Talk:Israel/Archive 89

Archive 85

←

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

→

Archive 95

conflict paragraph again

We've established a consensus for the paragraph on the conflict in the lead, and the language added today on "the area was invaded by several surrounding Arab countries" is both lacking in consensus and inaccurate. But as we have on this talk page an established consensus on that paragraph people who would like to change it will need to show that this consensus has changed. See the discussion here where the lead was developed with buy-in from all sides here. Also, the bit on "denying Israel's right to exist" assumes Israel, or any other state, has such a right, and that is a NPOV issue. nableezy - 21:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Also note this is discussed, and ignored, up in #conflict paragraph. Repeatedly reinstating edits against an established consensus is edit-warring, no matter if it happens once an hour or once a week. nableezy - 21:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Since the current text is non-factual and borders on rewriting history, I would like to challenge this consensus. It strikes me as ludicrous and extremely tendentious to claim that an invasion largely did not occur. The invasion of the newly born state by surrounding Arab countries is cited by the vast majority of source as the main cause of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In order to understand the aftermath of war, it must be put in the right perspective. Wemust include the invasion in the lede, otherwise this is a major breach of NPOV. Tombah (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Counterfactual lol, says the person putting in to the lead of the article propaganda like "who denied Israel's right to exist". nableezy - 12:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The sections Nableezy is linking to is himself mostly talking to himself, and not about whether invaded was right, that's not consensus on this. I agree with Tombah. Wars don't passively become "internationalized" and invading armies don't "enter" a territory. The Arab countries invaded Israel, which was declared but the day before with the end of mandate, full stop. I added a Routledge published reference work, that summarizes the conflict in six lines, that describes the conflict this way. This description is neutral and invaded is the normal way to describe this invasion. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 06:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, and if you eddit against an established consensus again I am going straight to AE. I aint putting up with this crap, sorry. nableezy - 12:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Some points:

• The text should neutrally sum up all reliable sources, which include those written from an Arab point of view.
• The Mandate ended at midnight between the 14th and 15th of May 1948. Properly speaking, it didn't end on a particular day. More accurately, the 14th is the day preceding, or leading up to, the end of the Mandate and the 15th the one following on from it.
• Most of the fighting took place in the area designated as an Arab state in the Partition Plan and it was that area that Arab armies moved into on 15 May. To state that those armies invaded 'Israel' on the 15th, as your chosen source does, is, at best, sloppy.
• In the lead up to the end of the Mandate, Jewish forces were securing areas in what was supposed to become an Arab state. Bearing that in mind, is it neutral to state that one side invaded and attacked the other? The Arab states' stated objective, though some of them, principally Jordan, had other motives, was to protect Arabs from the Jewish forces. Does neutrality not require to be mentioned, particularly as it's not really in doubt that those forces were preparing to seize as much of the territory of the projected Arab state as they could?
• The word 'invasion' is a bit loaded. It implies that the Arab armies fought their way into Palestine against the wishes of the inhabitants or those controlling the area. Did they fight their way into Palestine? Was it against the wishes of the inhabitants, largely Arabs in areas which were supposed to form part of an Arab state? Who was in control?
• "The current text is non-factual and borders on rewriting history." There are, of course, different versions of what the facts are and the history.

    ←   ZScarpia   09:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

On 14 May, in the discussion over Declaring Indpendence that day before Shabbat set in Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected the idea that the state thus declared should have its boundaries drawn- that itself means that the phrase 'invading Israel' is meaningless, and indeed such a specification was lacking because the new state of Israel had no intention of respecting the Partition Agreement (B-Gurion again). The declaration aimed to checkmate any attempt, then under discussion, to place Palestine under any form of protective international tutelage. Precisely at this time, the representative of the Jewish Agency in the US was requested to formulate a written request asking for US recognition of the state of Israel. In that document an assurance was made that the new state would respect the frontiers set out by the 1947 Partition Plan, precisely what B-Gurion had refused to do. The Arab states subsequently intervened (Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine Fayard vol.3 pp.100-105. For this reason, and those given by Nableezy, I am restoring the text as it stood before disruptive attempts inserted the "5 armies invaded mantra." There are plenty of sources that use that language, but it is both pointy and contrafactual, and is not neutral, but partisan. I removed the farcical compilation used to warrant that language. We have no need of non-specialist synopses of world events like Chris Cook, Diccon Bewes , What Happened where: A Guide to Places and Events in Twentieth-century History, for a period so intensely covered by scholarshipNishidani (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, using that source specifically was the funniest part of all of this. Like there are not specialist sources devoted to that war that we need What Happened Where. nableezy - 13:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Per Jewish Virtual Library (unreliable source) (as well as Lilach5) "On May 15, 1948, the day the British Mandate over Palestine ended, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the new State of Israel."

Per US State (a partial source) "The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948."

Spot the difference. Those are anyway snippets rather than a proper description of events, example, Per Rogan/Shlaim The trouble started in 1947, not 1948, 1947-1949 Palestine war so it is in fact fair to say the war "internationalized" (from Jewish/Palestinian to Israeli/Arab). Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC) (Resign due to editor splitting my comment)

This is what Shlaim writes on "Israel and the Arab coalition in 1948" (The War for Palestine, Cambridge University Press, pp. 228–247) "In the first phase of the conflict, from the passage of the United Nations partition resolution on 29 November 1947 until the proclamation of statehood on 14 May 1948, the Yishuv had to defend itself against attacks from Palestinian irregulars and volunteers from the Arab world. Following the proclamation of the state of Israel, however, the neighboring Arab states and Iraq committed their regular armies to the battle against the Jewish state". Tombah (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Where does that say they invaded Israel? nableezy - 12:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

See my comment below. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Etc etc. I don't personally mind reopening the consensus but then reopen all of it and not just bits of it that don't suit. It is best imo to make much use of wikilinks to articles where things are properly explained. Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Tombah. You are reverting with edit summaries that defy what both the archival consensus and this talk page summarized and still under discussion. The source used is piss-poor, and I provided a good neutral example of how that very complex period can be analysed. No discussion on your part. You just went ahead and reverted back to a non-neutral text. You were asked to open a rediscussion of the consensus, and ignored it.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I have reverted it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You guys ignore what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Virtually all sources agree that the former territory of Mandatory Palestine where invaded by the surrounding Arab countries on May 15, 1948. Are you denying this well-sourced fact? Tombah (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

See Nishidani comment above. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

That isnt true. And beyond that, the former territory of Mandatory Palestine is not Israel. nableezy - 12:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Your comment indicates confusion in various ways, including a lack of understanding of what other editors are arguing in relation to fulfilling the neutrality requirement. You state that "virtually all sources agree," a bold claim which would have required a in-depth literature review to support it. Yet even if virtually all sources actually do agree, that Arab armies 'invaded', that means that not all of them do. Wikipedia neutrality policy means that the ones that do not agree have to be taken into account and that what you are calling a well-sourced fact, would have to be represented as a point-of-view. Perhaps you would like to engage with what other editors have said about what Jewish forces were up to at the end of the Mandate period, which involved a certain amount of collusion with the Jordanian rulers?     ←   ZScarpia   13:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

'The entry into (the) war of the Arab countries poses a complex legal problem. The crossing of the borders can constitute an act of aggression or a threat against peace, justifying a condamnation and an intervention by the United Nations, but if the armies penetrate only the Arab part of the partition plan, they can be considered as called on (to do so) by the population and at this stage their intervention would not in itself be a threat against the peace. That would only start were the Jewish part attacked. Now, the Arab armies do directly threaten Jewish territory at certain points while in others the Jews have already largely taken up positions in Arab territory. ('L'entrée en guerre des pays arabes pose un problem juridique complexe. Le franchissement des frontières peut constituer un acte d'aggression ou une menace contre la paix, justifiant une condannation et une intervention des Nations unies, mais si les armées pénètrent seulement dans la partie arabe du plan de partage, elles peuvent être considérées comme appelées par la population et à ce stade leur intervention ne serait pas par elle-même une menace contre la paix. Elle ne commencerait qu'avec l'attaque de la partie juive. Or, en certains points, les armées arabes menacent directement le territoire juif et dans d'autres les Juifs se sont déjà largement installés en territoire arabe.' Laurens vol.3 p.104)

Given that one of the foremost historians of modern Palestinian history, the author of a thorough 4 volume study on it, pitches his description in these balanced terms, and is quite specific the situation is so legally ambiguous that one cannot speak of the unfolding events other than in terms of 'entry into the (pre-existing) war' or intervention, it become sobvious that the term 'invasion' is partisan, because it cancels the legal ambiguity Laurens highlights. On Wikipedia when one has source conflict, as here, one is obliged to find a neutral compromise. One does not push for one of the two non-neutral terms, and do so by edit-warring. Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

And lets not ignore the actual edit here. Tombah writes the Arab states invaded Israel, not Palestine. And that is simply not true, it is indeed counterfactual propaganda that the sources do not support. nableezy - 12:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have added the quote from Laurens, since this continues to be a source of editing conflicts, and a due note for those tempted to just revert is required. The passage, though reverted in one sentence to a more neutral voice, still continues with the challenged language:-

'the apparent purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state at inception, and some Arab leaders talked about "driving the Jews into the sea".[32][17][33] According to Benny Morris, Jews were worried that the invading Arab armies.'

That needs to be ironed out by some consensus, apart from the fact that it drastically simplifies a very intricate situation: hundreds of thousands of refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere were causing numerous problems to those governments for several months, and this, as the host populations became aware of what was going on to their neighbours over the border, assumed an internal political threat etc.etc. Jordan did not certainly strive to prevent the establishment of Israel (therefore the sentence is inexact). It reoccupied the West Bank where it had exercised jurisdiction, and Shlaim, whom Tombah cites for supporting the notion of invasion, actually wrote:

'King Abdullah wrecked this (coordinated) plan by making last-minute changes. His objective in sending his army into Palestine was not to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state but to make himself the master of the Arab part of Palestine.'pp.35-36

(b)'The battle for Jerusalem was initiated by an Israeli offensive a few days before the end of the British mandate, and it was in response to this offensive that, on May 17, King Abdullahg ordered the Arab Legion to move to the the defense of the Old City.' (Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World,(2000) Penguin Books ed. 2001 pp.36-37.

Tombah selectively quotes the wording of one sentence by Shlaim at one point while quietly ignoring the fact that the whole context of those pages talks of the 'popular-heroic-moralistic' version of this scenario in conventional Zionist storytelling taught in Israeli schools, which is reflected here, and that the details contradict the sweeping generalization we have above.Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those extracts from Shlaim. They make it unambiguous that "invasion" by itself is problematic. Generally, I think "internationalized" is confusing/unclear and sounds like a euphemism, so I'd prefer, if possible, slightly clearer detail (although perhaps this isn't possible given the space constraints in the lead). Would "A day later, several surrounding Arab states intervened, leading to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War" be an acceptable brief summation to all? (Or perhaps "intervened in part of...") Jr8825 • Talk 16:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

We could use the wording we use in 1948 Arab-Israeli War: a military coalition of Arab states entered the territory of British Palestine in the morning of 15 May. nableezy - 16:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"Entered" is another euphemism, an army cannot simply "enter" another territory. Check out our article "Invasion": "An invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity, generally with the objective of either: conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof." Tombah (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read the text you cited from the wiki article "Invasion£", which you cite without grasping (apart from the fact that you cannot use wiki as a source). 'An invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity.' As the citation from Laurens shows, both future antagonists were in territory not assigned to either Israel or a future Arab state, so that you cannot speak of an 'invasion' here, since Israel did not 'own the territory' where most of those armies entered. Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"Intervened" is not my first choice, but it sounds like a reasonable compromise. Tombah (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need any of it, just say "led to" + appropriate wikilink. Then people can just go there and read about it if they want without the spin/euphemism, whatever. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, "led to" works fine too. I'm just a bit iffy about "internationalized". Jr8825 • Talk 17:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

We agree, replace "internationalized into" with "led to" in the prior consensus and we're good to go (this invasion stuff wasn't even in the consensus prior to the prior consensus). Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The Arab states entered on behalf of the Palestinians, and did not for the most part go past any territory allocated to the Arab state. Whereas the now Israeli forces did in fact invade the territory of allocated to the Arab state. Prior to and during the international phase of the war. Curious as to how the Yishuv forces rampage through the Palestinian Arab villages prior to the declaration of independence not being mentioned isnt an issue for you. But Im fine with intervened. nableezy - 17:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose the weaselly terms of intervention or internationalized. The Arab armies invaded Israeli territory in all sectors. I support invasion, because that is the way reliable sources treat this. For example, in Morris's 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War: page 181 it is described as "But the invasion, propelled by the combined momentum of their own rhetoric and pressure from below, went ahead." This is in an entire chapter, pages 180 to 264, with the title The Pan-Arab Invasion, 15 May - 11 June 1948. Ignoring sources that deny Israel's right to exist and treat Israel with the derogatory term "Zionist entity", reliable sources overwhelmingly use invasion. 20:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by חוקרת (talk • contribs)

Yeeeees ... if you're going to treat sources which don't tow the standard Zionist line as unreliable and vice versa, then you would end up with a bunch of sources which support your preferred version. But neutral editing it ain't. Has it occurred to you what the mirror image of that approach would look like? How about, it could be asked, eliminating all sources which espouse Zionist chauvinism, bigotry or racism ... or its denialist, ethnonationalist mythologising.?     ←   ZScarpia   21:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Its what some of the sources use, and they discuss an invasion of Palestine, not of Israel. Beyond that, the idea that a source must accept a supposed right to exist is asinine. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a Zionist project, it is not an arm of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and no a source is not subject to whatever purity test you wish to impose on it. nableezy - 14:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no doubt that many sources, good ones, employ the word 'invasion'. The problem as usual is that many good sources (Morris is a palmary example) underwrite a national POV that speaks of an 'invasion of Israel'. Laurens is the most detached historian I know of here, and he states that both sides were in each other's territory at this critical juncture. As to earlier, 'intervened'/'led to'. There is no doubt that 'intervened' is a precise word for what occurred. The intervention was precipitated by the Israeli Declaration of Independence the day before, so these two factors, technically, 'led' to the Israel-Arab war (an extension of the pre-existing Yishuv-Palestinian war ongoing since late 1947). At the moment, we state that it was the intervention, nor the Declaration, which caused the subsequent war, eliding one of the key factors behind the intervention as in anyway causative.

Taking clues from what Jr8825 and Nableezy write, the problem can be solved, with due respect to all POVs, simply by punctuation, or by an adjustment that avoids blaming either side for starting the wider conflict i.e.. that suspends our taking sides in what is a polemical argument between historians with different assumptions, as we see all over the literature. I would suggest

A day later, a coalition of several Arab states entered/intervened in the conflict. The result was that the war in Palestine was transformed into a broader conflict between Israel and the Arab world.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I note Daveout has ignored that this passage is under discussion, and of the several options here, chose one and justified it writing 'see talk', where no consensus has emerged, No contribution to the discussion, false edit summary.etc. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

both sides were in each other's territory at this critical juncture What the Arab League said in a statement to the UN on the 15 May 1948 is primary source confirmation. The "in each others territory" refers to the UN partition plan division, the Arab position had always been that (Mandate) Palestine became independent (Class A mandate) when the British quit the mandate but that position was never legally tested and was overruled in committee at the UN. It's not difficult to source material from the alternate POV https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jps.2010.xxxix.1.24 Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Second picture should be removed .

Why is there another picture in the table? After all, in the article itself there are a lot of georgic pictures, in all the countries there is only the picture of the country on the globes. Fun71528 (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

? Fun71528 (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Why the geographic picture should be on the table when it’s already in the article? Fun71528 (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain why there is second picture on the table when there are so many on the article? Fun71528 (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Number of Jewish refugees from Arab world

The intro states that "around 260,000 Jews emigrated or fled from the Arab world". This number is wrong, as at least 400,000 Jews fled from the Arab world at the time of the 1948 war and its aftermath, and more than 700,000 in total up to today. The 250,000 refers to the number of refugees who immigrated to *Israel*, as can be seen in the actual reference following the quote: ("Tens of thousands of Jews in Arab countries left their homes because of the 1948 war as well, pushed by a combination of anti-Semitic feeling and legislation, religious feeling, Zionist activity, economic factors, the end of colonial rule, and other reasons. The decision to leave varied by circumstance, as well as by country and social class. Approximately 260,000 Jews from the Arab world moved to Israel during and immediately after the war")

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world
• https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-refugees-from-arab-countries

Tinelva (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The part that is relevant to the article Israel is the number that came to Israel. nableezy - 22:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Then this should be stated in the article.

As it is now, the impression is given it's the total number.

Tinelva (talk) Tinelva (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the lead needs to mention how a large portion of Israel's population came to live there, not just the initial population boost after it was created and a number of Jews immediately came there, but the years following when Jews fled the rest of the Middle East. Bill Williams 17:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Tinelva, I made a change, hope that clarifies things. nableezy - 18:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, it does indeed. Tinelva (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Geography

Israel is geographically in North-Africa. It is not distinguished from Egypt on a large map (A3) 87.140.14.143 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Erm. No. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Judaism percentage

I think the Ethnic composition of 74% Jewish regardless how you define Jewish by ethnicity can’t possibly also translate to 74% who practice Judaism and there are several contradiction in the sense there are more than 50% of Israelis who are neither religious or follow Judaism which means secular or Atheists so I think that 74.2% in Judaism should be removed to reflect the actual number just like several Muslim majority countries which for many years we have been leaving the 99% stuffs or 100% which couldn’t be the case Nlivataye (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

As of 2021, 73.9% of the population are Jews. 21.1% are Arabs. and 5% are defined as others. Regarding what you said, ״Jew״ is a religion and a nationality and has nothing to do with a person's level of religiosity. Fun71528 (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I know of people of Jewish descent who do not regard themselves as Jews because they define Jews are people who follow Judaism, and they don't. The biologist Alain Corcos, for example.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, but it is very difficult to get accurate data about this. Israel's Bureau of Statistics publishes only the data of the groups "Jews", "Arabs" and "others" regardless of their level of religiosity. Fun71528 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Nlivataye, User:Fun71528 and User:Nishidani: Since it is difficult to determine the percentage of Jewish followers of Judaism there should be a note in the article to explain this. Do you agree? Mawer10 (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes i do agree Nlivataye (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The new report of the International Monetary Fund

please change to the new information from the October IMF report GDP PPP: 496.86 Rank: 49 GDP PPP per capita 52,170 ranked 29 GDP nominal : 527.18 Ranked 28 GDP nominal per capita : 55,360 ranked 15

Thank you. Qplb191 (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2022

Please change to new International Monetary Fund report of October. GDP PPP: 496,840 (rank 49) GDP PPP per capita : 52,170 (rank 29) GDP : 527,180 (rank 28) GDP per capita:55,360 (rank 15) Thanks . Qplb191 (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please change it . Link : https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/ISR Qplb191 (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

answering below one. nableezy - 18:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Update to the new International Monetary Fund report

I did asked on the talk page but didn’t get answer. Please update that. Thanks

• What I think should be changed:Please change to the new International Monetary Fund report of October in “Israel” page.

GDP PPP: 496,840 (rank 49) GDP PPP per capita : 52,170 (rank 29) GDP : 527,180 (rank 28) GDP per capita:55,360 (rank 15)

• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/ISR

Qplb191 (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

References

This in the infobox? Or something else? nableezy - 18:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes , this is the infobox Qplb191 (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Im a little confused tbh, part of the infobox is cited to OECD stats and part to the IMF, you have me updating both with just IMF? Beyond that, I think we can just update this once a year instead of when new monthly projections come in. If somebody else wants to do it sure, but too confusing for me to make out whats what here. Changed request to unanswered in case somebody else wants to deal with it. nableezy - 20:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I will explain. the economic data is taken from the International Monetary Fund. They are updated their reports in April and October. and change the economic data of the countries according to them every half year. So right now this data is irrelevant. We using IMF data for GDP per capita and GDP I don't know what you mean by OECD. But the data needs to be changed to the reports of the IMF from which the data is taken... Qplb191 (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We change the values of the countries according to their data . So right now this data is irrelevant. Qplb191 (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The values of the GDP PPP, GDP PPP per capita GDP nominal and GDP nominal per capita is taken from the IMF . The data should be changed because right now this is irrelevant Qplb191 (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Please change it because the GDP data is irrelevant. you can see the rankings on the table Qplb191 (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Please update the data Qplb191 (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Need to be updated

Hi, we must state the most updated and most correct data, therefore it is mandatory to update to the new data of the International Monetary Fund that are published between one and two times at year. So please update the information. You can't refuse to update new information! So please update to new IMF report: GDP PPP: 496,841 rank 49 GDP PPP per capita : 52,173 rank 29 GDP : 527,179 rank 28 GDP per capita : 55,359 rank 15 Qplb191 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/ISR Please update . Qplb191 (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Dinesh | Talk 11:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Australia withdraw recognition of west jerusalem

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/17/australia-quietly-drops-recognition-of-west-jerusalem-as-capital-of-israel https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-drops-recognition-of-west-jerusalem-as-israeli-capital-20221017-p5bqic.html Marko8726 (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

That's been updated in the relevant section of West Jerusalem, i.e.: here. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. Apparently the Australian government has not changed its recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, according to their latridin] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-18/penny-wong-jerusalem-israel-capital-australia/101546394 this would contradict that no? Proutk (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There's been a lot of news in the media saying, better wait until at least 24 hours to be sure. Mawer10 (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian later reported that the Cabinet had decided to rescind the recognition but that it hadn't yet become official. Zero^talk 02:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

FM confirmed it Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Which has been on the cards since 2018, the original decision having been viewed as a ploy to win a byelection.[1][2]     ←   ZScarpia   12:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

2008 population estimate.

Is the population estimate in 2008 necessary? Why should it be excellent? Qplb191 (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

2008 was the last time a census happened. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that. but since the size of the population is already indicated as of now (2022), why is this information necessary? Qplb191 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The population numbers since then have been estimates. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

But why include a figure from 2008? I don't think it's necessary Qplb191 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2022

wrong information: the new israeli prime mister is Benjamin Netanyahu and not yair lapid 84.110.99.216 (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2022

change "while the West Bank and Gaza were held by Jordan and Egypt" to "while the West Bank (as the area became known after the 1948 conflict) Gaza and the Eastern part of Jerusalem were held by Jordan and Egypt. Those territories were formally annexed in 1950 ". Ross 02:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think it's necessary to specify this for readability or clarity; prospective readers can read the article linked to for that information. —Sirdog (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2022

Remove the Arabic text Arabic is not Israel its Palestine and does not belong on Israel article but only the Palestine article 71.241.203.240 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. —Sirdog (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Flag of the British empire

The flag of the British Empire should be added in the infobox.

Qplb191 (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Why? Israel is not a part of the British empire. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It is written on the declaration that the State of Israel was freed from the British Empire, therefore there should be a flag of the British Mandate Qplb191 (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qplb191: South Africa doesn't have the Union Jack in the infobox. Where would we even place it? ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Near “ Independence out of British Palestine” and then the British flag. Qplb191 (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@lol1VNIO near “independence out of British Palestine” there should be the British Union Jack flag. Qplb191 (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Independence out of British Palestine
Independence out of British Palestine

@Qplb191: The Manual of Style for icons generally eschews the use of flag icons in infoboxes except for some human geographic articles, where the inclusion is based on editorial consensus. I'm still against inclusion because it would place undue weight to the UK when they have nothing to do with Israel for a long time. If Israel were a Commonwealth nation, then I would've leaned towards neutral. Having the flag sandwich between out and British also makes no sense for text-only browsers. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 16:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@lol1VNIO Israel got its independence from the British Mandate that ruled over it therefore the British flag must be there since Israel belonged to Britain. The flag should be added, by the way, Israel is not a member of the Coomonwelath, but it was controlled by Britain for a long time and Britain's control of Israel is among the most famous, so the British flag must be excellent. Except that before the establishment of the state (1947-1948) the flag of Great Britain was the official flag displayed in the area that was called "Palestine" or the Land of Israel and before the establishment of the state the British flag was used as the local flag Qplb191 (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The example you gave should be in the infobox Qplb191 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qplb191: Other former British colonies that lasted longer than Mandatory Palestine don't include the flag. It's been 74 years since Israel's sovereignty from the UK so its national ties aren't strong as, say, an Olympic athlete. The Union Jack is in my honest opinion simply obsolete and its color gives too much emphasis on the colonial past. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

But we are only talking about the period before the establishment of the state, which was the flag of the area then called Palestine. Qplb191 (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@lol1VNIO but that’s was the flag before The establishment of the state of Israel , it’s should be mentioned. Qplb191 (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qplb191: Back then, yes, the Union Jack was the official flag. But the reign only lasted 20 years out of thousands of years of history, which, per MOS:FLAGCRUFT, would give too much prominence to the United Kingdom for no good reason. You say that "Britain's control of Israel is among the most famous" but untrue both ways: first, there's Hong Kong, Australia, Canada and the US, all of them speak English today, meaning the colonial times of the past had great of influence on the modern state; and second, interpreting it as "among the most famous in Israeli history", again, it can get inflammatory when hanging the flag of the colonial past. Also, why not include the UN flag at Admission to the United Nations – 11 May 1949 in the infobox just a bit below? Reader can click the link and click some more to get to see the flag at Mandatory Palestine. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@lol1VNIO Once again, the flag has no connection between Britain's relations with Israel, we are talking about the fact that Israel was founded by Britain, Britain was the country from which Israel was established and the flag before that is the British flag, so I think it is important to add the previous flag that was the flag of the region before the establishment of the state. Qplb191 (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Israel was not "founded by Britain". Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qplb191: None of the other former British colony articles feature the UK flag in their "independence" section of the infobox. This should also be consistent with this article. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I simply think that for every country freed from British rule the relevant flag should be displayed. Qplb191 (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Israel self declared on part of Palestine mandate territory following Britain's surrender of the Mandate, that is not a country being "freed from British rule" either. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless we don't do formerly apart of anyway in any modern day country infobox, these are only features on historical state articles, Lithuania's for example features no 'Independence from the Soviet Union'. Tweedle (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@selfstudier yes I agree but it was the flag unlike other countries, so why shouldn't it be excellent? Qplb191 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you are confusing 'excellent' with 'excluded' (and shouldn't with should as well), your last sentence does not make sense with the former. Tweedle (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I just meant that because the Union Jack was the flag of this era before the establishment of the state it’s should be mentioned as well Qplb191 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

Israel’s nominal GDP per capita ranks 14th. Qplb191 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done In general, please remember to be specific with regards to the changes you suggest; it makes the reviewer's job a lot easier! Actualcpscm (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Arab countries 'intervened'?

I would argue that the word invaded would be more accurate given that is how it is recorded in its own article. 81.99.198.47 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Prime Minister Changed

Bibi Is back on business 2001:4DF7:1:5972:0:0:0:1 (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The regime of Israel

There are strong disagreements in Israeli society about which institution cause the state not only a risk to its democracy but actually undemocratic I propose to change every mention of democracy in this article from 'is' to 'officially is' until the dispute is resolved and corresponding to the article about North Korea or 'de jure' in the article which is written on Syria, without any qualification if Israel is under authoritarian or totalitarian regimes as in those countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilad1250 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Human rights criticism should be mentioned in lede.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria, as well as country articles in other regions, mention accusations of human rights violations in the lede. Given that Israel is also widely condemned by major human rights organizations for its human rights violations, it seems to make sense to include that in the lede, alongside the "Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state, and as the nation-state of the Jewish people." sentence. Iran and China also define themselves as democratic states, but neither of those country articles are afforded this self-designation, yet the Israel article simply goes with Israel's self-definition without mentioning that major human rights organizations have stated that Israel is undemocratic, as have prominent scholars: [3] [4]. In fact, Wikipedia's article on Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, has a mention of the Basic Law being described as undemocratic by critics. I suggest that criticism of Israel's human rights record (and being called undemocratic) should be mentioned in the lede, as is standard in other country articles, and the Israeli government's self-descriptions should not be given undue weight. JasonMacker (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Think we need some good source analysis on this question, can't just look at one or two and conclude something. Self serving descriptions are not worth much though, needs to be RS, and be balanced by contradictory sourcing, if it exists. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The 'Freedom House' quote may have outlived its usefulness. Also, what a country defines itself as does smack distinctly of a WP:MISSION issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, four points should be highlighted, that Israel: maintains what is now the world's longest military occupation, established an apartheid system, continues illegal settlement expansion, and often uses excessive violence against the Palestinians. These are all well-established and reported by reputable Israeli, Palestinian and international organizations, and failure to mention any of those in the lede is fairly hypocritical to say the least. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I propose adding this to the lede:

Israel has faced increasing international criticism, for maintaining the longest military occupation is modern history, expansion of Israeli settlements despite illegality under international law, and accusations of apartheid over its treatment of the Palestinians. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

:::It seems an unnecessary one-sided POV addition. Lead already mentions the occupation, Palestinian exodus and rejection of settlements by the international community.--Shuvam Koleyri (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What's POV about 'the longest military occupation in modern history'? That's factual (the West Bank was never annexed) and fairly remarkable. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The longest thing would be fine if it is to replace/supplement the existing although imo it is more interesting that the Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine itself is now being questioned and an ICJ opinion about it is being sought. There is the statement yesterday from the US on settlement activity - "The Homesh outpost in the West Bank is illegal. It is illegal even under Israeli Law. Our call to refrain from unilateral steps certainly includes any decision to create a new settlement, to legalize outposts or allowing building of any kind deep in the West Bank, adjacent to Palestinian communities or on private Palestinian land." And of course the apartheid accusations are notable and not going away (this is in the body but not in the lead). Selfstudier (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

These two could be combined: the first line of Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine itself remarks on the length of the occupation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, the legality issue revolves around the idea that an occupation is supposed to be temporary, instead there is the length + lack of evidence of any intent to terminate, instead all the evidence points to permanence, including de facto annexation done and planned. What would be useful is to find one source with all these things in it (they are all interconnected) rather than a bit here and a bit there. I will take a look around, maybe the Amnesty report + secondaries. Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-claimed-some-wins-in-un-vote-but-the-icj-process-is-a-serious-threat/

https://www.ejiltalk.org/un-general-assembly-committee-adopts-resolution-requesting-second-advisory-opinion-from-icj-on-occupied-palestinian-territory/

These two cover all the bases, any more? Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a polite reminder that this is Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that strives to be as objective and trustworthy as possible and is open to all readers, who expect to consume verifiable and neutral content. Wikipedia is not a discussion board, not a platform for activists, not a BDS leaflet, nor anything of the sort. The international community's opinions on the settlements and the present situation of the 1967 territories are already presented in the lead, and this is more than enough. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to advance a political agenda, otherwise, we risk undermining the project's reliability. Tombah (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a polite reminder to comment on content. I know it's hard, try anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It also is not an arm of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and should not be misused to advance nationalist mythologies. nableezy - 22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

On which note, I've opened a separate thread on over-reliance on MFA resources just below at Primary sourcing run amok. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I also support the "longest military occupation" going back in to the lede. It was removed at some point without full discussion. It is one of the key reasons why Israel's human rights record gets so much criticism - military occupations always result in human rights violations, and Israel's has been going on for longer than anyone else's. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I also see some merit in putting 'longest military occupation' in the lede, it's certainly relevant that Israel is in the 7th decade of a military occupation with illegal settlements only increasing. (I could also see some merit in a similar phrase in the lede for both Turkey and Morocco, both of whom also occupy territory illegally for almost as long, though that's outside this discussion). Jeppiz (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jeppiz. Agreed. You raise the comparison to the other ongoing military occupations – that could bring out two further points:

(1) Israel holds the second-largest number of people under occupation in the whole world; only Russia’s occupation of Ukraine is now bigger. On a relative basis – amount of people under occupation versus the size of the occupying country – Israel’s occupation is by far the largest in the world.

(2) Israel’s occupation is the only one with apartheid characteristics, where a group of people in the occupied territories are treated as second-class citizens.

These facts make Israel unique in the world.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I have started an RfC below. In order to avoid a confusing discussion, I have kept it focused on the single topic of the apartheid accusations. The longest military occupation point never faced opposition to my knowledge, so it will be more useful to focus on how community consensus is evolving on the apartheid question. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Primary sourcing run amok

A huge volume of content on this page is sourced to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a politically biased government source that would be unreliable at the best of times and on this particular page constitutes a primary source. I've made a minimal dent in this, removing some examples of references that duplicated other citations and tagging others, but help would be appreciated - both to continue this process and find reliable, secondary sourcing for important material that is currently supported solely by this unreliable, primary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

By my count there are still more than two dozen MFA weblinks - a few of which usefully (and neutrally) host historical documents, but many of which don't and instead support factual statements in Wikivoice (either together with other sources or in isolation) - something the MFA is not really reliable for (except for the most rudimentary information about itself). Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Syrian Golan Heights

@OuroborosCobra: The Golan Heights is Syrian. That is an indisputable fact. If it was so “inconsequential”, the edit wouldn’t have been reverted twice in an hour. There’s no reason whatsoever not to mention that the Golan Heights is Syrian, given that in the very same sentence the territories are described to be Palestinian. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That they are internationally recognized as Syrian isn't the inconsequential part. That you want some specific form of "consistency" in how that is communicated is what is inconsequential. Both versions call the Golan Heights occupied territory, meaning not Israeli. Clicking on the link to Golan Heights will bring you to an article that says they are internationally recognized as Syrian (worth noting that parts of them are also claimed by Lebanon, which may be why specifically saying "Syrian" was left out in the first place). You aren't edit warring over whether they are Syrian or Israeli, just how it is expressed. That's the inconsequential part. This article is already under discretionary sanctions and you are getting into an edit war over a sentence in the lede. When you were first reverted, you should have come to the talk page to discuss this, but instead just re-reverted. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of an obvious reason why it shouldn't be mentioned that they are Syrian. It may well help readers unfamiliar with the what/where geography. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not stress that it is occupied Syrian territory? What is the problem with that? Every single source mentions that fact. The talk page could have been used by the user who first reverted my edit, who is nowhere to be seen here. You are yet to provide a convincing argument on why "Syrian" should not be included in the very same sentence where the territories are said to be Palestinian. The fact that Shebaa farms are Lebanese is "inconsequential", considering that the overwhelming majority of sources describe the territory to be Syrian. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The infobox says "the annexed Golan Heights" as if it were an approved thing, when it is rather a unilateral annex and the settlements there are just as illegal as those in the WB, per UNSC resolutions. Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Corrected that. nableezy - 16:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

My primary objection to what was happening on this page was that edit warring was happening in an article with discretionary sanctions over not even what is to be presented or what facts are presented, just the how. That was a very silly thing to get into an edit war over rather than coming to this talk page, which is what Makeandtoss should have done when they were first reverted. That said, there is an interesting issue here as to what we should say. The international community overwhelmingly (the United States not withstanding) recognizes the Golan Heights (or at least what Israel controls of it) to be Syrian territory. However, Lebanon claims Shebaa farms, which are within the Israeli controlled area of the Golan Heights, as its own territory, to the point that they claim Israel never fully withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. Certainly, that's not a position shared by the international community (the UN even certified the Israeli withdrawal as complete), but it is a position shared by Syria, which claims that the Shebaa farms are part of Lebanon and not part of Syria. So, it's an odd situation where the international community says that Israel is occupying Syrian territory in the Golan Heights (and only Syrian territory), but Syria themselves claim that only most of the occupied territory is theirs, and that some of it is Lebanese. I'm not sure I know of another example where the international community sides with a country in a border dispute only for that country to disagree with part of that international position. This is all contained in our article on the Golan Heights. So, is it proper to only say that the Golan Heights are Syrian when Syria says they are Syrian and Lebanese? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There are some minor anomalies, including Shebaa and Ghajar, but the language found in most sources is that the Golan, as a whole, are Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Now whether or not the Golan includes Shebaa and all of Ghajar is in some dispute, but not so much that we need to lose the forest for those two trees. Especially in this article, which is Israel and not Golan Heights, which as you note does cover those anomalies. nableezy - 21:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a very minor anomaly that constitutes less than 1% of the area of the Golan Heights - not really the level of detail necessary in lead summaries. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

When the Shebaa farms are mentioned they are mentioned by name rather than being mentioned as Lebanese parts of Golan Heights. It is anyway too insignificant, as 99% of the territory is indisputably legitimately Syrian. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not the largest city in Israel.

Jerusalem is not the largest city in Israel Tel-Aviv is. 67.246.161.112 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It is unless you take the whole Metropolitan area around Tel Aviv Nlivataye (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it is only if you include the population of East Jerusalem, which isnt in Israel. There used to be some clarification about that in the infobox. nableezy - 20:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

And there still is, footnote 2. nableezy - 20:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment re RFC above

(non qualified editor comment moved to here) Hi. Sorry for meddling in the discussion, but as far as I can see, the introduction of this article is already quite critical of Israel. It mentions the unrecognized annexations of the Golan and East Jerusalem, the illegality of Israeli settlements, the "longest occupation in modern history" (which is debatable, but whatever) and the displacement of Palestinian Arabs. The issue of occupation is what criticism of Israel is famous for, which is already mentioned. I've checked articles of countries with a human rights record much worse than Israel - such as Russia, China and Belarus - and they didn't contain more than one sentence of criticism. I think this article has already too much of it per WP:Due.5.28.178.2 (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The points you list are not 'criticism of Israel' but encyclopedic clarifications of boundaries and areas claimed by Israel. They have to be named as part of Israel's self-definition and, by the same token, their challenged status also. This is factual, not critical.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The establishment of occupied territories in Georgia and Ukraine definitely should be covered in Russia's lead, since it is part of what currently defines it. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)