalem and an Palestine supporter expressing their beliefs about Jerusalem. I can assure you that isn't the case for me. I haven't been subjected to the lengthy socialization process that seems to be necessary in order to think about people of the region and the status of Jerusalem in certain predictable ways. It's a simple fact that many Israel supporters "behave this way" here and the same beliefs are repeated over and over again. There are almost no Palestinian editors in Wikipedia, few Arab editors, and the experienced long-term editors who I think could reasonably be described as identifying with the Palestinian cause tend to focus on solutions to conflicts over the content on this issue that are based on Wikipedia's policies and the sampling of reliable sources. I've watched this Wikipedia dispute for many years with interest, and spent quite a lot of time to trying to help find a solution even though I have the benefit of genuinely not caring in the slightest about the status of Jerusalem (although naturally as a human being I assume I'm influenced by how the dispute effects real people on the ground). For me it's about trying to find policy based solutions to one of the most intractable conflict-prone issues in Wikipedia, a difficult but solvable puzzle.

On the nuancing the lead, the most important thing to me is that there is a genuine policy based WP:CONSENSUS before anybody does anything to the article. It's a tinderbox. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't assume that you feel one way or another. We are having a dispute about which authority/source to follow, thats all. Benji is following one approach of "facts on the ground" (minus dispute). That does not deserve ridicule. How do you know the number of editors from each religious or ethnic background? What is that relevant? I doubt that these ad hominen labels are accurate or relevant. I also doubt you are uniquely free from the prejudices that infect everyone about Jews versus Arabs, west versus east, cultures versus cultures, US versus EU, UN versus US, and on and on. What do the sources say? Has the process here adhered to Wikipedia's standards? Jonmayer18 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I made a little change since I noticed that West Jerusalem is inside Israel's recognized borders.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it. Sorry but I'm not seeing evidence of consensus for this or any change yet. Also see [31] from <ref name=8.02>{{cite book|title=The Case For Palestine: An International Law Perspective|year=2005|publisher=Duke University Press|isbn=9780822335399|page=93|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=VaUvqHNd6m0C&pg=PA93|author=John Quigley}}</ref> Sean.hoyland - talk 06:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sean, where was the consensus when it was changed in February 2014? The change based upon an unpublished, unciteable, minority view paper that sees sovereignty as tied to legitimacy should be reverted too. Jonmayer18 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear misunderstanding of what I said and I am not sure it in in good faith. I do believe whatever I believe but that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Apparently some people here can't separate facts from opinions and think it is the same. Jerusalem is under Israel's control and is its capital. The Palestinians claim the city or part of it, but have no control over it. Some people are happy with this situation some people are not, that's not the issue. I don't exactly understand why some academic papers are necessary to clarify the situation, this is just silly and feels disconnected from reality. Once again, anybody can just go check for himself on the ground. Regarding Palestinian editors: I don't know if there are many, but there are many many pro-Palestinian editors and people with a very clear pro-Palestinian agenda, so please. The pro-Palestinians have an interest in "finding a solution to this edit conflict" because any solution that puts their claim over Jerusalem on the same level as the reality of Israeli control over the city is a victory for them. In my opinion the best solution should be to just describe the facts as they are, nothing else, in the driest, shortest, silliest way possible. As I have neither the time nor the will to start a fight here, I will stop here, and wish you all good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjil (talk • contribs) 12:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, have a look at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem RFC, since these very issues are addressed there in length and we don't need to cover the same ground again here. We have to edit according to sources. Many people will doubtless be convinced that "Tel Aviv is in occupied Palestine" or "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" are facts, but these arguments are not persuasive. Concerning "Palestine", that covers the geographic area where Israel, Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza are. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Dailycare The RFC on Jerusalem does not reach a conclusion on whether WJ is in Israel. It reaches conclusions on capital status. Your sources say one thing, mine say another. Its time to craft a reasonable compromise. Palestine to most refers to the region made semi-autonomous by the 1996 Oslo Accords and the recent UN recognition of state. I suggest "though internationally Jerusalem's final status and sovereignty is contested"Jonmayer18 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Everyone: If I'm not mistaken, the Green Line – despite supposedly being a temporary border according to the armistice agreements – is the internationally recognized border of Israel (at least the facto). Therefore West Jerusalem should be recognized as Israeli territory. However, Sean showed me a source claiming that WJ is not recognized as Israel's, despite the 1949 armistice. I thought that only the eastern part was regarded as "occupied territory" (conquered in 1967), but apparently I was wrong. Any idea?--AmirSurfLera (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

We have two sources in this discussion that say West Jerusalem isn't recognized as Israeli. Here is another source that says even the US doesn't recognize WJ as Israeli. Resolution 63/90 states "any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures" without restricting this to the eastern part. Jonmayer's sources don't in fact seem to contradict this as far as I can see. How about this: "Jerusalem is Israel's designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." The difference to the earlier proposal is to leave out the populous bit, that way we don't need to say it's Israel's or in Palestine. --Dailycare (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Holy City of Jerusalem probably refers to the Old City, which is not in WJ.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

They probably refer to the whole area...

The legal status of Jerusalem is complex due to the events of '48 and '67. The reaction to this situation is different in many countries. The most legalist chose to refer to the last international agreement and this last one is the UNGA resolution to partition Palestine and in which Jerusalem and its area was a corpus separatum.

Others consider that the Armistice Line at the date at which Israeli joined the UNO should be considered as the international borders (I think this is the majority point of view but it is not unanimous). In that case, the status of WJ is clear and is part of Israel.

There is also another point. Everything became even more complex when Israel decided to unify both WJ et EJ because the rejection of EJ as part of Israel is unanimous and this weakened the status of WJ because in the vocabulary only J and EJ remained and WJ disappeared from the vocabulary.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

(1) Can anyone identify any credible source which identifies a competing sovereign claim to WJ? Jonmayer18 (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(2) Does anyone disagree that Antonio Cassese was a scholar active in the field who published an article in 1986 entitled "Legal considerations on the international status of Jerusalem" where, on page 38 he claims that Israel has sovereignty over WJ (the west side of the green line)?

(3) Does anyone disagree that Elihu Lauterpacht is a scholar who was active in the field who published a book entitled "Jerusalem and the Holy Places" where, on pages 43-46, he claims that Israel has sovereignty over WJ over the west side of the green line?

(4) Does anyone disagree that, in a compilation of scholarly views published in 1995 entitled [Wither Jerusalem] collects sources claiming that Israel has sovereignty over WJ and those saying the opposite (no sovereignty as of that time)? Jonmayer18 (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the "Jerusalem/Tel Aviv" discussion, could we please edit the Israel wiki page to show that the capital of the country is De Facto Jerusalem and De Jure Tel Aviv, as this is the case. Hence why 9/10 embassies are located in Tel Aviv. Thanks. 81.103.224.22 (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#RfC: Should "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and "Arab-Israeli conflict" be merged?. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Israel is a country in the Middle East". The term Middle East has been criticized as implicitly Eurocentric.^[1][2] (East of where? In the Middle of what? Of course East to Europe rather than West in Asia) It is usually used by by Western press almost synonymously with the term “Arab world”. Israel is not part of the Arab world but it is still often considered part of this region. The other term used to define this region (and the more politically correct one) is Western Asia (instead of saying the region is "east" to Europe as in "Middle East" there's a reference to its location within the continent of Asia. That's why it says on the page Lebanon that "Lebanon is a country in Western Asia". Same in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. None of the pages of Western Asian countries start this way. From some reason someone decided to include this term (Middle East) only in this page. I've changed it back to Western Asia but it was reverted by Calton.--Abtalion (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that using the term "Middle East" may not be the most appropriate way of describing the geographical region in which Israel lies, and changing it to Western Asia seems reasonable. I'm not going to revert it, but hopefully we can mostly come to an agreement with others in a short period of time, at which point we can all happily change it, or potentially leave it, together.Execrated (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Israeli-Russian relations are arguably significant and worth discussing on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC01:2CC0:2511:4815:32F:C9FB (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The article states: "The Jewish Legion, a group primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine in 1917." The impression I have is that the policy followed was to avoid using the Jewish Legion in Palestine in the First World War. The Wikipedia article on the Jewish Legion seems to indicate that it's involvement was restricted to fighting in the Jordan Valley, but that was in 1918, not 1917. Therefore I have added a citation needed tag. It's rather incredible that the section makes no mention of the real reasons why the UK, or, at least, a number of pivotal politicians including Lloyd George and Balfour, backed the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which centred around the efforts of British Zionists such as Weizmann and Herbert Samuel, but it mentions the Jewish Legion, which was really of no importance to any of the outcomes (the Legion was small, had difficulty recruiting non-British Jews residing in the UK and it was foisted on the army only after extensive lobbying by Jabotinsky) unless you count developments in Revisionist Zionism. That is, the way it is mentioned here exagerrates its WEIGHT.     ←   ZScarpia   13:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I added a source for the claim. If you think there is a problem of undue weight, feel free to add the template. Inkbug (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the source. The Schechtman article in the Encyclopaedia Heraica was also used for the Jewish Virtual Library article on the Legion. There is a problem apparent in the source: although its introduction says, the Jewish Legion was a "military formation of Jewish volunteers in World War I who fought in the British army", the rest of it makes it clear that no organisation fought within the British Army under that name or in that form. The 38th, 39th and 40th Battalions of the Royal Fusiliers were raised as a Jewish regiment. The 38th and 39th were shipped to Palestine sometime from June 1918 and took part in brief fighting near Jerusalem and in the Jordan Valley. After the end of the Palestine campaign, the battalions were renamed as the Judean Regiment. Reading the Wikipedia Jewish Legion article gives the impression that Jewish Legion is a title used to refer to the Jewish regiment within the British Army, but it rather looks as though the title had no official basis. The article refers to Jewish Legionnaires within the United States army, but these took no part in the fighting in Palestine. So, although the article refers to the Jewish Legion, it doesn't appear that there was any body officially called that; the closest official name is the Judean Regiment. Can you provide any sources which actually show that there was a contemporaneous organisation called the Jewish Legion connected with the British army and which actually fought in Palestine? Failing that, perhaps the text in the article should be rewritten or removed.     ←   ZScarpia   19:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Colonel J. H. Patterson used the name Jewish Regiment.     ←   ZScarpia   22:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What about "The 38th Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers, a unit composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine in 1918."? Inkbug (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Two comments: the 39th Battalion was also involved; the word 'assisted' makes it sound as though they weren't there in a fighting capacity. How about: "Two battalions of the British army which were composed primarily of Jewish volunteers and were part of what is known unofficially as the Jewish legion fought in the conquest of Palestine from mid-1918."     ←   ZScarpia   12:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That looks fine, although there should probably be a link to Jewish Legion. Inkbug (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please change: "Israel has the highest ratio of defense spending to GDP and as a percentage of the budget of all developed countries.^[1][2]"

To: Israel has one of the highest ratio of defense spendings to GDP of all developed countries, only topped by Oman.^[3][4]

Reason: GDP claim was wrong. Percentage of the budget is wrong and topped by many. Therefore removed. Haaretz source removed due to wrong claims. Aykitev (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  Done Cannolis (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).