Talk:Israel

Notes

References

Mossad le-Aliya Bet

Although the literal translation of "Aliya Bet" is the meaningless "immigration B" (or "immigration 2") the actual meaning was "illegal immigration". This is well known and easily cited. The purpose of the "Bet" was to distinguish it from legal immigration. Zero^talk 07:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Mossad LeAliyah Bet "was facilitating illegal immigration in violation of governmental British restrictions". However, writing ("Institution for Illegal Immigration") near its name implies that this is the translation of its name, which is incorrect. "lit." near the arguably meaningless literal translation makes sure we do not mislead the readers. We could write (which facilitated illegal immigration), but the nature of the institution is explained in the following sentence. I suggest to either restore the literal translation or remove the clarification entirely, it is already available in the wikilinked article.“WarKosign” 07:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that what was there will only confuse readers. Literally "Bet" is the second letter of the alphabet, but its meaning in this context is something like "alternative". I don't mind omitting it, given that there is a wikilink to where a longer explanation is (hopefully) available. The following sentences are a bit of a whitewash but I'm not on that case at the moment. Zero^talk 09:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

One theory is that Aliya Bet was initiated by the revisionists who were generally excluded from the legal certificates. They had a whole parallel Zionist body including the Zionist movement Bet and then Aliya Bet. It got absorbed into the mainstream when the certificates dried up.Telaviv1 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome making this article Monochrome

Monochrome Monitor, please do not remove these subtle terms of balance from the article without proper discussion. This is an insidious form of editing and is wholly unacceptable. Examples:

• [1]: removed "allegedly", as if New York courts can decide an issue of Middle Eastern history of which they know nothing, in a neutral fashion
• [2]: removed "what it said was a", as if pretexts for war are beyond question.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not alleged. Do you really the decision of a US court was baseless? It was based on thousands of documents which established that the Second Intifada, rather than being "spontaneous", was extensively planned and financed by the PA. Have you seen these documents? "What it said was a", is fairly conspiratorial. Whether you think the war was justified is a different issue. Why else would they go to war? Because they enjoy killing? --Monochrome_Monitor 16:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

New York courts do not have jurisdiction over Middle Eastern history, just like they do not have the ability to recognise racism and bigotry with respect to the same. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree those ads were inflammatory, and wrongly conflated islam with jew hatred, but that's besides the point. It's more than a US court, it's the overwhelming majority of evidence. Fatah officials have even stated that the second Intifada was pre-planned. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

We follow scholarly sources at wikipedia, not policitized court hearings or the views of cherrypicked "officials". Anyway, the court hearings did not confirm what you say they did. If you want to use the case, link to its wiki article and be specific about its findings. We also need to recognise its shortcomings, such as those described by Michael Ratner here.

On the "what it said was a", we can change the language as you prefer, but it we cannot just delete the caveat. Neither Israeli or Palestinian military or political points of view should be described in wikipedia's neutral voice. Caveats or attributions are necessary in all such cases. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

How about "After the collapse of the talks and a controversial visit by Likud leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, the Second Intifada began which, according to the views of a federal jury, was pre-planned by Yasser Arafat." ? GregKaye 11:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Greg, thanks for your proposal - it's helpful progress. My concern is that I don't think that the court / jury did actually decide that they "pre-planned it". They did find "responsibility" for certain acts of violence, but that is very different from pre-planning the entire Intifada. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Why include what a court has said in this case? It is not like they settled the thing. That rather belongs to the Wikipedia article about the court case. The view that the Palestinians planned it is heavily disputed and to base it on what that court said when we have for example scholars that have discussed it at length is weird. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the court case saw the most in-debth examination of the evidence linking Yasser Arafat to the planning of the Intifada. It proved that terrorism was an official PA policy rather than spontaneous. It was a landmark ruling and its verdict is very pertinent. However you are right that it's disputed. Any suggesting on a rewording? "which many accuse Yasser Arafat of deliberately planning due to the collapse of peace talks"? It's vague but still. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome the reality is that, in life, many people, even members of jury's, can be biased. I had a tenant once who was a part of a particular Christian denomination who said something like, "the Palestinians should go away". I didn't know what to say. People can have predispositions. GregKaye 06:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

From reading this, are we now agreed that the court did NOT conclude that the PLO / Arafat pre-planned the intifada? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It didn't conclude that the intifada was pre-planned, or it made no statement on that, but it found previously undisclosed financial transactions that are highly suggestive of Fatah planning the actual Intifada (not just attacks prior to its beginning). The prosecutors argued that it was pre-planned by this evidence but the court didn't rule on it specifically, they only focused on whether specific attacks were pre-planned. I read a PDF of some of the evidence presented but I can't remember where. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. So please undo your edit. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It is not immediately clear to me why a court in the US is relevant to this article and the conflict. Suppose that a court in Iran ruled on this conflict, or a court in Bolivia, or a court in India, or a court in Turkey? Would we insert that? The rulings of an international court would be relevant, and I'm not saying the ruling of a national court could not be, but a case to explain why it would be relevant is missing.Jeppiz (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian lives matter (separated from thread above to avoid confusion)

In the edits mentioned above, Monochrome Monitor also added the sentence "By this time, more than 1,100 Israelis had been killed, mostly in suicide bombings." There were also significant numbers of Palestinians killed during this period (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Fatalities_1948.E2.80.932011 ). Solely listing Israeli casualties in not a NPOV. Palestinian lives matter as well. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Of coarse they matter. However in context the article is about Israel, and why the barrier was contructed. They barrier was constructed to prevent suicide bombings. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Gouncbeatduke, a formulation like the one cited is not really appropriate. It kind of brings to mind that newspaper from the 19th century that described in detail the tragic death of two persons in a fire on a boat, talking about both victims, who they were, and mourning their tragic loss, before finishing with a short sentence saying '30 blacks also died in the fire'. That is most definitely not what we what, I don't think it's anyone's intention, but the way this sentence is formed brings that example to mind.Jeppiz (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Each of the articles Israeli casualties of war, Palestinian casualties of war refer to the casualties of one side only. So it seems reasonable that the Israel article may include casualties of one side only as well. Ykantor (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't see how that is reasonable at all. Could you explain what the advantage of specifying just Israeli casualties would be, compared to specifying both Israeli and Palestinian casualties.Jeppiz (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Because we aren't summarizing the second intifada. We are explaining why the West Bank Wall was built. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Still not an argument. Giving the actual number of Palestinian casualties would take up less space than saying There were also significant numbers of Palestinians killed during this period .Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

We aren't summarizing the Second Intifada. We are explaining the context behind the building of the wall. Again, this is an article about Israel. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite aware the article is about Israel. And those casualties came from conflict with which country's army? If they are casualties from clashes with the Australian, Bolivian or Canadian army, I agree they are not relevant here. If they are casualties from clashes with the Israeli army, they are relevant. Again, this is an article about Israel.Jeppiz (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Israeli casualties aren't mentioned for any other reason than they explain the context of the barrier. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC) It's just inappropriate in this context. 23:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's like adding to the article on the Bombing of Pearl Harbor that "100,000 Japanese were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo". --Monochrome_Monitor 23:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The actual number isn't necessary to prove that. If we have a number for one side then we should have a number for both. By the way, if we're talking about rationale for the barrier, the article should mention that the barrier's crossing of the green line is not considered to be driven by the same rationale. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine adding something about the controversial nature of the barrier crossing the green line, since it's relevant to the barrier. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It is also disputable whether or not the reason the barrier exists is because of Palestinian terrorism. See for instance this B'tselem report. In this regard, it is clearly biased towards the Israeli narrative. However, I would have to agree with Monochrome that it is not necessary to include the Palestinian casualties. Within this context, that would be superfluous, since we are discussing Israel's supposed motives in building the wall, not the actual second intifada. JDiala (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia should be a platform for the conspiracy that the wall was built to divide Arabs and Jews. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not a conspiracy. That is, to a large extent, fact. If the only reason the wall was built was to prevent terrorism, why wasn't it built on the green line? JDiala (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

- The conspiracy claim is amazing. In fact, the main stream Israelis demanded to establish a barrier because naturally they wanted more personal security, while the powerful rightist Israelis opposed and still opposing the barrier.

- In Israel, the ruling coalition is frequently acting against the main stream Israelis wishes, in similarity to a lot of other democracies, but the situation in Israel is a bit worst. e.g. the latest Nethanyahu coalition agreements. We suffered more terrorist attacks with lot of killed civilians because the rightist lobby was so powerful, delayed the establishing the barrier, and stopped the barrier project before it was finished.

- I guess that the barrier was built behind the "green line" because when those rightist realized that the popular demand for the barrier couldn't be opposed any more, they took advantage on this operation and shifted the barrier inside the west bank, in order to annex more land. This is a short sighted step, since moving the barrier back to the "green line" is just a matter of money. Ykantor (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the section is not about explaining why Israel built the barrier. That's not the case. Look at this:

After the collapse of the talks and a controversial visit by Likud leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, the Second Intifada began. Some commentators contend that the uprising was pre-planned by Yasser Arafat due to the collapse of peace talks.[212][213][214][215][216][217] Sharon became prime minister in a 2001 special election. During his tenure, Sharon carried out his plan to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip and also spearheaded the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier,[218] ending the Intifada. [219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230] By this time, more than 1,100 Israelis had been killed, mostly in suicide bombings.

So the paragraph is about the conflict during those years. Of course Palestinian casualties should be mentioned. Otherwise readers just see that "some think the Palestinians planned the Intifada, which led to death of over 1,100 Israelis".

There is a reason critics call it an "apartheid wall" or "annexation wall". That is another POV problem if this is not included.

Furthermore, we can't just add that "some commentators" have said that the Palestinians planned the Second Intifada. The opposite view should be mentioned too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The comparison with Attack on Pearl Harbor is not good. If an article talks about that attack generally, yes, the Japanese casualties in that attack is relevant too. The situation here is not that what is suggested is to add how many Palestinians were killed in for example Gaza 2008-09 but describing the same conflict, namely the Second Intifada. So when it talks generally about that conflict, as shown above, Palestinian casualties is relevant too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Reason for removing one sentence

I removed "The Jews almost single-handedly defended Haifa against the crusaders, holding out in the besieged town for a whole month (June–July 1099) in fierce battles." The immediate reason is that the sentence is lifted almost verbatim from a totally unreliable source (Katz, Battleground) who isn't even able to get the year correct (it was 1100). The reason I removed rather than resourced the sentence is that more serious historians do not accept this story. For example Prawer, History of the Jews in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem says "There is nothing, however, to support the suggestion...that the Jews formed the garrison of the city" (p.37). See also Elena Bolomo, The First Crusade and the Latin east as seen from Venice: the account of the Translatio sancti Nicolai, Early Medieval Europe, Volume 17, Issue 4, pages 420–443, November 2009. The issue is too minor and technical for this page. Zero^talk 02:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Folks, once you know that there is a serious scholar who disputes something, WP:NPOV requires you to include that information. Also, this is the main article on Israel and I seriously don't believe a minor incident which gets zero or one sentences in the great majority of books on the history of this region deserves several extensive quotations. If all of the history was treated like that this article would grow to a gigabyte. We have plenty of specialist articles where such quotations would be welcome. I'd like to hear an argument to the contrary. Zero^talk 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I just tagged the sentences for undue weight. This is a single battle in the history of the Land of Israel, and it belongs in an article about Palestine and the Crusades, not here. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree too. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead

The lead mentions the disputed status of Jerusalem which I don't think should be in the first paragraph. It should be about Israel and not its capital's status, saying Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital while internationally Tel Aviv is seen as it or some variation of this should be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Jewnited how do you propose to have an article about a Jewish State (that has been called Israel) without addressing the question regarding the extent of that state? Have you read the previous indepth discussions on this issue? GregKaye 05:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria Area

Hi!

I do not speak English...

It can not be removed Judea and Samaria Area From the territory of the State of Israel! Judea and Samaria Area They are an integral part Of the State of Israel! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yair9a (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yair9a: Israel government never officially claimed that the Judea and Samaria area (a.k.a the West Bank) is a part of Israel. The only part of the area which was (arguably) officially annexed is East Jerusalem, and it is reflected in the article. “WarKosign” 06:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not an excuse ...

Currently the State of Israel controls there, so this area belongs to Israel right now. Not Palestine, not Jordan, not America, nor any other country. Only Israel. Therefore, to change the maps and texts on the Judea and Samaria will be inside Israel.213.151.40.2 (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. If you have sources saying that that area is currently a part of Israel, it can be stated in the article. Sources do say that this area is under Israeli military control or occupation, and this is what the article says. There is no doubt that some people (apparently including you) believe that it should be part of Israel, but here we describe what is and not what should be. “WarKosign” 11:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What is it that defines a certain area as part of the state? The implementation of state laws in these areas. No?Yair9a (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yair9a: What you are doing is original research, which can't be used on wikipedia. Even if it could be used, you are incorrect - Most of Israeli laws are not applied in the West bank, except inside Israeli settlements. For example, consider taxation, education, criminal law, etc. Logically, Israeli law cannot apply to people who are not citizens (and not even permanent residents), and don't have a right to vote and elect the people settings these laws. The military control does apply restrictions and rules on Palestinians, but these deal only with security considerations. “WarKosign” 16:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? ! All of Area C in Judea and Samaria apply Israeli law! Only in Areas A and B, there is a Palestinian government! In Judea and Samaria there are schools of the Israeli government, the police have the Israeli government has traffic laws by the Israeli government, there is the Israeli government's taxes, and more ... Yair9a (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No state think the West Bank is a part of Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What's the connection?Yair9a (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I see a clear connection. How can we change it to that the West Bank is in Israel when actually not a single state think that? --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have a child class that everyone beat him, and they all think it is necessary to beat him, it means we have to beat him ?! No! The question here is what reality is telling us, rather than what the world thinks! Yair9a (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This being Wikipedia, 'the question' is actually how to neutrally represent what sources say, not what 'reality' is.     ←   ZScarpia   09:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You hear what your mouth is saying? Is the copy, accurate than the original?!Yair9a (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yair9a: you may want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. If your opinion is correct, surely there are lots of reliable sources that agree with you, please point towards them. “WarKosign” 20:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

What is considered credible sources?Yair9a (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources“WarKosign” 07:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox: Independence.

One of the infoboxes states that Israel became independent from 'the British Mandate of Palestine' (meaning Mandatory Palestine). That is factually questionable. Strictly speaking, what Ben-Gurion declared on 14 May 1948 was the creation of the state of Israel, to take place at midnight when Mandatory Palestine officially ceased to exist. Popularly, the Declaration of the Creation of Israel is referred to as Israel's 'Declaration of Independence' and the war which started on 15 May 1948 as the 'War of Independence', which often causes people to ask what Israel became independent from. Whatever the answer is, it was not really Mandatory Palestine, which had ceased to exist just before Israel came into existence and the 'War of Independence' started. The infobox title can read 'Independence' rather than 'Creation' if editors like, but if it remains the former, it shouldn't state as a fact that Israel became independent from Mandatory Palestine.     ←   ZScarpia   09:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I see the word "independence" in the infobox, and agree that "establishment" (or "creation", although I like it less) would be more correct.

I think that the change you made (removal of reference to independence from the British Mandate of Palestine) is correct. I would like to keep some mention of the fact that the modern State of Israel replaced the mandate as the sovereign over the territory. I see that typically the Formation section of state infoboxes listed the major powers that used to control the territory (using the sovereignty_type ,established_event, established_date fields of template:Infobox country template). “WarKosign” 15:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That, or anything suggesting the idea of (partial) succession, sounds good.     ←   ZScarpia   21:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I will argue with is that what you call the "Declaration of the Creation of Israel" is actually the "Declaration of Independence." In Hebrew, it is called מגילת העצמאות or הכרזת העצמאות‎, which translates directly to Charter/Declaration of Independence (where עצמאות translates directly to independence). There was no "Declaration of the Creation of Israel," but a Declaration of Independence. They aren't referring to independence from a specific nation, but establishing a nation of independence of government from all others - having their own, independent Jewish State. Goalie1998 (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Goalie, you are mistaken. The official name of the document is the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (ההכרזה על הקמת מדינת ישראל).[3] The term מגילת העצמאות (Scroll of Independence) refers to the physical scroll bearing the words, not to the text of the declaration.RolandR (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, however the point of my statement still stands. It is viewed as a declaration of independence. Everything relating to the establishment of Israel is referred to as Independence (here in Israel, at least) - from the document itself, to Independence Hall, and to the holiday - not to establishment. Again, they weren't referring to independence from a specific previous power, but to independence and sovereignty. Jews at the time felt they needed an independent Jewish State, much as Muslims and Christians had their own independent states. That is the independence they were referring to. Goalie1998 (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem as Israel Contested Capital City

May I suggest that the English version of this article is modified to reflect the French version of the same article, which seems to be much more informative and precise with respect to the contested nature of Jerusalem as the Capital City of Israel. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.180.100 (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please describe what exactly is more informative and precise in the French version, for those not fluent in the language ? “WarKosign” 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

le sens de la langue - dedudelaisrajelito? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2015

104.162.28.233 (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC) religion:Jewish

The question of whether Israel has an official religion has been discussed on this page, and based on reliable sources, editors have concluded the answer is no. Please see footnotes 1, 2, and 3 in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Longest military occupation - session 3

This section is a continuation of "Longest military occupation - session 2". see also:

According to the following quote, the longest modern military occupation is in Kashmir: "If we consider the postwar legal regime that established the international laws that regulate and administer occupation, Kashmir is the first site of contemporary military occupation, yet its history remains comparatively less known than that of Palestine or Iraq, even though the number of Indian troops posted in Kashmir approaches 700,000 more than twice the US. forces in Iraq at the height of the military occupation there". Hence the article sentence: "Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times" is incorrect. Ykantor (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, Ykantor, but can you bold the part of the sentence that says the occupation of Kashmir is the longest military occupation in modern times? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

-@GregKaye, Oncenawhile, WarKosign, Jeppiz, Flinders Petrie, Paul Barlow, and Zero0000: , @Yuvn86, Gouncbeatduke, and Malik Shabazz: : I would like to have your opinion. Thanks. Ykantor (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand the bold portion of the quote above as "Kashmir is the earliest site of military occupation that is still in force today", which must mean that it began earlier than any other occupation, which must mean that it's the longest. “WarKosign” 17:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment the cited references for the "longest military occupation" statement present:

"See for example:
* Hajjar, Lisa (2005). Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza. University of California Press. p. 96. ISBN 0520241940. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is the longest military occupation in modern times.
* Anderson, Perry (July–August 2001). "Editorial: Scurrying Towards Bethlehem". New Left Review. 10. ...longest official military occupation of modern history—currently entering its thirty-fifth year
* Makdisi, Saree (2010). Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393338447. ...longest-lasting military occupation of the modern age
* Kretzmer, David (Spring 2012). "The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel" (PDF). International Review of the Red Cross. 94 (885). doi:10.1017/S1816383112000446. This is probably the longest occupation in modern international relations, and it holds a central place in all literature on the law of belligerent occupation since the early 1970s
* Alexandrowicz, Ra'anan (24 January 2012), The Justice of Occupation, The New York Times, Israel is the only modern state that has held territories under military occupation for over four decades
* Weill, Sharon (2014). The Role of National Courts in Applying International Humanitarian Law. Oxford University Press. p. 22. ISBN 9780199685424. Although the basic philosophy behind the law of military occupation is that it is a temporary situation modem occupations have well demonstrated that rien ne dure comme le provisoire A significant number of post-1945 occupations have lasted more than two decades such as the occupations of Namibia by South Africa and of East Timor by Indonesia as well as the ongoing occupations of Northern Cyprus by Turkey and of Western Sahara by Morocco. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is the longest in all occupation's history has already entered its fifth decade."

This is not an issue that I have greatly followed but I had gathered that the issue was clear. GregKaye 16:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The theory that Kashmir is under military occupation is WP:Fringe. Several POV pushers have tried to include it in the Kashmir article, but have (thankfully) been unsuccessful to date. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct. This is why: Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir). Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the longest-this, biggest-that, style of writing, but the extraordinary length of this occupation is one of its most notably features so it absolutely must be mentioned. Not just the length of it, but the extraordinary nature of that length. It would be easy to add additional excellent references that it is the longest. Zero^talk 23:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article should impart factual description of its subject. It should not approach the subject with a polemical attack. The BDS movement disapproves not merely of the "occupation," (itself a charged term despite its adoption by foreign diplomats) but of the existence of Israel as a Jewish State altogether. (This point of view is also implicit in the Palestinian Authority's refusal to agree to recognize Israel as a "Jewish State" during last year's framework negotiations with Israel mediated by John Kerry and the Obama administration.) Inasmuch as the word "occupation" has been adopted by the BDS movement some years ago now as a code-phrase for attacks on the integrity, security, and sovereignty of the State of Israel, I personally am motivated to again bring the question the prominence of its use in a Wikipedia article about Israel to this page. Would the BDS movement prefer the article to be renamed "The Fascist Occupying State of Israel?" That would be highly improper regardless of the number of Wikipedia Editors or Administrators who might like to see that! In short, it is inappropriate to demonize the subject of any Wikipedia article. The Israeli authorities, indeed, might prefer that Wikipedia simply excise any article entitled "Israel," preferring to separate its fortunes from a Wikipedia that is so implacably opposed to its existence as a Jewish State. The idea that Israel is "occupying" territory that is part and parcel of the historic Land of Israel, and indeed that was contemplated in the San Remo agreement as part of a modern Jewish State, is highly questionable, prima facie. Israel conquered the West Bank, a.k.a., Judea and Samaria, in 1967 at its peril. To the victors go the spoils. As far as voting rights for Arabs there are concerned, the establishment of areas under Palestinian Arab authority as contemplated by the Oslo accords has provided a measure of self-determination which could be further expanded for those indigenous Moslems. The Arab-Israeli conflict is highly unique. Attempting to frame it in terms of, e.g., colonialism, or, e.g., terms analogous to South African Apartheid or other struggles for self-determination is to perpetuate a serious miscarriage of justice. Hence, "I would like to see the phrase Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times.[note 3][28]" removed, per se, from this article and placed in a separate article that covers the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian question.Jabeles (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you find this fact inconvenient. I note that your post implies you have extreme right-wing tendencies: (1) siege mentality (implying that "the world is against us"), (2) irredentist statements like "part and parcel of the historic Land of Israel" and "To the victors go the spoils", and (3) characterising Palestinians as "Moslems" (which is as facile as suggesting all Israelis are Jews). Genuinely well-balanced supporters of Israel do not try to hide inconvenient facts - they embrace them and work to make Israel better. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Attacking my point-of-view ("extreme," "mentality," "irredentist," "Moslems") is not a legitimate form of discourse. Further your phrase "Genuinely well-balanced supporters" does not address the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is not to support one or another POV but rather to provided information. The term "occupation" is politically charged and must be taken as advancing a political agenda. It should only be used with careful qualification. As it stands this Wikipedia article is biased.Jabeles (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This sentence is also a wp:pov since it implies that it is Israel's fault, without mentioning the Israeli generous peace proposal at year 2000 (p.m Barak) and 2008 (p.m. Olmert ) and the Mahmud Abbas refusal to negotiate. The main problem is the right of return of the Palestinian refugees. The public in Israel will never accept it, as the meaning is the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Should not the Jews have rights for their own little country? Since the Palestinians has rights for their own country as well, I am personally for an immediate and unilateral retreat of Israel from the West bank, while keeping what is needed to avoid smuggling heavy rockets into the Palestinian state. The situation is rather similar to the Egyptian peace proposal of 1971. The Egyptians caused the 1967 war, including public speeches that Israel will be destroyed this time. They lost the war and then in 1971 they proposed (sort of cold) peace, provided Israel would immediately give away her playing cards (the territories ) before starting negotiations (indirect only).! I propose to remove this sentence for both reasons: because the occupation of Kashmir started at 1947, and because this sentence is a wp:pov. Ykantor (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence most certainly does not imply fault. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned, that Kashmir is occupied is fringe with only the involved parties in the dispute viewing it as such. You can also find sources that say Tibet or Hawaii is occupied but it doesn't mean it is true. There are many territorial disputes but they don't necessarily involve occupied territory. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean that Tibet is not occupied? so the U.S senate and congress voted for a fringe view ? " On 28 October 1991 both the Senate and the House of Representatives legislated perhaps the most important legal pronouncement on Tibet. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal year 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138 (H..1415) declared Tibet, including those areas: incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai, is an occupied country under the established principles of international law; (2) Tibets true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile as recognized by the Tibetan people, and finally calls for Tibetan peoples right to self-determination " Norbu2012p275 Ykantor (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It is technically "annexed". We have discussed this distinction previously. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't see that is the US position (meaning the goverment's) nor have I seen any state view it as occupied (if there are it is still vast consensus it is not) though others does view it as such. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir is not recognized as occupied in any international fora, certainly not with anything approaching the consensus on Palestine. It is of course true that there are a huge number of Indian troops there, and there is widespread separatist sentiment. Tibet is not occupied either, there is no country in the world that recognizes it as occupied. There were and remain border disputes, and problems with autonomy and repression, but that is not the same as occupation technically. International law can be crazy and inconsistent, but that's the way it is. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

- "Tibet is not occupied either, there is no country in the world that recognizes it as occupied". Correct, and the reason is simple- no country dares to encounter China. If hypothetically , China would have occupied the West bank, It would have been the same- no country would have dares to encounter China and recognize it as an occupied territory. The International laws are not really applied to the big powers. But if you look at the definition of "occupied" in a dictionary, Tibet is 100% occupied. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we just not mention the longest occupation line since it is not npov and is not necessarily even true. The US is technically occupying Native American land, Tibet and Kashmir are both occupied, as well as similar occupations elsewhere. This line will just inflame tensions further for this article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The length of the occupation of the Palestinian territories is very significant (48 years now) so it belongs here. Giving examples of other territories you think is occupied too when they are not seen as that is not either a reason to not mention this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Refs

References

First line

I want to remove the Hebrew and Arabic script from the first line of the lead, because we have those in the infobox which is just to the right. It's redundant and it just clutters up the first line. Most of our readers probably can't even read Hebrew or Arabic.Kurzon (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In the few articles about states with native language not based on latin script I checked, the native name appears both in the lead paragraph and in the infobox.“WarKosign” 11:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's stupid and I'll happily fix those articles as well if my fellow editors will allow it.Kurzon (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You can try changing China, Russia, Japan, Iran, UAE or about any other country's page and see if the editors watching these pages won't mind you removing their country's name. I suggest you raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography first. “WarKosign” 11:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read MOS:FORLANG, which suggests you're both wrong. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS:FORLANG#Clutter Kurzon (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think WarKosign's suggestion is spot on. Try changing one of those prominent articles (Russia, China) first, and see how that goes. Switzerland might also be a good example, as a country with more than one official language. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with OP. To objectors, please read WP:LEADCLUTTER. An argument may be made for including the Hebrew script, but two languages is too much. JDiala (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Two languages plus multiple IPAs is way too much. Most readers can't even read these things.Kurzon (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Israel has two official languages, so no, two languages in not too much. There's a reason I brought Switzerland up as an example. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Clutter" is defined by how much space all this information takes, not on how many languages the country has.Kurzon (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

My opponent's arguments boil down to "most other articles do it this way". Yes, I like consistency too, do you have a better argument? Kurzon (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

if most articles are written that way, than the MOS is either out of date, or doesn't properly document Wikipedia practice. I don't really need a better one than that, but if you want additional arguments: Israel has two official, non-English script languages. It is useful for readers to know the official name and writing of the country's name in those languages. The Switzerland example is illustrative of this concept: Switzerland has 4 official languages, and the country's name is given in ALL FOUR, plus IPA for ALL FOUR, in the first line. Mind you, that article is rated as a "Good Article", which indicates that at a minimum, it complies with the MOS. I've read WP:LEADCLUTTER, and it is instructive to look at the example it uses for how leads should be written: it gives two IPA pronunciations for the name of a single individual , then a third one in a different language, and then an audio rendition of the name , and then two alternate spellings of the name. Compared to that, having two languages for a country of 8 million people seems quite uncluttered. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

More than two thirds of the first line is unintelligible to most readers, who do not speak Arabic or Hebrew or can read IPA.Kurzon (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There are English transliterations for both the Hebrew and Arabic. IPAs are a feature of nearly every Wikipedia article. Again, look at the Switzerland article. If that one is a "good article", I don't see how you arguments here have merit. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A native name is an important part of a state's identity. Users not interested in the native name(s) can easily skip them. I agree that it could be placed less prominently within the article, but since you are trying to change a long-standing consensus affecting tens of popular articles, you should discuss it at a much larger forum than just one of these articles. “WarKosign” 17:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Other articles do it; therefore, so should we" is not an argument. Notice how cluttered the lead for Switzerland is. That is unacceptable and not proper (per policy). The Republic of India has a myriad of official and nationally recognized languages all of which are important to its identity, yet there is no more than a single transliteration. Another example would be Zimbabwe; sixteen official languages, none of which are included. Now, personally, I don't think it's problematic to include the Hebrew so long as it's not very cluttered. Regarding the argument that name is an "important part of a state's identity", well, one should keep in mind that the (self-proclaimed) identity of Israel is the sole Jewish state and homeland, with Hebrew, the historical language of the Jewish people, being the de facto official language. Arabic is therefore not necessary, since Arabs are a minority. Generally speaking, the minority languages is not included. Furthermore Brad, your interpretation of WP:LEADCLUTTER is erroneous. The point is not that there is some ideal amount of "acceptable" clutter, but that generally speaking, when possible, clutter should be minimized by removing extraneous information. JDiala (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JDiala. It's one thing to include Yisrael (Israel) once, in Hebrew; it's something else entirely to include Medinat Yisrael (State of Israel) in both Hebrew and Arabic. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Hebrew is more important for Israel than Arabic, and if only one of the two official languages is to be presented - it should be Hebrew. I remember some people succeeding to add Arabic spelling of Benjamin Netanyahu's name to the lead despite my objections, but its gone now.“WarKosign” 14:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Hebrew, Arabic, and IPAs are relevant and should be included, but since there is so much of it, and since most readers won't understand them, they should be shifted to some other part of the article, such as the infobox or a "Names" section.Kurzon (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Do we have consensus? JDiala (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed supporting anti- semitic. very sad.

I read the entry on Israel and instead feel proudness toward Israel what I saw gave me the feeling of anti-Semitic toward Israel. Wikipedia may not publish hate and lies against Israel. Shocking.