Talk:Israel

Some consistency, please?

When I google "Capital of Israel" I get a box from Wikipedia stating that it's Jerusalem. When I google "Capital of Palestine" I get two little boxes from Wikipedia that say Ramallah and East Jerusalem.

I propose that the information for Israel's capital be changed to "Western Jerusalem", or "Jerusalem (proclaimed)", or something of the sort. It's simply not factually correct to say that Jerusalem as a whole is Israel's capital, it's not recognized as such. 80.6.70.42 (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like your complaint is with Google, not Wikipedia. The "infobox" at the top right of this article says that Jerusalem is the disputed capital of Israel. The article's first paragraph describes Jerusalem as Israel's "designated capital and the most populous individual city under the country's governmental administration" but the next sentence says "Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed."

By comparison, our article about the State of Palestine says in its infobox that its proclaimed capital is "Jerusalem (East)" and the first paragraph describes Jerusalem as Palestine's "designated capital". The two articles aren't equivalent, but neither is the situation in Israel and Palestine. I think we've done a pretty good job of staying neutral. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Both Ramallah (originally far into the original UN designated area for an Arab state) and East Jerusalem (in the UN designated area for an international city) are both to the East of the Green Line. West Jerusalem (also in the UN designated area for an international city) is to the West of the Green Line. All claims to Jerusalem are questionable but Zionist claim to East Jerusalem seems to me to be the least justified of all. template presentation of Jerusalem as being the Largest city in Israel, even with the "this is disputed" footnote remains, to my mind, a travesty of truth and a product of pov pushing Wikipedians. International governments do not accept the West Bank as being in Israel and the UN has declared "Jerusalem Law" as null and void. The article remains tainted with spin and bias. GregKaye 18:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't see why the 1947 UN plan should have any relevance since it was rejected by the Arabs and never implemented and is null and void. None of the parties is asking for its application today. Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel today, it is just a fact, not a claim and your personal opinion does not really count. East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967, is part of the State of Israel de facto (and de jure in Israeli law), and this annexation is disputed. These are the facts and we should stick to them. Benjil (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"(and de jure in Israeli law)"

That's what I'm talking about. Most Arabs don't even think Israel exists, but we don't indulge their personal opinions. Why would we, as an intellectual body, care whether the party that has annexed Jerusalem thinks it's justified. It is NOT de jure according to international law and this should be reflected in the Wikipedia article, not some petty PC POV pushing. If Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital... then it's not recognized as Israel's capital. This is the fact that we should stick to, not some primitive brutish "de facto" view. 80.6.70.42 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This shouldn't be an article based on conjecture. Israeli POV is Jerusalem is the capital, the entire international community doesn't recognise this as being the case except two states. Hence I believe that a two tier definition should be utilised; UN recognised capital Tel aviv and the self-designated capital jerusalem. This is a compromise that is both factually correct and respectful for both parties. Sakimonk ^talk 16:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't decide that Tel Aviv is the capital and add it to the article just because you feel like it, you need sources. Meanwhile, sources says that Jerusalem is the disputed capital of Israel. “WarKosign” 17:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A according to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, Jerusalem certainly is not the capital of Israel under any circumstances. Putting as the "disputed" captial gives some merit to the claim when in fact every single sovreign nation in the world bar two has rejected this claim. The poltiical capital is in fact Tel aviv as every foregin nation's embassay is situated there except a few in Ramat Gan or Herzliya. As I've said the compromise appeases the totally baseless claim of israel as Jerusalem as its capital and the reality of Tel aviv as its capital. Sakimonk ^talk 17:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter where in your opinion Israel's capital is. Tel Aviv is not the capital and nobody (apparently except you) claims that it is. Israel does claim that Jerusalem is its capital, this claim is not universally accepted, and this is what the word "disputed" means. See Capital city - it says nothing about UN resolutions or location of embassies as a criteria for a certain city being a capital. It does say "...usually as its seat of government. A capital is typically a city that physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of its respective government", which is true for Jerusalem. Note that applying these (or any other) criteria is WP:OR and can't be used in the article anyway, we only report what the sources say. “WarKosign” 17:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, The Washington Post, BBC worldserive, CNN and the Wall Street Journal all refer to Tel Aviv as the capital. The UNSC 478 resolution rejected the move from Tel aviv to Jerusalem hence according to the United Nations tel aviv REMAINS as the recognised capital. I cited the resolution AND an article by Rabbi Shraga Simmons discussing this. Sakimonk ^talk 17:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you're calling WP:OR on using the national media's position as a source? Are you being serious? Or by me directly souricng the UNC resolution this is OR? No I don't think so. Actually you are violating regulations on WP:POV due to taking the stance of israel. I can claim the moon is my home and you're going to write Sakimonk's home is the moon (disputed) no you're not. Similarly the entire world doesn't recognise Israel's claim of Jerusalem and hence WP doesn't. Sakimonk ^talk 18:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you say, only what the sources matter. You provided 3 sources that explicitly contradict your claim:

• "This has created a situation whereby politicians, the media, and the world at large routinely ignore the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel".
• "Some, especially in the mainstream media, pretend that not Jerusalem but Tel Aviv serves as the capital of Israel."
• "The British Guardian newspaper on Wednesday acknowledged it was wrong to call Tel Aviv Israel’s capital".

While I wouldn't call any of these sources a particularly good one for such an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, at least they should be supporting and not contradicting it. Please stop pushing this baseless claim, or I will have to report you on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Also please avoid violating WP:1RR. You need to gain consensus for changes that you propose and not try to force them into the article. “WarKosign” 10:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that by presenting it as Jerusalem (Disputed) that implicitly supports the view that Jerusalem is the Capital because it gives that view primacy. I'm sure the people arguing for Jerusalem to be listed as the capital would be equally put out if it listed Tel Aviv (disputed) there instead. I've looked at the only other roughly comparable situation that pops to mind which is ISIS/ISIL. I know the comparison stinks, but off hand what other states don't have their Capital recognised by the entire international community? In the wikipedia article for them is lists what would normally be the Capital City as the Administrative Centre. I think this would be suitable here. There can be no dispute over that being the case while on the other hand the debate over the capital City being Jerusalem depends on whether you give primacy to the Government of Israel as the occupiers or the rest of the countries of the world, the Palestinians and international law.

There doesn't seem to be any naming convention in place for this at the moment and personally I'd give primacy to the Tel Aviv if we have to decide. Israel is a member of the UNSC so has agreed that the instructions of the UNSC on it are legally binding and override its own laws and as per UNSC 478 the Security Council does not accept the annexation. If we can't agree with that though, Administrative Centre seems like a fair solution. It is not biased, it does not give primacy to one side of the debate by only giving one option and mentioning in subtext that it's disputed, it is consistent with the only other vaguely relevant Wikipedia article and it can easily be agreed to be truthful and accurate by all sides. --OverheadS (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any source saying that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital ? Some sources say that Jerusalem's status as a capital is disputed and that many embassies are located in Tel Aviv or other cities, but as far as I know nobody ever claimed Tel Aviv is the capital. “WarKosign” 17:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Israelis did actually claim Tel Aviv as their Capital themselves before they moved it to Jerusalem though. You do have a point though, although countries treat Tel Aviv as the capital they don't say it as a matter of politic. You can find sources which state that is what countries are doing but the countries don't say it themselves. Still, even if you don't agree with putting it as Tel Aviv, using 'administrative centre' seems like a fair Gordian knot style solution to the problem and the only one that meets Wikipedia's criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverheadS (talk • contribs) 10:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear definition of what makes a city a capital and "recognition by the international community" is not part of it. Jerusalem is the seat of the government therefore it is the capital of Israel. Tel Aviv is not and the international community has absolutely no say in this. The issue is the recognition of part or whole of Jerusalem as Israeli territory, not it being Israel's capital, because, it is, as a fact. Tel Aviv is just another city. {{Benjil (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This clear definition is where? If anything the only clear and overriding statement on the issue is from UNSC 478: "Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;". It is literally against international law for Jerusalem to be the capital and by joining the UN Israel has agreed to abide by such UNSC resolutions, allowing them to take precedence over its own laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverheadS (talk • contribs) 10:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The clear definition in any dictionary. The international law has nothing to do with defining where a capital is. The resolution is about the annexion of East Jerusalem not about the city being Israel's capital.Benjil (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

OverheadS, the United Nations does not recognize the imaginary State of Palestine. By your logic, Wikipedia should not have an article on the non existent so-called State of Palestine.--Avner Kushner (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The capital issue was the subject of a major RFC exercise instituted by the arbitration committee, the procedure and resolution can be looked up here. In a nutshell, it is not neutral to refer to Jerusalem as Israel's capital without presenting the issue as a claim that is not recognized. Further, the Palestinians also claim Jerusalem as their capital, and in fact have more international recognition for their claim than Israel does for it's. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

International recognition about a capital claim is absolutely irrelevant since the only criteria to design a capital is that it is the seat of government. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, it is not the capital of Palestine. But I agree that the article has to present the facts that there is another claim and an international debate.Benjil (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

so according to you Mosul really is the capital of ISIL. their seat of government is there after all... Sakimonk ^talk 19:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If ISIS is a real State and Mosul is the seat of the government and they say that Mosul is the capital, yes. Benjil (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Avner Kushner, you're a little out of touch? The UN recognised The State of Palestine as an observer state 3 years ago... Sakimonk ^talk 22:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a very interesting example that illustrates exactly what we are speaking about. There is an entity called "State of Palestine" that is recognized by over 150 countries in the world, UNESCO and a few other organizations. Yet we are still hearing about the "Peace Process" between Israelis and Palestinians that supposedly should lead to the creation of a Palestinian State, meaning that there is no Palestinian State today and no "State of Palestine". This State is a purely virtual construction exactly like most "international community" talks. Presenting this virtual reality on en equal footing with the "real" reality is at best a distortion of the truth and probably worse. Benjil (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hundreds of countries don't recognize Israel and correctly refer to it as occupied Palestine. If ISIS is not recognized as a state, I see no reason to recognize Israel, which is a far less legitimate, colonial entity with an expiry date.--ChahatKi (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Peace process will continue until occupation ends, and foreign settlers are expelled from all parts of Palestine.--ChahatKi (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Palestinian" means "foreign invador", so your trolling may mean exactly the opposite of what you intended. “WarKosign” 09:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Benjil, just those kind of arguments were discussed at length in the RFC to which I provided the link. You'd do well to familiarize yourself with that and the outcome. Individual editors can't decide content, but consensus has to be built concerning correct application of wiki policies and relevant sources. --Dailycare (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Notes

References

Occupied territories

These lines arent exactly accurate:

Israel has applied civilian law to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, incorporating them into its sovereign territory and granting their inhabitants permanent residency status and the choice to apply for citizenship. In contrast, the West Bank has remained under military occupation, and Palestinians in this area cannot become citizens. The Gaza Strip is independent of Israel with no Israeli military or civilian presence, but Israel continues to maintain control of its airspace and waters.

They imply, through using in contrast and using incorporating into its sovereign territory, that the Golan and East Jerusalem are not occupied. Yes, Israeli civil law has been applied to those two territories, but no that does not mean they are no longer held under military occupation. Id like to correct that. nableezy - 21:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It implies nothing but what is written. You should stop projecting your own agenda on the text. It is very clear and neutral. Benjil (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

For clarification, we can add "occupied" just before "Golan".

Pluto2012 (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? Sorry, but this is relatively simple to follow, and if you cant do so without saying I am projecting an agenda then I really dont know what to do for you. But to the point, when you write in contrast, the West Bank has remained under military occupation you are making a comparison between the West Bank and what had previously been mentioned (EJ and the Golan) and saying that the difference is that one is still under military occupation and the others are not. That is what is written, and that is incorrect. Im going to change that. nableezy - 21:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not under "military occupation", it is part of the Israeli territory. That the annexion is not recognized is an important issue, but you cannot on the other hand change the reality on the ground. There are no soldiers patrolling the streets of Jerusalem or even "East-Jerusalem", there is no difference between this part of the city and the rest or any other city on this respect. So no. Benjil (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there IDF barracks at East-Jerusalem ? So, it is under "military occupation". But I din't see why it would be important here. According to the Security Council Resolution, East-Jerusalem is an occupied territory. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not what military occupation means. So yes. There are countless sources on this subject, and they make abundantly clear that the international community considers East Jerusalem occupied territory. Occupied Palestinian territory, not "part of the Israeli territory". nableezy - 19:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There are IDF barracks in all Israel, where exactly should they be, on Mars ? By the way, which barracks in Jerusalem ? And yes that is what military occupation means: *military* occupation. Anyway Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not take side in a conflict. The article does note that most of the international community does not recognize the annexion of East-Jerusalem, it does not have to support (or not support) it. Benjil (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but again no that is not what military occupation means. It means that Israel exercises effective military control of territory that is outside of its sovereign territory. And neutral on Wikipedia means fairly and proportionally reflecting what reliable sources say on the issue, and besides you would have the article take the side that EJ and the Golan are not occupied by Israel but instead a part of it. Which, by the way, is a minority position. nableezy - 21:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Definition of MILITARY OCCUPATION

control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/military%20occupation

Now this does not apply to East Jerusalem nor the Golan that are not under no military government. The issue of the majority or minority view of the international community has nothing to do with the facts on the ground. You are trying to push your POV. Benjil (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No, and I can just as easily reply saying you are trying to push a POV that the "facts on the ground" overrule the status under international law. Again, that is not what the term military occupation under international law means. See for example the ICRC: As explained by President Maurer in his article, the ICRC as well as the international community in general, regards east Jerusalem as no less ‘occupied’ than any of the other areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Having boots on the ground and martial law is not the determinant of whether a territory is held under belligerent occupation or not. The point is that Israel exercises effective military control over a territory that it is not within its sovereign territory. East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip are widely considered occupied territory despite Israel not having its soldiers enforcing martial law in those territories. NPOV means including all views in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources. nableezy - 05:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not know that Wikipedia as supposed to rule about international law. Yes the facts on the ground are more important than whatever some people in a committee decides because reality is not decided by a vote. You spoke of "military occupation" and I showed you that, contrary to what you claim, "having boots on the ground and martial law" is indeed determinant of whether there is a "military occupation". Nobody debates the fact that area B and C of the West Bank are under military occupation. Not Jerusalem and the Golan and of course not Gaza that is under no occupation but that of the Hamas. NPOV means giving all the relevant viewpoints as viewpoints, not adopting one because it is "the majority". Benjil (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You did not show me anything, you gave me a dictionary definition of a topic so complex that there are countless reference works discussing it. I gave you an actual source, specifically about East Jerusalem. Whether or not Israel "debates the fact" is irrelevant, what we do is show what the sources say, and they say that EJ is held under occupation, as is the Golan. Im not arguing this point with a random person on the internet, I brought a source, I can bring several more. You brought a personal opinion masquerading as definitive proof. nableezy - 08:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You dropped "military" in the middle of the discussion. Which was the whole point. Nobody is contesting the fact that these territories are considered as occupied by most countries. The article says it. So what exactly is your issue ? If you do not want to argue with " random person" (no more than you by the way, who do you think you are ?) do not come here. Benjil (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two types of occupation in international law, occupying terra nullius and belligerent occupation. My point on not arguing with a random person on the internet is that I dont care what you feel or think about a topic, all that matters is the sources you bring. And you havent brought any, youve just said no. Im not going to pay much more attention to that. East Jerusalem is considered occupied, and saying that it is not by contrasting with the West Bank and claiming it was incorporated into Israel's territory is pushing a minority POV as fact. Ive already corrected that issue, so unless you have something besides personal opinion to offer the discussion I think Im done here for now. nableezy - 17:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You have not brought any source but a document about the ICRC whose opinion is absolutely irrelevant. I am also understanding that you seem to voluntary ignore the first issue that we were discussing inc you were proven wrong: that Jerusalem is under military occupation. This was easy to check since this is an objective condition, and it appears that Jerusalem and the Golan are not under any military occupation. Now the second issue is: should Wikipedia take side in a conflict ? You suggest that it should go with the "majority opinion", I think it should be neutral. We are not dealing with a scientific matter where we have published papers in peer reviewed journals but purely political issues where this is no "truth", just interests and points of view. So once again, reach a consensus here before you make any change. Benjil (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The ICRC is irrelevant? Interesting. Here: UN, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (im going to include a quote from that one): since 1967, the UN including the Security Council, has repeatedly stated that east Jerusalem is occupied territory subject to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. It is indisputable that the international community considers East Jerusalem occupied territory. That is a significant view that must be reflected in the article per NPOV. Your belief that anything that does not toe the official Israeli line is irrelevant is actually irrelevant. nableezy - 02:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If you use straw man arguments and are generally of bad faith, I will indeed stop the discussion. Just read what I already wrote, there is nothing more to add. Maybe some other people can also write what they think. Benjil (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There was no straw man, I quoted your argument. You dont like how that quote reads back it may be wise to reconsider making the argument to begin with. I see you still have brought no sources, or even responded to the ones I have provided. nableezy - 20:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If somebody steals your car, he has the control of it. If he parks this at his home, you cannot go and takes this back. You need the support of the police. But it is still your car and he is still a thief, even if he is unarmed. It is possible that the thief claims it is his car. It is the case on the ground : it is in his garage. But tt doesn't change anything on the legitimy of your ownership.

It is false to claim that the annexion of East-Jerusalem is not recognized by ~"all the nations". This annexion is recognized by absolutely nobody. The Security Council, whose resolution have a binding value, stated that East-Jerusalem was an occupied territory. (Note they didn't state a Palestinian occupied terrotory.) It means that whatever Israel claims or could say, whatever the situation on the ground, East-Jerusalem is not part of Israel. It is an occupied territory. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Not all nations call Jerusalem occupied. Goalie1998 (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying that Jerusalem is not part of Israel is like saying that the stolen car is not in the thief's garage: it is a false statement. Perhaps it is illegal and it shouldn't remain so, but at the moment Jerusalem is a part of Israel. Of course disputed legality must be noted.

Note that car theft analogy implies that Israel stole Jerusalem from state of Palestine who is its rightful owner, which is incorrect. Israel did not take Jerusalem from SoP and controlled it long before the state was declared. International consensus does not accept either side's claim on Jerusalem and its final status is to be determined by negotiations. “WarKosign” 09:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign, that's a very unconvincing argument. Was Japan part of the United States from 1945 to 1952? Zero^talk 10:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Was Japan administered by USA and populated exclusively by USA citizens or permanent residents ? Was it normally refered to as part of USA ? If the answer is no, then no - Japan was not part of the US. Since the answer about Jerusalem is yes - yes, it is part of Israel for any purpose except international law. “WarKosign” 11:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that editors avoid original research and analogies and instead stick to on-point reliable sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources about what ? What is the discussion ? That the international community in majority thinks that at least East-Jerusalem is "occupied" (meaning not part of Israel's recognized territory) ? Everybody agrees about it. The discussion was started when Nableezy insisted that Jerusalem and the Golan were under "military occupation", which is not the case, factually. So what are we arguing about in fact ? Saying that Jerusalem is part of the Israeli territory ? Well the solution is easy: it is de facto, de jure by Israeli law, and not according to most countries. Do we need something else ? Benjil (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No Benjil, de jure, East-Jerusalem is an occupied territory because the Security Council Resolutions have a de jure international value higher than any local Law. But it is de facto occupied, controlled and administered by Israel, indeed.

See eg here : United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 Pluto2012 (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Since I am no expert on international law, it would be preferable for someone who is to answer here. I seem to remember than only resolutions under chapter 7 are binding, the others have just a declaratory value or something like that, I studied these things over 20 years ago. Anyway, my wording was not clear, so let's me rephrase: Jerusalem is de facto an Israeli territory and de jure according to Israeli law only, while most other countries do not recognize that fact. Since this is what the article already says, what exactly is the discussion about ?Benjil (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Luckily we dont need you to be an expert in international law, because we have sources that are. You do not understand what the term military occupation means, and I dont see the point in restating it. It does not mean troops patrolling the streets. My problem was with the article stating that the West Bank is under occupation and in contrast East Jerusalem and the Golan are not. I already corrected that issue, so I dont see a point in arguing about this, especially when the argument is filled with fallacious opinions backed by no sources. We use reliable sources here on Wikipedia, not arguments developed from thin air (eg is it administered by Israel and populated by its citizens and permanent residents) or false premises (it is not under military occupation because there are no soldiers enforcing martial law). The sources are clear on this issue, and thats what counts here. nableezy - 19:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is one source that states that Israel executes de-facto control over Jerusalem. I couldn't find many sources that bother to state this simple and obvious fact, I suppose it's because there are no sources insane enough to claim otherwise. Scholars are typically concerned with supporting or rejecting legality of this reality. “WarKosign” 20:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that Israel has control over Jerusalem. Occupied kind of implies that Israel controls it. I dont see what the point of saying that Israel has control over it, that isnt in dispute. But if you read your source youll quickly see that the control it has over East Jerusalem is called by a certain name. And, you guessed it, that name is occupation. Youll also see that it says "effective control" is the legal measure of occupation. Saying East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel does not in any way dispute that Israel controls East Jerusalem, in fact it acknowledges that control. nableezy - 22:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

- "Quod approbo non reprobo". One can not approve and reject at the same time. It was claimed here that although china conquered Tibet, it is not under military occupation because it was annexed to China. By the same token, Israel annexed the Golan Heights, hence it is not under military occupation. Either both Tibet and the Golan Heights are under military occupation, or none of them. The article should be consistent. Ykantor (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:OSE, so Im going to completely disregard any comparison to another Wikipedia article. As far has the Golan or EJ been annexed, that depends on who you ask, as both laws specifically do not include the word annex. Regardless of whether or not Israel claims both those as being a part of their territory, theirs is not the only voice on the matter, and the international community in rare displays of near unanimity have consistently said that neither the Golan or EJ are Israeli territory and both remain under military occupation and subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention. nableezy - 22:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ykantor. As described at Military occupation:

• "Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.[2][5][6][7]"

I have always understood the GH and EJ to have been annexed. Whilst these annexations are legally disputed internationally, that is also the case for many other annexations around the world (e.g. Tibet). What matters is whether in practice they are now annexed - i.e. control is intended to be permanent, is primarily civilian in nature, and citizenship is conferred upon the population. The only one of these three I am aware of not being in place is citizenship in EJ, but I have been led to understand that this is available to Palestinian residents of EJ should they wish to take it up (e.g. [2])

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Although.... The article Has_Israel_Annexed_East_Jerusalem? suggests that there is room for interpretation here. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And in any way, the cases of EJ and GH are different.

The state of war between Syria and Israel never ended, which makes the occupation to be legal. But I don't see how it could be stated it is not a military one, given the state of war...

Sharon Korman in The right of conquest: the acquisition of territory by force in international law and practice, Oxford University Press, 1996. pg. 265 writes : "The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognized by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, on a self-defence basis. Israel, on this view, would be entitled to exact as a condition of withdrawal from the territory the imposition of security measures of an indefinite character--such as perpetual demilitarization, or the emplacement of a United Nations force--which would ensure, or tend to ensure, that the territory would not be used against it for aggression on future occasions. But the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory which it occupies, or to act beyond the strict bounds laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention, has been universally rejected by the international community--no less by the United States than by any other state."

Pluto2012 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think people are focusing on the word military in military occupation and assuming it means something that it does not. Here is a good overview. The army need not be enforcing martial law over a territory for it to continue to be held under belligerent occupation (and yes that term is equivalent to military occupation). This should be clear from the view of the UN, the ICRC, etc. that Gaza continues to be occupied by Israel. The essential condition be that a state exercise effective military control over territory that outside of its sovereign territory.

But again, this is all ignoring the thing that we are supposed to be paying attention to, reliable sources. I do not understand why people think that their own arguments on these topics matter, mine certainly dont. What matters is what the sources say, and they say that the international community does not consider either EJ or the Golan Heights to be a part of Israel and that instead they continue to be held under occupation. That is what the article should say, and last I checked it does say that as I corrected the false comparison to the West Bank that existed when I opened this section. nableezy - 22:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Does "reliable sources" means source that supports your views ? We gave you many sources that say otherwise. I would say in fact that the UN for example is the least reliable source in the world, this is a corrupt, politicized institution. We gave you plenty of sources stating that your definition of military occupation is wrong. And here is the funny part - I just read the changes you made, you yourself differentiate between the West Bank under military occupation (in fact only Area B and C, we need to correct that) and Jerusalem and the Golan which are clearly not according to what you wrote yourself.Benjil (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, reliable source means meeting the requirements of WP:RS. You have not given me a single source saying anything, you gave a dictionary entry on a topic of international law. Reliable sources routinely say both EJ and the Golan are occupied (BBC on Golan, BBC on EJ, I can give a thousand more). As far as Area A not being occupied, thats not the view of nearly every competent body on the planet. Im sorry that reliable sources disagree with what you think, but they do. Your personal feelings on the UN are not exactly relevant to the discussion. nableezy - 19:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Area A is considered to be occupied as well. Sure they have some civil control, but they are surrounded by and ultimately subordinate to the Israeli military. It's the same reason by Gaza is considered to be under military occupation.

I think we should explain that the West Bank and Gaza are widely considered to be under military occupation, and whilst EJ and GH were considered to be under occupation from 1967, many sources now claim that these areas have been annexed.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Israel will never claim that East Jerusalem has been annexed, because their view is that any thought that East Jerusalem isn't already part of Israel - and hence needs to be annexed - is absurdly incorrect. Goalie1998 (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The claim that Gaza is under military occupation is beyond ridiculous and absurd. Gaza is surrounded outside of its borders. But it's just one of many ridiculous claims in this conflict. Goalie1998 I do not understand what you mean. Israel annexed Jerusalem in 1967 when the city was reunified, Israel is not saying otherwise. Benjil (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my point was that Israel does not see a separate East and West Jerusalem, just Jerusalem. It never has, and it never will. Goalie1998 (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. There is also the issue of what one means by "East-Jerusalem" since it can mean three different things: the part of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967 (original meaning), all the territories beyond the green line that are part of the municipality of Jerusalem (usual international meaning), the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem (usual Israeli meaning). Benjil (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Benjil, your comments calling the views of major international law scholars and international organizations "beyond ridiculous and absurd" simply undermine your credibility. I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. Fight facts with facts, not with hyberbole. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It really does not matter if you think something is beyond ridiculous and absurd, actual experts in international law say that Gaza remains occupied as Israel continues to exercise effective military control of the territory through controlling its airspace, territorial waters and nearly all border crossings. Oncenawhile, that line is not accurate. Israel has played coy as to whether or not either of those territories are annexed, presumably to ward off serious sanctions and give the US an excuse to veto several UNSC resolutions on the matter. But regardless of that, the application of Israeli law to both those territories was condemned by the UNSC and ruled null and void, and the international community continues to consider both occupied by Israel, not a part of Israel. nableezy - 19:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, you make an important point here. If Israel has never confirmed its annexation of these territories, then they could be technically in legal limbo - neither "occupied" or "annexed". It could be this greyness which explains all the conflicting sources above.

The best thing to do here is to explain this clearly in the article. We shouldn't say it is occupied or annexed, but instead explain the complexity of the middle ground. Assuming we have high quality WP:RS which support this.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

But that kind of misses the point Im trying to make. It doesnt really matter if Israel claims to have formally annexed either EJ or the Golan. The international community regards both as occupied regardless of the Israeli stance on the issue. It isnt if Israel annexed it is not longer occupied, there are security council resolutions specifically denouncing the application of Israeli law to both those territories and holding any attempt to change the status of either as null and void. The international community considers both EJ and the Golan occupied territory, the end. Whether or not Israel claims to have annexed the territory does not have any impact on its current status under international law. nableezy - 22:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the issue may be what is international law and what actually happens sometimes are very different. International law can say that the occupation/annexation is illegal, but if the laws on the ground in Israel (local government laws, government, taxes, education, police..., unrelated to international laws ) are applied such that the territory is for all intents and purposes annexed - it doesn't really matter what organizations with no policing power say. As another example, Russia annexed Crimea which also disputed and viewed as illegal by most, but their views are irrelevant because Russia has established its rule of law. The annexation becomes nothing more than a foreign relations issue. Countries can issue sanctions, blockades, protests..., but as long as the area under question is under control of a government it is that country's territory. Short of war, there is nothing anyone can do to change it.

Now onto the heart of the matter. It is best to describe with balance and impartiality the situation on the ground in Israel. Israel is in control of the areas in question, does not view any of them as occupied, completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip.... but most of the international community believes otherwise. This is much too complex a subject to just say that the areas in question are occupied (militarily or otherwise) or not. Goalie1998 (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that Israel is in control of the territories. As far as completely withdrew from Gaza, well I'd say re-deployed its ground troops, because its forces are still in Gaza's territorial waters and it does still control its airspace. For the line but as long as the area under question is under control of a government it is that country's territory, no that simply is not true. Control does equate to title. I dont disagree with most of the last paragraph, though Id remove most and change the order as Israels position is very much a minority one. nableezy - 01:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Israeli position is not a minority one, it's the position of the main party involved. Basically you want to force the POV of one party in the article since the beginning when most of us here want the article to be balanced and impartial as noted above. The article does not have to give preference to any narrative, whether of Israel or of the "international community" (whatever this is).Benjil (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The main party. Interesting. nableezy - 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Benjil, you should stop now.

It is even less than a minority position. It is the position of the thief compared to the one of the judge... It has no weight. And this is attested by Reliable Secondary Sources (WP:RS).

As you now, WP:NPoV doesn't mean 1 minute "for the Jews and 1 minute for Hitler". Each pov is given its due:weight. And in the current case, the International Law (Security Council), reported by all 2nd sources, states these are occupied territories and not Israel. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

- @Nableezy: Yours:"WP:OSE, so Im going to completely disregard any comparison to another Wikipedia article". Please read the link again. It is compared to the same article, which is the "Israel" article. Is it acceptable to claim in the same article that:

---- A territory is not occupied anymore since it was annexed. (e.g. China and Tibet)

---- A territory is still occupied although it was annexed. (e.g. Israel and the Golan heights)

Does it make sense? Ykantor (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

China and Tibet are not this article. Whether or not it remains occupied is not up to the Israeli government. nableezy - 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

- @Oncenawhile: Yours:"Benjil, your comments calling the views of major international law scholars and international organizations "beyond ridiculous and absurd". Unfortunately international law and justice are not necessarily identical. Did the International Court of Justice referred to:

----- The Invasion of Grenada by the U.S.A ?

----- The July 2009 Ürümqi riots in China?

----- The Iraqi–Kurdish conflict. During 1991, The Iraqi army retaliated swiftly, battering Kirkuk with artillery. ? Ykantor (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor, please note that your tu quoque argument re the ICJ is by definition a logical fallacy. It is also known as whataboutism. Anyway, this is a bit of a tangent from the point. The reality here is that the legal status of the territories we are discussing are complex and grey, and we should describe them as such. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is that nobody knows any more what we are discussing about.

I suggested 5 days ago to add "occupied" in front of Golan in the lead in order to solve what I thought is the issue.

It extended its laws to the [occupied] Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, but not the West Bank.

But what was the point at the end ? What is the concrete issue ? Pluto2012 (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding "occupied" to Golan heights and East Jerusalem isviolates NPOV - it represents a single POV on a complicated issue in wikipedia voice.“WarKosign” 06:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly and Pluto2012 you are the one who is going to stop with your "thief" analogy that defies reason and of course neutrality. Wikipedia is not a forum to promote your views. Benjil (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Nableezy caught this one, a casual reader might in fact get the impression that E-Jer is Israel's "sovereign territory". We could amend e.g. "incorporating them into its sovereign territory" to "claiming them as Israeli territory" and then remark that also these territories are in fact (considered to be) under occupation. --Dailycare (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Benjil, how do you want to call somebody who doesn't respect the (international) law and to analyse the due:weight of the pov of this somebody in front of the (international) Law ? A North Korean ? Pluto2012 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the thing is not everybody agrees about these issues of who respect or does not respect international law. The issue has not been decided by an agreed upon tribunal, and anyway, international law is not really law, it's pure politics serving particular interests. So, once again, your opinion is just that - your opinion. Benjil (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm sorry, but thats nonsense. And again, avoids what reliable sources say. I for one will no longer entertain WP:OR masquerading for fact. Israel is not the arbiter of the status of these territories, and reliable sources overwhelmingly agree that they are occupied by Israel. Thats what counts here. nableezy - 14:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You are the one masquerading POV pushing as fact since the beginning. So you will now stop and you will not touch this article without the agreement of the others.Benjil (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Uhh no, Ive brought sources. You havent. Thats what counts here, sorry. Ive already corrected the article, I did it a long time ago. nableezy - 02:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You brought no relevant sources but the funny thing is that your changes were in perfect conformity with what I am saying and not what you say in the discussion. You seem to be very confused. Benjil (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Uhh no, to every part of that comment. The sources I brought were specific to the topic of this article. I think Im done arguing over this, so long as the article does not imply that EJ and the Golan are in Israel or that they are not occupied territory I dont have much interest in this article. nableezy - 15:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This conversation has moved well away from improving the article. No more changes have been requested. I suggest the two of you suck it up, accept that you will never agree, and move on. Goalie1998 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The original edit has been returned, it remains inaccurate. Jerusalem is not in Israel's sovereign territory, and the in contrast still makes a differentiation between the West Bank and EJ/Golan that doesnt exist according to the international community. nableezy - 19:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect the stance of the international community is well established through United Nations sources, and that stance is covered in this very section and throughout the article. Israel considers the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem as part of their territory, and this position is reflected in this language, as is the international communities' position afterward.WikiMania76 (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What Israel considers is not what is. You cannot insert a minority view as though it were fact in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 18:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel that you don't understand what I meant to say, so I'll frame my point in a different manner. As per WP:IMPARTIAL, the language I have used neither endorses nor rejects any position, be it the United Nations position or Israel's position. It simply puts Israel's position out there, while maintaining that it (extending sovereignty to GH and EJ) was a unilateral undertaking; and no matter how minor you think that view is, it needs to be included. It does not matter what you think "is not what is" because having a neutral approach to all views within highly contentious articles is essential. Thank you. WikiMania76 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it absolutely does endorse one view, the use of in contrast endorses the view that the Golan and EJ are not under occupation. And it is curious that a "new" editor will restore wording exactly as it was prior to their signing up, but thats best left for another forum. nableezy - 14:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And to the point, there was consensus for this change, if you want to change it again youll need to establish a new consensus. nableezy - 14:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus for this change, but you have your own strange warped reality where your POV is fact. So I support Wikimania76, and agree with what he says. In fact he is reverting to the former text that you changed without consensus. So you are the one who needs to establish it. So I revert you. Benjil (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You agreed to it, whats wrong with you. But fine, Ill open an RFC. nableezy - 16:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Museums

I think Yad Vashem should be on there. Not sure if I saw shrine of the book. Might be worth adding a section on water use too.

Criticism of Israeli government

I have published this subtopic on the page but it has been reverted if you could kindly tell me exactly what else do I have to modify in order to have it published. I have provided MANY references and citations. Along with pictures and have kept neutrality in mentioning these criticisms by talking about how some criticisms cross the line into semitism. Also I have no idea how to use the Talk thing for sending a message to users or discussing on talk pages. so if you could kindly provide me with very basic relevant codes or whatever. (unsigned comment by Makeandtoss)

@Makeandtoss: you can ping users to your posts as I just did with you here.

There are quote a few issues with the section:

• The name - per WP:POVNAMING, the section should've been called something like "views on Israel".
• The very first statement - "Israel is consistently criticized by the international community" is original research. The sources that you provided do not support this statement, some of them even contradict it.
• "Israel is accused", "Israel is also criticized" - these are weasel words. You don't bother to write who accuses or criticizes, nor do you provide any sources.
• Main problem with the whole section is WP:POV - you WP:CHERRYPICK statements that support a single view, with very little balancing statements representing a different POV. Why did you bother to add this section, but not a similarly sized "Praise of Israel" ? “WarKosign” 13:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign: we could have easily edited parts that are considered inappropriate without total removal of the subtopic

@Makeandtoss: I think that most of the section was inappropriate. You can paste here a draft of the reworked version of the section and we can discuss it. “WarKosign” 08:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft

@WarKosign:

You add your 'praise of Israel' , while I add this. Nevertheless this whole wikipedia article is praising Israel. This is a different perspective. Please help me edit this into a 'appropriate' form, almost 80% is from the main article Criticism of Israeli Government. Why was this accepted there but not here?

Criticism of Israel

Main article: Criticism of Israeli Government

Israel has faced some criticism by the international community since its declaration of independence in 1948 relating to a variety of topics,. Israel was criticized of not complying or fulfilling as a member of United Nations and other international organisations. Both Obama and the UN have occasionally criticized Israeli government policies with relation to issues with ongoing consequences such as the refusal to allow post-war Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and the invasion, occupation and annexation of neighbouring territories and the construction of settlements therein. However, World Bank agrees with Israel saying that the Palestinians are not ready for a state yet. Although Israel is considered one of the only democracies in the Middle East, Israel's status as a representative democracy has been questioned as Jewish residents of the occupied territories are allowed to vote in Israel’s elections while Arab residents are not. Another source of criticism is the friction generated by the conversion issue between Israel's orthodox rabbinate and non-orthodox segments of the Jewish diaspora. At one end of the spectrum, these criticisms support attempts to delegitimize Israel's right to exist. This has led to an ongoing debate regarding at what point criticism of Israel crosses the line to antisemitism.

Israel is also criticized for the failure to control Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the West Bank.

Graffiti reading "Gas the Arabs! JDL" reportedly sprayed by settlers on the Qurtuba girls school in Hebron

Graffiti reading "Die Arabs Sand-Niggers!" reportedly sprayed by settlers on a house in Hebron.

Olive farming is a major industry and employer in the Palestinian West Bank and olive trees are a common target of settler violence. According to OCHA roughly 10,000 Palestinian West Bank olive trees and saplings have suffered either uprooting or damage from Israeli attacks in 2013, a rise from about 8,500 trees damaged in 2012. B'Tselem alleges that "olive pickers in areas near certain settlements and outposts in the West Bank have been a target of attacks by settlers, who have cut down and burned olive trees and stolen the crops" and that "security forces have not taken suitable action to prevent the violence."

In 2015, a one-and-a-half year-old Palestinian infant was burned to death and three of his family members were seriously wounded late Thursday night after a house was set on fire in the village of Douma, near Nablus by Israeli settlers. But both the IDF and Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned the attack calling it 'a barbaric attack of terrorism'.

This paragraph section makes roughly 10 statements against Israel. Only one of them attempts to present both POV, and even it does it only half-hartedly ("This has led to an ongoing debate regarding at what point criticism of Israel crosses the line to antisemitism").

The first paragraph could be enhanced to represent the same points in a more neutral manner, but the following paragraphs are simply WP:UNDUE - the paragraph on the Palestinian olive farming is longer than the existing paragraphs on many other far more relevant subjects, such as tourism or languages in Israel.“WarKosign” 06:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but this section should not exist on this article. Open a new article if you want, but even then I am not sure wikipedia is the place for that. This is a general article about the State of Israel, not a political forum. Thank you. Benjil (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I restored this statement by Benjil that Makeandtoss removed for no apparent reason. Even if you disagree with someone, per WP:TPO you should not remove or modify another editor's comments without a very good reason.“WarKosign” 11:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not tolerable. And once again, this section will not be in this article. There is already an article on this issue. Countries article do not deal with "criticism" of the policies of the government. So all this discussion here is irrelevant. Benjil (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed unnecessary extra paragraphs about olive trees, however Im not sure where to find statements that might balance with the criticism. What are some examples? User:Makeandtoss

Per WP:POV, for each of the ~8 accusations left in the section there has to be a balancing comment. It would make the whole section far too large for the general article on Israel. There is already a "See also:" link to Criticism of the Israeli government under Israel#Politics, perhaps it should be moved to under Israel#Israeli-occupied territories.“WarKosign” 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I have balanced the statements in main paragraph. Also, did you mean I should put this as a subtopic to Israeli occupied territories? Thank you very much for cooperating. User:makeandtoss

I agree. WarKosign, the rest of the article contains dozens of "balancing statements" on this. This section is describing the criticism. It is not about who is right or wrong. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

- Why it is so common to tailor a criteria to fit Israel, which is not applied toward other countries? There is no "Criticism" section in the articles of any of Israel's neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq. What is the justification for such a section in the Israel article only?

- The proposed "Criticism" section, deals heavily with attacks on Palestinian farmers plantations etc, which of course should be condemned. Is this article the correct location for this type of criticism? . Looking at Dying for Christianity : "Pope Francis said he was dismayed “to see how in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world many of our brothers and sisters are persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith in Jesus”. He went on: “In this third world war, waged piecemeal, which we are now experiencing, a form of genocide is taking place, and it must end.”... From Syria, Iraq, Iran and Egypt to North Korea... Christians face serious violations of religious freedom,” Alton said. ... The rise of Islamic extremism is driving much of the increase in Christian persecution, said campaigners and church leaders who point to militant groups such as Isis, Boko Haram and al-Shabaab. ... Sacks ... said:... Muslims who stand on the wrong side of the Sunni-Shia divide are being killed in great numbers" Are any of those more severe accusations mentioned in an Country article? Ykantor (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not say this section belongs under Israel#Israeli-occupied territories, in fact it belongs on some anti-Israel propaganda site and not an encyclopedia. It is poorly written, suffers from original research or synthesis, represents a very biased point of view via choosing very specific claims. Even its title contradicts the naming policy. If by some miracle all these problems were fixed, it would still be far too detailed for this article.

@Oncenawhile: Each section of an article has to be NPOV, or there has to be a corresponding section balancing it. What is the specific section balancing this exercise in POV pushing ? “WarKosign” 15:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ykantor: Boko Haram, ISIS and al-Shabaab are terrorist organizations that are not recognized by any of the world countries. However, Israel is a state that has signed on international treaties and Geneva conventions and are recognized by many countries across the globe. Are you comparing terrorist organizations to Israel? ISIS is a 'country' and it has a criticism section in its article, unless you are stating that Israel doesn't do anything that brings up criticism which is in fact false because I have provided tens of references and citations. If you feel that Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq have done endless false actions that have received tons of criticism, go ahead make your own criticism section. User:makeandtoss

@Oncenawhile: Could you help me forming the draft? Thank you very much

@WarKosign: I have edited the section with balancing statements.

You added several neutral statements which did nothing to balance previous biased POV:

• You added a mention of the recent settler terror attack with a mention of Israeli officials condemning it. This item is relatively balanced, but does nothing to balance anything else, and it is way too specific for an overview article on Israel: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
• You wrote that the World Bank considers Palestinians not ready for a state. There is no mention of this subject elsewhere, what is it supposed to balance ?
• You added that "Israel is considered one of the only democracies in the Middle East", yet it only serves to expand the claim that it is incorrect. If you want to balance, you'd need to describe the position of those who consider Israel a democracy.

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. “WarKosign” 17:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

-@Makeandtoss: Yours:" Are you comparing terrorist organizations to Israel?" Every country is responsible for crimes within its territory. e.g. Israel is responsible for the horrible crime at the Palestinian village Duma. On the same token, Egypt is responsible for killing Christians, and Iraq is responsible for the killing of Shia by Sunnah and vice versa. The same criteria should apply for all countries articles, i.e If there is no criticism section in other countries articles (E.g. Egypt, Iraq and probably all the other states), it should not exist in the "Israel" article as well.

- Yours"If you feel that Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq have done endless false actions that have received tons of criticism, go ahead make your own criticism section." You mean to modify the articles of (probably) all countries so it should include a "Criticism" section? because you insist in adding it to the "Israel" article? This is an absurd. Ykantor (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

-@Ykantor: That's not our case here, our case is that Israel undeniably receives a considerable amount of criticism. This is all based on references and citations not some science fiction stories or what some people like to call 'Pallywood'. I do not mean to modify all those countries articles to include a criticism section, all I intend to do MYSELF is to put one on the Israeli article because there are waay too much criticisms on the state of Israel. Its not absurd, its absurd that I am having a conversation where I cannot add a legit subtopic to an article because it is against your views. (talk)

-@Makeandtoss:. If you want to add content concerning criticism, this is your right, provided you find a consensus. However, entering a section titled "criticism" is not in accordance with featured articles (wp:fa) like: Australia,Cameroon,Canada,Germany,India,Indonesia, Japan and probably not used in any country article. You try to force a format issue, and not a content issue. Ykantor (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no denying that UN is obsessed with Israel. Mentioning the criticism without mentioning the complete lack of proportion compared with alleged violations of international law in other places is completely biased and only serves to promote an anti-Israel POV. “WarKosign” 07:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Gaza

It is a NPOV violation to say the occupation of Gaza ended in 2005. That is the view of Israel, however much of the international community disputes this as Israel continues to exercise effective military control over the territory. Saying in Wikipedia's voice that the occupation ended in 2005 is a violation of NPOV. nableezy - 19:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed eg by MSF. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"State of Palestine"

I'll let (the revert of) my edit speak for itself per WP:BRD. I know it's pointless to waste much time on this because it's already a battleground but it at least deserves a discussion. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. I have another concern - it is much too simple to talk about a land border between Israel and the Palestinian territories / State of Palestine, because (a) Israel has full unilateral control of them, unlike all the other land borders which Israel shares bilaterally (note the word "shares" in the sentences below), and (b) land border implies something very different to the reality on the ground between Israel and the West Bank. I have put the three proposals side by side below:

• BATAAF PROPOSAL: It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, the State of Palestine[7] (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the east and west, respectively), Egypt to the southwest
• WARKOSIGN PROPOSAL: It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip[7] to the east and west, respectively, and Egypt to the southwest.
• PROPOSED MIDDLE GROUND: It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, and Egypt to the southwest, and holds a disputed relationship with the neighbouring Palestinian territories, which are partially recognised as the State of Palestine.

Thoughts? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a "WarKosign proposal", it's the previous version of the article, and unless there is a consensus for a new version it's the version that shall stay according to the policies.

Second, as long as State of Palestine doesn't control all of West Bank, it's wrong to say that Israel borders it. The state claims the territories, but while some members of the international community recognize the state and the fact that it claims the territories, they also recognize that the eventual borders will be set by negotiations. This is what all the other articles dealing with this subject say, and there is no reason to write anything different here. “WarKosign” 11:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The State of Palestine is a legal definition of nationhood and to remove this is to considerably reduce the acadcmic and legal integreity of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge and information. The Wikipedia page State of Palestine sums this up nicely. Sakimonk ^talk 19:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Also please see: this article http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121129 and this one http://www.3news.co.nz/world/live-stream-palestine-asks-united-nations-for-a-birth-certificate-ahead-of-vote-2012113010#ixzz345WDjipj Sakimonk ^talk 18:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You are missing a crucial point: State of Palestine is a de-jure entity without any lands. It claims the whole West Bank and Gaza, and in reality it controls small portions of these lands. Even those who recognize this state, do not recognize that it will actually control all this land, so saying that Israel borders the State of Palestine is factually incorrect and contradicts the sources. Israel does border the West Bank and Gaza and these lands are often called Palestinian Territories, and this is exactly what the article says, backed up by sources. “WarKosign” 09:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How about saying: "Israel neighbours the declared borders of the State of Palestine." Oncenawhile (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Or my proposal above "and holds a disputed relationship with the neighbouring Palestinian territories, which are partially recognised as the State of Palestine".

I presume you agree that both of these statements are factually correct, and of top level notability. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

See State of Palestine#Declaration of Independence (1988): "The borders of the declared State of Palestine were not specified". This invalidates the first version.

I don't know what the second version means. How does one hold relationship with a piece of land ?

I think it's best to keep "... the Palestinian territories comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the east and west, respectively" since this is a simple geographical fact. We can add that these territories are claimed by the state of Palestine. I'm not sure how to phrase these two statements so they would fit with the rest of the text. Would "... the Palestinian territories (which are claimed by the State of Palestine) comprising the ..." work ? “WarKosign” 20:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a sensible compromise. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

On this basis, and to incorporate other points raised above, does the following work:

• It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, and Egypt to the southwest. It also neighbours and partially controls the Palestinian territories, which are claimed by the State of Palestine.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This is correct, however it removes the facts that the territories consist of West Bank and Gaza, and that they are located to east and southwest of Israel. It's a problem of trying to fit too much information into a single, already overly complicated, sentence. “WarKosign” 14:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. I agree we should keep the east and southwest points, as it fits the descriptive tone. But specifically naming the two parts of the PT seems unnecessary detail. How about:

• It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, and Egypt to the southwest, and neighbours and partially controls the Palestinian territories which are situated to its east and southwest and are claimed by the State of Palestine.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging: @WarKosign:@Prinsgezinde:@Sakimonk: for comment. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your version obscures the fact that West Bank and Gaza are two isolated pieces of land bordering Israel from two different sides. It is obvious for anyone looking at the map, but the prose should be conveying its meaning without visual aids.

How about keeping the existing sentence and adding the partially controlled bit in the comment ? "It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories (which are claimed by the State of Palestine and are partially controlled by Israel) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the east and west, respectively, and Egypt to the southwest." ? “WarKosign” 07:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My opinions on this are not very strong either way, but just to be clear - isn't Gaza entirely governed by Palestine (Hamas)? Regardless of their legality and any of our opinions on their governance, this would mean that Gaza is de facto and de jure "Palestine", no? I know it's not all that simple, but we could always specify that the Gaza region is an enclave with Egypt that falls under the State of Palestine. The West bank, on the other hand, is partially controlled by Israel but claimed by the State of Palestine. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No - see note 4 at: Gaza_Strip#cite_note-occ-4, which explains the continuing areas of control. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Blanking of section "Israel's Standing with the United Nations and International Community" by user:Ykantor

Hi user:Ykantor, you removed the entire section which was referenced and placed appropriately in the Politics section of the Israel article. This section is necessary and directs readers to the extensive section in Wikipedia covering the UN violations by the state of Isreal of which the reader is in fact READING about.

Your objection to this section was given as "douse such a paragraph exists in other Country's articles?" this is an unacademic and unobjective stance to take and it is based on your farcical argument of "other country's" not having this. For your information, if other countries were to perform a series of UN resolutions violations (like israel has and continues to do so) this WOULD in fact definately be documented in their wikipedia page. This is a significant aspect of the state of Isreal, that it has persistently violated the UN resolutions since its inception. It is a small section that directs the reader to the full article. It is not biased and it is fully sourced. Sakimonk ^talk 18:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You created a new section. Your edit was reverted (challenged). Per WP:BRD, you do not re-instate your edit without gaining a consensus on the talk page, something which you failed to do. I agree with Ykantor that this section, at least the way it was written, is unbalanced and does not belong in a wikipedia article. “WarKosign” 21:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

-@Sakimonk:I repeat: Sorry, but you are not aware of Wikipedia rules. Will you please have a look at wp:bb :"Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted. The early advocate of trial and error followed by observation to gain knowledge, Francis Bacon, said, "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity."[1] Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war....If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes" So, please WP:Assume good faith on my part, undoing your edit, and discuss it in the talk page. thanks Ykantor (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

These are pov cherry-picked details of conflicts and relations that can go in their own related articles.--JudgeJason (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm afraid both "sides" focus on the wrong aspect. WarKosign and Ykantor are perfectly right concerning WP:BRD. But WP:BRD cannot be invoked to WP:OWN a page without any further arguments. Neither of the users have presented any. Nor has Sakimonk presented any arguments for the inclusion. I would encourage all users to present the relevant arguments, instead of reverting and calling out others for reverting. Jeppiz (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously nobody OWNs the article and BRD cannot be used as pretext for not letting an editor to add material that meets wikipedia policies.

I believe that this addition does not match this criteria. Telaviv1 reverted it with the comment "Blatant POV + poorly written and contains misleading information.", Makeandtoss decided to reinstante the edit without any discussion contrary to WP:BRD, so I undid it. Maybe I would've used different words than Telaviv1 but I agree with the gist of it, and apparently so do several other editors. WP:ONUS is on the editor making the bold edit to convince others that the addition is worthy. “WarKosign” 20:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jeppiz, Ykantor and WarKosign; I believe a section discussing Israel's place in the international community is very apt and very much needed as there have been a historically significant series of United Nations resolutions and Amnesty International reports issued regarding this nation state. Moreover, this is a very current issue wrt to the Gaza siege of 2014 with AI's very detailed investigation. I think totally ignoring this is disingenuous and doesn't create an informative article. Perhaps there may be NPOV issues with what I've personally written but wikipedia isn't about one person's viewpoint! You are ALLL more than welcome to balance it out, and please do! If you're able to find anything "positive" coming from the UN or other international bodies that is. Deleting it and removing it under the pretext of saying it isn't balanced isn't the right thing to do. Secondly, saying that there are OTHER articles on wikipedia that satisfy this need is a farcical argument. An anology would be Richard Nixon, say we have his biographical article that is nicely fleshed out and so on... then we have another seperate article discussing the watergate scandal... and nothing on this on the Nixon article itself... This would be a very poor article indeed and unfair on the reader. Isn't it fair on the reader to actually have a section on the Nixon article briefly discussing this and POINTING OUT THE READER to further reading (as I have done with Israel and the UN)? As I've said please include my edit but you're more than welcome to correct for WP:NPOV. Sakimonk ^talk 00:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've incorperated the bare essential points from the previous text without violating WP:NPOV. These are necesary edits but need to be fleshed out. Sakimonk ^talk 00:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain how in your opinion the edit doesn't violate WP:NPOV ? It represents a single point of view (that Israel committed war crimes and regularly violates international law) without giving any room to opposing opinions (that Israel keeps the international law more than any other country in similar situation and that most of the criticism directed at it is a result of political maneuvers). “WarKosign” 07:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright I'm going to get the viewpoints of other editors on this matter so please bear with me. Sakimonk ^talk 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am raising this this diff as a matter for urgent input regarding the Israel article.

• As an aspect of the nation of Israel I believe that the significant number of UN resolutions (they've issued 232 resolutions with respect to Israel since 2003, representing 40% of all resolutions issued by the UN over the period) should be at least briefly mentioned under the politics subheading however this is being opposed as violating WP:NPOV. This isn't a matter of NPOV this is simply a matter of fact and it is unfair on the reader to not at least mention this and provide the See also tag which directs the reader to the actual articles that deal with this issue. Some readers on wikipedia might only visit the Israel page looking for what NGOs or the UN have done regarding the actions of the state which we all see in the news. By constantly suppressing this information I believe opponents to this edit are violating the guidelines of wikipedia because they're literally concealing information regarding a subject which is fully sourced simply because they don't like what the facts are. I've said multiple times that they can add whatever they want to it to "balance" it out but blanking the text and removing the edit it is a shockingly poor attitude to take. Sakimonk ^talk 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sakimonk ^talk 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

POV should always be blanked. (Personal attack removed) Misdemenor (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the issue. Nobody said that Israel-UN relations should not be mentioned. The text that you tried to push several times did not attempt to describe the situation in a neutral manner, instead it made of point of making it obviously clear that all the resolutions were justified and that Israel was guilty of terrible crimes against humanity. The reality is not as simple is that, there is an article dedicated to the subject.

Also, please do not remove comments of other editors from the talk page only because they happen to disagree with you. “WarKosign” 07:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol, I'm not removing it because he "disagrees" with me, the guy has just been bugging me and following my edits but he has calmed down now. He isn't actually involved in this discussion at all. Anyway, since you say that I am going to incorperate it in the most neutral way I can imagine. Sakimonk ^talk 22:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement "Israel has a track record of United Nations violations", sourced to an original research compilation of UN resolutions against Israel is hardly NPOV. At most you can state that there have been xxx number of resolutions against Israel, alongside a balancing sentence that says Israel and its supporters view this as proof of the systemic bias in the UN against Israel. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Here come the Suns, here's my view on the situation 1. as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle I'm entitled to make the edit as per the talk (which you weren't involved in) 2.The The Security Council report - this is not WP:OR as this is an officially published document 3. The phrase "track record" is may not be in line with WP:NPOV So I've listed them as you've said. I also included a balanced statement. Thank you for your much needed input! Sakimonk ^talk 16:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you misunderstand WP:BRD. The idea is that once an edit has been reverted, one does not attempt to re-instate it unless there seems to be a consensus on the talk page. BRD and 1RR do not "entitle" you to push the same edit with slight variations over and over again, it is called edit-warring. “WarKosign” 11:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment as an uninvolved editor (who has been brought by Sakimonk's other edits), I certainly don't think that an entire section on a country's article should be devoted to essentially UN resolutions/violations irrespective of RS/NPOV.--Peaceworld 13:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, why is it that North Korea has an entire section devoted to Human rights and it is clearly stated "North Korea has been sanctioned under United Nations Security Council resolutions 1695 of July 2006, 1718 of October 2006, 1874 of June 2009, and 2087 of January 2013." yet is has LESS violations and LESS than israel does? This NEEDS to be mentioned on this page. It is a very significant thing that this country has been repremanded several hundered times by the UN / Gen. Ass. has been accused several times by multiple NGOs of war crimes and it needs to be mentioned. Sakimonk ^talk 23:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And it's clearly stated what exactly it has been sanctioned for. I'm sure that if there were sources providing any other opinion on these sanctions (for example that North Korea didn't perform the nuclear/chemical tests, or that the tests didn't violate any treaties, or that the UN resolutions were results of politics and excessive obsession with NK), they would've been represented in that article as well.

Again, nobody disputes that the UN resolutions may be mentioned in this article along with the link to the more detailed article. The issue is making sure this mention is not WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. The content you are pushing is extremely one-sided and draws its own conclusion from partial facts. “WarKosign” 14:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur with WarKosign preceding me. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC on occupied territories

At issue is the change in this diff, specifically the inclusion of unilaterally incorporating them into its sovereign territory and the in contrast when referencing the West Bank as opposed to the Golan and East Jerusalem

• Proponents of removing those two lines argue that sovereignty is not recognized by the international community for East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and in fact has been specifically rejected (United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 for East Jerusalem and United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 for the Golan Heights) and that the in contrast implies that while the West Bank is held under military occupation neither East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights are. That is an extreme minority position among reliable sources and the international community as there is wide consensus among sources and the international community that both the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are occupied by Israel and not in Israel and that the term military occupation does not mean martial law is imposed but rather that Israel exercises effective military control over territory outside its borders.
• Opponents of removing those two lines argue that those territories are in Israel and that the territories are no longer militarily occupies the territory because they are not under military rule.

Nableezy 16:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• As discussed above, using this language promotes the minority view that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are not occupied by Israel, a view repudiated by the international community and by an overwhelming majority of scholarly sources. This violates WP:NPOV, and as such those phrases should be removed. That Israel says they are no longer occupied or that they are in Israel does not mean that they are or that Wikipedia should promote that view over the countless reliable sources that emphatically say that they are occupied and not in Israel. In sum, remove both phrases. nableezy - 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Remove both - Per nom. Frankly, this strikes me as mostly a non-issue as I'm finding it challenging to see how the "language promotes the minority view that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are not occupied by Israel". This seems like hyper-fixation on semantics. But then, I guess this is what one should expect from IP issues....... sigh. NickCT (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment RfCs are supposed to be worded neutrally, which is not the case. It is evident by the room allocated to representation of the proponents vs opponents POV. In fact, the opinion that the territories are not occupied but rather annexed is well supported by endless sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Positions on Jerusalem is a complicated matter that has a dedicated article describing the different POVs.

This comment is very strange. Not "occupied" but rather "annexed"? Annexation is roughly permanent occupation, to the extent of incorporating territory. If a state only temporarily occupies another territory, it is called "occupation". If it permanently incorporates that territory, it is called "annexation". One cannot have annexation without occupation. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So annexation is a form of occupation ? Then why does the lead say "Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times." ? There are earlier (and therefore longer) cases of Annexation. “WarKosign” 11:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Include, per WP:NPOV. There are several POVs and wikipedia's policy is to describe the different positions rather than choosing the "correct" one. Of course, as per NPOV, the opinion that the territories are occupied should be represented as well. “WarKosign” 08:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It isnt being included as a "POV", it is included in Wikipedia's voice as a fact. A fact that is in actuality a minority POV. As far as "neutrally worded", I included all the arguments listed in the section above. And you should probably read over your sources, the Guardian says Israel's annexation in all but name. And the CIA World Factbook which you oddly reference to support the notion the Golan is annexed both does not include the Golan in its map of Israel and flat out says Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied. And the NYTimes likewise calls it occupied. As does the Guardian. As does the BBC. As does the Washington Post. And as do nearly every scholarly source out there. There are countless sources that demonstrate the overwhelming majority view that those territories remain occupied by Israel, and you can see those at Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. nableezy - 15:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see what you missed in each of these sources:

• the Guardian: "Israel's annexation in all but name of the Golan Heights..." means that Israel annexed the Golan Heights without saying so explicitly. Indeed, Golan Heights Law did not use the word annexation but it is what it actually did.
• I quoted CIA world factbook for the fact that Jersualem is the capital of Israel (no mention of east or west)
• NY times: "Golan Heights formally became part of Israel today"
• BBC: "Israel captured the whole of Jerusalem in 1967 and extended the city's municipal boundaries, putting both East and West Jerusalem under its sovereignty and civil law"

Certainly there are plenty of sources that call these territories occupied, and it is a fact that they are often considered occupied. As I demonstrated (and you chose to ignore, again) there are plenty of sources saying that Israel annexed the territories, and they are a part of Israel for any purpose except international law, and it is also a fact that has to be represented in the article. I see no problem in mentioning both facts in wikipedia voice. “WarKosign” 07:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

in all but name means not formally. And besides, that doesnt even matter, Israel doesnt have the only say in the matter. As for NYTimes, Ive given you more recent sources from that say that the Golan remains occupied, and the same for BBC, and it is trivial to bring more from them on EJ. There are some sources that do not call it occupied territory, however the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do, and it is widely accepted neither of these territories are a part of Israel or in its sovereign territory .nableezy - 18:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Include, this is just a factual description of the reality, as it should be, it does not promote anything. Benjil (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Remove both per Nableezy. This sets up a false dichotomy between the West Bank and Golan/East Jerusalem, where both are occupied. I hope that is not in doubt. One can easily provide sources attesting to this. I would add that the subsequent line about Gaza also does not make it clear that Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza even after withdrawal of troops, but that is a matter for another time. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There is dichotomy: Golan and East Jerusalem were declared annexed while West Bank was not. While the legality of the annexation is not internationally accepted, you can't argue that it had a profound effect on the annexed population and on how Israel handles each territory. “WarKosign” 15:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That isnt as cut and dry as you claim it to be, see for example here. nableezy - 18:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It is as cut and dry. Just board a plane and see for yourself, you do not need "sources" to see with your own eyes I hope. Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are not separated at all from the Israeli territory and dealt as if they were part of it. The West Bank is not dealt the same way. You need to pass a checkpoint to enter (or exit, it depends) the West Bank, not East-Jerusalem, not the Golan Heights. Israeli laws regulate these territories, Israeli police and tribunals are in charge of the law, not the army or a special force, Israeli citizens an residents live there, not non-Israelis. So obviously the status of these two territories is very different from the status of the West Bank, and saying otherwise would be a lie and political propaganda. Benjil (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid the status of territories under international law does not depend on WP editors claiming something is obvious, otherwise international law lawyers would be out of a job. Whatever Israel chooses to do with different territories under occupation does not change the status of all of them as occupied. That should be made clear and not false dichotomies drawn like this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The status of these territories is disputed, the annexions not recognized by most countries, meaning, they think Israel had no right annexing them, not meaning that Israel did not annex them. Do you understand the difference ? By the way, this has nothing to do with real law, this is just politics. If a country would decide it is his interest to accept the Israeli annexion then he would accept it and that's all. Now Wikipedia is not a tribunal of international public law, and does not decide what is legal or not, but states the facts in a neutral manner. Your own opinion is just your own opinion. Benjil (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The status that wikipedia reports is the status of the Law, not the claims of the thief.

These territories are occupied and settled unlegaly. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell everybody agrees that the status of the territories under international law is occupied and it should be stated. The question is whether we should conceal the equally undisputable fact that the territory has been declared as annexed by Israel and is administered as part of Israel. “WarKosign” 10:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

We must absoluteny not hide the undiputable fact that the territory has been delcared as annexed by Israel. That's is not the question. When this precision is undue (because we don't have to explain this at each line) we have to talk about occupied territories and we should not refer them as part of Israel. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Remove, per WP:NPoV and WP:Undue. The position of the International Law and the whole international community have much more weight than the one of the Israeli governement. Giving the same weight to both these points of view is equivalent to giving the same weight to a Tribunal and a burglar. The sources are very clear and some make references to the Israeli interpretation:
  Yoram Dinstein (en), The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, Oxford University Press, p.20 writes : "But, even if the annexationist interpretation of the Israeli domestic legislation is correct, this would have no impact on the status of the Golan Heights persuant to international law. In Resolution 497 (1981), the Security Council determined that 'the Israeli decision to impose its law, jurisdiction and administation in the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect."
  Pluto2012 (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody said that that the annexation had international legal effect. You are, however, pretending that since it's considered illegal it isn't real. By the same logic, other wikipedia articles should say that no law violation ever occurred anywhere in the world and certainly did not affect anyone. “WarKosign” 14:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say and don't pretent that it is not real. It is illegal that's all.

If somebody steals your car (it is illegal); then claims it is his car ; but then a Court states it is not, then nobody would give both points of view with the same weight -> it is your car and it was stolen. One time we can explain that the thief claimed that the car was his car but no more than once, with huge details if required.

The Golan Heights are Syrian occupied territories and should be talked about as such. One time we can explain that Israel annexed them and that under their Law these are theirs. That's not an issue to do this once in full details.

Yoram Dinstein (en), The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, Oxford University Press, p.20 writes : "But, even if the annexationist interpretation of the Israeli domestic legislation is correct, this would have no impact on the status of the Golan Heights persuant to international law. In Resolution 497 (1981), the Security Council determined that 'the Israeli decision to impose its law, jurisdiction and administation in the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect."

But each time we refer to Golan Heights we just talk about Syrian occupied territories. It would be wp:undue to remind each time that Israel behave like a rogue state in front of international Law and keep claiming that these territories are Israeli or illegally disputed (such as your stolen car will never be the one of the thief and it would not reflect reality to dispute this).

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You keep using the stolen car analogy which doesn't work. With modern vehicle registration physical possession of the car doesn't matter as long as it remains registered with the original owner. Ownership of lands, however, regularly changes as a result of armed conflict. The fact that many states consider annexation of Golan and East Jerusalem illegal must be noted, but you can't discard the reality only because it's illegal. For any practical purpose Golan is part of Israel, and saying that it's part of Syria is misrepresentation of reality and sources. “WarKosign” 12:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

- I repeat: Is it acceptable to claim in the same article that:

----It was annexed. Hence the territory is not occupied anymore (e.g. China and Tibet)

----It was annexed. But the territory is still occupied (e.g. Israel and the Golan heights)

- One can not approve and reject at the same time. It is claimed in this talkpage that although china conquered Tibet, it is not under military occupation because it was annexed to China. By the same token, Israel annexed the Golan Heights, hence it is not under military occupation. Either both Tibet and the Golan Heights are under military occupation, or none of them. The article should be consistent. Ykantor (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: To Ykantor's point, I've been thinking about this apparent contradiction in WP:RS for a while, and finally have an answer. It is the difference between de facto occupied / annexed and de jure occupied / annexed. The WB and GS are de facto occupied, whereas the GH and EJ are de facto annexed but de jure occupied (per international law). The international law situation re Tibet is less clear, but Tibet is de facto annexed (all its citizens are Chinese citizens). Oncenawhile (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

And yet the lead contains the phrase "Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times". East Jerusalem is de-facto annexed, similarly to Tibet, and Tibet is in this state for far longer, so it is factually incorrect to call EJ "world's longest military occupation".“WarKosign” 13:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, we tried to figure this out in the #Occupied territories thread above, but it petered out. The nuance seems to be that Israel has not officially annexed EJ, whereas China has officially annexed Tibet.

My view of all of this is the "world's longest military occupation" point is a top level notable fact in which the length is the notable piece, not the exact territories, so we can remove EJ from there without really impacting the meaning. As to the broader description of WB, GS, EJ and GH, this needs to be nuanced in the article to reflect the complexity and diversity of opinion expressed in these discussions, for each of these four territories. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Remove both as per nableezy. Khestwol (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• Remove both per Nableezy and NickCT. The wording may indeed give the impression the annexation is a "done deal", whereas sources in fact say the opposite and emphasize that the annexations are disputed internationally. One fix would be to say "claimed as its territory" instead, which would be gentler than removing. --Dailycare (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Include - per NPOV; maybe rephrase to show that the annexation in unilateral and not recognized by most international community.GreyShark (dibra) 06:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Retain both I think every editor here is almost certainly well aware of the history of the land involved in the extant article, and in the history of the countries involved, so this should be a no-brainer. The Israeli terrorist State and the United States is undeniably holding a military occupation against the people of Palestein, and the extant article should be remis to even remotely suggest that stark reality be ignored just because Isreal and the U.S. have the military power to avoid having their occupation overthrown. Much like Putin's invasion and military occupation of the Ukraine, let's persist in calling military occupations what they are and not cave in to public relations propaganda. Damotclese (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve the article

Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, Wikipedia can't take sides. Israel has full control over Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights, Wikipedia is not being neutral when it claims that Israel is occupying those places. Israel won control over those places after winning battles. Most countries expanded throughout history by winning battles! None of those expansions are considered occupation. As such, it should be noted in the article that Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights are part of Israel, but are claimed by others.--Avner Kushner (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

First, you misunderstand WP:NPOV. It requires that we "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources".

Do you have reliable sources that support your opinion? In fact, do you have reliable sources that indicate your view is anything but a WP:FRINGE viewpoint? Does Israel even claim the West Bank is "part of Israel"? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There are many sources, and I can provide a few if you want. Hon. Prime Minister Netanyahu time and again said that Land of Israel has been the homeland of Jews for over 3,000 years, and that is why Israel is building settlements in West Bank. And for Golan Heights, as seen in many sources (I can provide the sources if you want), several ministers of Israel said throughout the years that Golan Heights is a war trophy of Israel and Assad should give up hope of taking it back. Israel even officially annexed it.--Avner Kushner (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You want "reliable sources" about the fact that Israel won these territories during a war or that most countries expanded by winning battles ? You are expanding the rules to the limits of absurdity. Maybe that's your goal. Benjil (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the article should say that all of Jerusalem as well as West Bank and Golan Heights are controlled by and therefore are part of Israel, but some homeless people claim these places for themselves, and some argue that these places are "occupied" by Israel.--Avner Kushner (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

West Bank is quite different because Israel neither controls nor claims all of it. I agree regarding Golan and East Jerusalem - it's a simple objective fact easily supported by sources that de-facto they are part of Israel. The disagreement whether this state of affairs is legal and should remain so is a matter of POV, and both POVs should be represented.

There are many sources that say that Israel will soon annex West Bank as majority in Israeli Government and in Israel advocate for it:[9][10] etc--Avner Kushner (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no majority and no will to annex the West Bank in the current Knesset and your sources do not say otherwise. This is not something that will happen "soon". Benjil (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Language section

"English was an official language in Israel during the British rule and after the creation of Israel the status droped out but the language remained De-Facto official language as may seen in road signes and official documents."

Even without the typos, this is an awkward sentence. Could someone with access to the article please clean it up a bit? 75.90.0.148 (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)