Talk:Geography of Israel

Wikify

I am Wikifying this article by sections. If you feel I have erred in either style or substance (for instance, if my links change the meaning of a sentence), please correct whatever you find. However, please note that if I leapt to an errant conclusion based on the context, it is likely that other readers will do the same; I recommend changing the wording and not just the link.

As I find things that need attention by anyone with subject knowledge (which is definitely NOT me), I'll post them here. To wit:

Topo Section: Need to create separate articles or stubs for Mount Herman (done), Mount Meron and Cape Carmel. I did not create them because, unless they have content, they will be VfD'ed instantly for lack of hits. There may be alternative names for these features that could be linked, or other ways to phrase the article if the features are not notable.Kevin/Last1in 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Climate Section: The context of the phrase, "...and the subtropical humidity of the Levant or eastern Mediterranean...," makes it hard to wikify, since the usage of Levant here does not mesh cleanly with Levant. Is there another word or phrase that could be used to identify the area of "subtropical humidity"? Kevin/Last1in 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested merge

Much has already been said. I think that the article is valid if fixed up properly. Currently, it seems more geography oriented but could have more history/bible references inserted to explain why the term settlement is the literal translation of the Hebrew 'hitnachlut' which does refer to the settling of any area (not only in 'disputed territories'). I reverted the redirect since the compromise of moving the contents to Geography of Israel was not even performed yet. I also added a merge template to make the move a bit more official and binding and copied this section to the destination talk page. --Shuki 17:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

(after conflict) Shuki, please do not revert before a different consensus is reached than the previous one. I have explained the concept with tons of references but to no avail. People remain confused about the concepts. I want to move on. Do me a favor this time. The discussions are old and closed. gidonb 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this now belongs to the Geography of Israel. gidonb 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I also do not want to discuss this. Just continue editing whatever and please leave my redirect alone. It was according to the outcome of an old discussion. I usually have no issues with your edits. On the contrary. They are very good. gidonb 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The articles were already merged. I have transfered the text and inculded it in the article. gidonb 17:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Still missing in the article

After I started the human geography section with the text from the other article and some data that was already there, who picks up the challenge and continues expending this part of the article? Most of the economic geography is missing, as is population geography, transportation, and more. gidonb 17:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Climate

Could someone knowledgeable check the average temperatures added by the IP, and convert the corresponding degrees Fahrenheit? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You’re right. The management of Wiki are absolutely terrible! דולב חולב (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing for GA

This article has been listed for over a month with no action. I am printing a copy out for review and will hopefully pass or fail it soon. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Failure

When I first gave this the once-over, I was impressed, as a former geography major. However, upon printing it out and reading through, I knew by the time I got done with the intro that it had serious issues.

The major one is the seriously flawed prose. There's repetitious wording, awkward phrasing, inconsistent use of abbreviations for units of measure, use of the wrong unit of measure for the situation (reservoir capacity is given in m³ and gallons, not cubic kilometers and feet), inconsistent use of British and American English, run-on sentences ... it's got all that. It will take more than a few fixes.

I also came to realize the article is incomplete ... we could have sections on the economic geography of Israel, the effect of the country's geography on its history (not an easy patch of land to defend).

I'll go through it later and copyedit, but the additional information will have to come from someone familiar with the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Other things

Gee, I fail it and an edit war breaks out. And that was another thing I was afraid of ... while this article did a good job trying to be apolitical about a very politicized subject, there were places it couldn't avoid that and had to deal with the issues better than it did. One of those places was, indeed, the status of the West Bank, and I would also point to Golan Heights ... the article somewhat contradictorily refers to it as a "de facto annexation per Israeli law". If a law is passed, it's de jure. And, reading the Golan Heights Law article, I see where the contradiction arose. Since Israel has indicated (according to Golan Heights) its willingness to return the land to Syria if, among other things, Syria agrees to pretty much all Israel's terms, including not using strategically valuable high ground to launch attacks on Israel, I don't think the article should be so glib in describing it that way. Especially when the Heights, if counted as part of Israel, have its highest mountain (But where do Israeli peakbaggers go to say they've bagged their country's highest peak? That might be indicative).

We really ought to have a Territorial evolution of Israel article to deal with this, and hatnote it from here.

I also noticed that the intro, prior to this edit war, was suspiciously similar to the intro of the onetime FA Geography of India. However that cleaned it up some. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

History lecture in lead, better to put in a separate article?

"Before June 1967, the area composing Israel (resulting from the armistice lines of 1949 and 1950) was approximately 20,700 square kilometers (7,992 sq mi), which included 445 square kilometers (172 sq mi) of inland water.[2] Thus Israel was roughly the size of the state of New Jersey, stretching 424 kilometers (263 mi) from north to south.[2] Its width ranged from 114 kilometers (71 mi) to, at its narrowest point, 15 kilometers (9 mi).[2] In the June 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured territories totaling an additional 7,099 square kilometers (2,741 sq mi).[2] These territories include the West Bank, 5,879 square kilometers (2,270 sq mi); East Jerusalem (annexed, according Israeli law), 70 square kilometers (27 sq mi); and the Golan Heights (de facto annexation), 1,150 square kilometers (444 sq mi)."

The current area of Israel is relevant in a geography article, the rest of this paragraph doesn't seem to be. I have searched for similar examples of history lectures in other "geography of" articles but failed to find anything resembling it. Case in point: Geography of the USA, another country whose borders have changed greatly over time. No comparisons of total areas before and after the Mexican Cession, the Alaska purchase etc. As Daniel Case suggests above, maybe the best solution is a Territorial evolution of Israel article, along the lines of the article Territorial acquisitions of the United States. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• • First to discuss a point brought up by 82.35.28.202, saying (in the edit summary): "It is occupied illegally according to international law.", and later "1967 was not self-defence – Israel attacked first". Alright - first off, while Israel fired the first shot in 1967, it was not the aggressor. The first act of war was the blockade of the straights of Tiran to Israeli ships by Egypt. Blocking off straights this way is an act of war, and is against international treaties. Egypt also expelled the UN peace keeping force in the Sinai (United Nations Emergency Force), and amassed troops near Israel's border. Clear acts of aggression, and casus belli for a preemptive strike by Israel. There's nothing illegal about Israel's occupation of the territories. In wars territories get captured by one side or the others, and there are rules for these situations. The security council instructed the sides (Israel and the Arab states) to come to a peaceful solution, on the basis of Israel returning territories, for a peace treaty with the Arabs (resolution 242). This is the formula used in the peace treaty with Egypt (returning the Sinai). You may think the occupation is morally wrong, but there's nothing illegal about it.
  • Okay, MeteorMaker called the part he/she removed: "somewhat propagandistic history lecture". I must confess I see nothing "propagandistic" about that paragraph, as it is very factual, making no claims of right or wrong, just explaining the current situation of the areas Israel controls, and how that came to be.
  • "history lecture" - Israel's territory is a complicated business. You have "Israel proper" (1949 lines); you have the Golan Heights, under Israeli law, but not annexed; you have the West Bank, under partial control, with the PA in some areas; you have East Jerusalem, annexed; you have the Gaza Strip, not annexed, with no Israeli presence, though Israel still with some control (airspace, sea access), and no sovereign. This is complicated. Before delving into details, I think we should explain these points, and how they came to be. The US example is no good - all the areas you mentioned now have the exact same status as everywhere else in the US, so there's no relevant distinction.
  • Saying Israel is bordered to East by Jordan is true, regardless of what we think about the West Bank - Israel has a long, peaceful, border with Jordan, beyond the West Bank. Now, I don't think we can say Israel is bordered by the West Bank, as it is not an independent entity, with no sovereign save Israel, in its role as the military sovereign. Some areas of the WB are under Palestinian autonomous control, some under Israel's full control (though not annexed), and some are somewhere in between. There's no international border there, so it's not the same status as Jordan or Egypt.
  • I can totally see someone seeing the "bordered by the West Bank", and complaining that we're trying to "hide the occupation", or something similar.
  • For these reasons, it was agreed to use the phrasing "The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also adjacent" on the Israel lead, as this circumvents the use of the inaccurate word "border", but still mentions the areas. Now, as this article lead talks about these territories in detail, I see no need for that, but wouldn't object to using that phrasing here. okedem (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, MM has some points, perhaps with excessive rhetoric. The stuff about the 67 war has little to do with this article. My first point is that East Jerusalem was legally annexed is simply false, see Jerusalem Law and the Lustick paper cited there. It's about the same as the Golan Heights situation, and the same words should be used for both. Mentioning the WB & G as MM does is better and more accurate and neutral than not mentioning it. The question is how to phrase it, because there are objections to using the word "border" or any synonym. I don't really agree with them and don't think the circumlocution necessary (I don't think readers will really construe "border" as Wikipedia's legal opinion), but how about something like this - To the east of Israel (footnote saying within the armistice lines)? lie Jordan and the West Bank. etc. - somehow I just missed your last point until just now, which is much the same as what I just said. John Z (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We should note that the word "border" is not used in the case of Gaza, nor any synonym:

To the west of Israel is the Mediterranean Sea which makes up the majority of Israel's 273 kilometers (170 mi) coastline[2] and the Gaza strip.

I agree with JZ that even with the word "border" in the article, the potential for confusion is low, given that the West Bank and Gaza are perceived by most as areas distinct from Israel anyway. There is a line on the map in the article; that line should not be unexplained in the text. JZ's suggested compromise is OK with me though.

Re the disputed paragraph quoted at the beginning of this section, I see several problems with it:

• It's about history, not geography. No other articles on the geography of a particular country seem to contain anything about territorial acquisitions over history.
• It contains justifications for annexations that have not been recognized by any country and presents the Palestinian territories as "captured", after which the article goes on to describe geographical features of the West Bank as if they properly belonged to the geography of Israel, with no mention of the WB. That doesn't appear to be entirely appropriate.
• It serves as justification for removing all references to the Palestinian territories from the preceding paragraph.
• It's an eyesore, difficult to read and should not be in the lead.

The gist of it could be phrased along the lines of what Okedem said above, though more encyclopedically: "Israel's territory is a complicated business. You have "Israel proper" (1949 lines); you have the Golan Heights [...]". It should be mentioned that outside Israel, the OPT are not considered parts of Israel. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• But the history is needed to explain the complicated geography today, with areas under Israel's control having different status.
• I see no justification for any annexation, only simple statement of fact - here's the segment mentioning annexation: "East Jerusalem (annexed, according Israeli law), 70 square kilometers (27 sq mi); and the Golan Heights (de facto annexation)" - no justification anywhere.
• The word "captured" is a neutral way to phrase these things, and is commonly used in all kinds of texts about various wars. It doesn't carry any hidden meaning or insinuation.
• I don't feel it's an eyesore, but that's not really open to arguments...
• Here's the gist of it - the way I see it, the paragraph does a good job of explaining the different status the different parts of Israel have. But I'm not especially attached to this phrasing. If you think you can phrase it better, please - write your suggestion here. I'm open to ideas, and will support a better phrasing. okedem (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like you're trying your best to take offense from every word here, with no real justification. No one's trying to change reality here, we're just trying to convey the facts. The paragraph in question does not justify any annexation, it simply lists the facts, in a very short manner. These things are relevant, and deserve mention. The fact that for every purpose the Golan heights are a part of Israel (at least until a peace treaty) is relevant, for instance. While not annexed to Israel, and recognized as Syrian territory, for all intent and purposes (residents, tourists, etc) - it is a part of Israel. It should be covered, while making sure the phrasing doesn't leave the wrong impression regrading its status.

I say again, that ignoring this would lead some people to claiming we're "trying to hide the occupation" (trust me, people will jump in with these claims).

There's no need to continue arguing over this paragraph. I said this a few lines above, and I'll say this again. If you think you can phrase this better, please - suggest a new phrasing, instead of accusing people of trying to distort the facts. okedem (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but when you call the OPT and Golan "different parts of Israel", it's easy to get the impression you want the article to convey that notion too. Working from the assumption that they are not parts of Israel until internationally recognized as such, we could easily make the article entirely uncontroversial by simply excluding the non-Israeli territories from the article, as I have suggested. If that is not acceptable, the relevant information in the disputed paragraph could be more uncontroversially phrased like this:

The area composing Israel is approximately 20,700 square kilometers (7,992 sq mi), which includes 445 square kilometers (172 sq mi) of inland water. Thus Israel is roughly the size of the state of New Jersey, stretching 424 kilometers (263 mi) from north to south. Many Israelis consider the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights to be parts of Israel. When noted, a particular geographical feature is in one of these territories.

MeteorMaker (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're hanging on a single word. Read what I wrote as "areas under Israel's control", if that puts you at ease.

Side note - I'd like to remove the New Jersey comparison. This is obvious Americanism, as the size of that state means nothing to people outside the US. Although the CIA Factbook lists such comparisons, they are not fit for an international encyclopedia.

Your phrasing conveys little. First off, practically no one considers Gaza to be a part of Israel. There are no Israelis there at all, now. Anyway, what people consider isn't the thing of interest, but what actually is. Moving about Israel, seeing the scenery etc, you cannot see or feel a difference between the Golan and the rest of the country (and its under civilian Israeli law). This is as opposed to the West Bank, which is under military law, or Gaza which is off-limits to Israelis anyway.

How about this:

"Israel's area is approximately 20,700 square kilometers (7,992 sq mi), which include 445 square kilometers (172 sq mi) of inland water. Israel stretches 424 kilometers (263 mi) from north to south, and its width ranges from 114 kilometers (71 mi) to, at its narrowest point, 15 kilometers (9 mi). Israel also partially controls territories captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, totaling an additional 7,099 square kilometers (2,741 sq mi). These territories include the West Bank, 5,879 square kilometers (2,270 sq mi), which is partially administered by Palestinian National Authority; East Jerusalem, 70 square kilometers (27 sq mi), which was annexed according to Israeli law; and the Golan Heights, 1,150 square kilometers (444 sq mi), under Israeli civilian law, but not annexed."

okedem (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better, and I agree entirely with the removal of the NJ reference. However, I feel it's a bit too political (in the category, not opinion sense) to sit perfectly well in an article on geography. The finer details of administration are better described in articles on the political entities or on the Palestine/Israel conflict. It's not like such things will remain unchanged on a geological time scale (though you never know). Also, the part about East Jerusalem can be removed since that area doesn't contain any geographical features mentioned in the article. Suggested new phrasing:

"Israel's area is approximately 20,700 square kilometers (7,992 sq mi), which includes 445 square kilometers (172 sq mi) of inland water. Israel stretches 424 kilometers (263 mi) from north to south, and its width ranges from 114 kilometers (71 mi) to, at its narrowest point, 15 kilometers (9 mi). Israel also partially controls the West Bank, 5,879 square kilometers (2,270 sq mi) and the Golan Heights, 1,150 square kilometers (444 sq mi). When noted, a particular geographical feature is in one of these territories."

MeteorMaker (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I just don't understand the need for the last sentence. I mean, obviously if we say "Mount. something in the the Golan" - then we mean it's in the Golan...

Perhaps you mean - "Geographical features in these territories will be noted as such"? okedem (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's indeed what I meant. I think we are ready for the launch ceremony now. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. okedem (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mt Hermon

Hopefully we can solve this one in the same cooperative spirit as the issue above. User:Nickhh has suggested deleting Mt Hermon from the list of geographical features in this article, and there seems to be some substance in his suggestion: The coordinates given in the Mount Hermon article [1] place it inside the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force Zone, which is an area not under Israeli control. The southern slopes are inside the Israel-annexed zone though. Again according to the Mt Hermon article, an adjacent unnamed peak at 2,236 m is the highest elevation in Israel, not the 2,814 m Mt Hermon proper. I have updated the article accordingly. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Most of Mt. Hermon is within Syria and Lebanon, including the highest peak. Still, given Hermon's importance in Israel, it deserves mention. It houses important military points, and serves as a very popular tourist site. okedem (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with highlighting in the lead the fact that Israel (illegally) occupies territory that does not belong to it. Perhaps we could build something in about how it's a nice day trip for tourists, and has important military facilities located there? Perhaps we could get some input from an editor who lives in the Golan Heights? --Nickhh (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

it is not illegally occupying the Golan Heights. it used to belong to Syria and now it belongs to Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.0.147 (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I know some people enjoy saying the phrase "illegal occupation", but even saying it a million times doesn't make it correct. Egypt and Syria were in a military alliance to attack Israel. They were the aggressors, they launched the first acts of war. Israel's war was in self defense. Unfortunately for Syria, it lost, and lost the Golan. Boohoo. Now, Israel may return it the Syria in the future in a peace treaty, but that doesn't make the occupation of it illegal in any way. When a country tries to destroy another, as Syria tried in 1948 and 1967, it runs the risk of losing land. How else? A country can attack, and worst case - loses nothing? Aggression has a price. Trying to destroy your neighboring country has a price, and that price, in this case, was land. okedem (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it to your blog. --Nickhh (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, you're the one going on about "illegal occupation", not me. okedem (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Israel's occupation is not illegal. It is valid and consistent with the UN Charter. Chesdovi (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Rising sea level?

The atlas suggests that there is a fairly low-elevation route from the ocean to the Dead Sea,[2] but the resolution isn't very clear and in any case erosion issues might be more relevant. In case this is a familiar topic to someone I'll ask: is there any ground for concern that eventual loss of ice in Greenland or Antarctica could flood the entire Dead Sea basin? (Conversely, would such a flood consume enough volume to offer any significant relief to the other cities/countries inundated by rising sea level?) Wnt (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. A back-of-the-envelope calculation:

• Appr size of the Dead Sea basin: 500 cu km
• Surface of Earth's oceans:361,800,000 sq km [3]
• Reduction of level of sea after flooding of Dead Sea basin: 500/361,800,000 = 0,0000013 km = 1.3 mm.

MeteorMaker (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'd have guessed the Dead Sea basin to be bigger than that, but you're right - no matter what it can't be consequential, except of course in Israel/Palestine and Jordan. Wnt (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison in dimensions to former Holy Land states?

I'm looking for info about how Israel compares to British Palestine, Roman Palestine, the Kingdoms of Jerusalem, Judah & Israel as well as pre-Hebrew Canaan. Also, are those all the incarnations? Sceptik (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

also the Hasmonean and Herodian, which had semi-autonomy from Rome Helpfulguy101 (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Terms

Since its not part of Israel proper: [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Areas under israeli occupation are not part of Israel. [5] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

All countries in the world and the entire international community say it is in Syria and that its occupied by Israel. No country except Israel say its in Israel, so according to Wikipedia rules due weight, we must follow the vast majority viewpoint and not the extreme minority, and that is that its "occupied". The same thing with the total area and land area of Israel, it is against npov to have a region that is internationally recognized as in Syria in the total area and land area numbers of another country - Israel. See: Due and undue weight. So we can not here imply that the region is in Israel because that's not reality and its a violation against Wikipedia rules npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Area

The U.S. Library of Congress says that Israels area is 20,700 square kilometers.[6] This is before the occupation began in 1967, which is the internationally recognized borders, so the infobox should reflect that. We can have both numbers as they have done in the Israel article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

With the revelation that Sipio is a sock of Amoruso, who is topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, his pov edits against the international view where he has added occupied lands in the numbers of Israels area has been reverted, and been replaced with neutrality following the international view. I have also removed Mount Hermon and its photo from the "Selected elevations" list, since the mountain is internationally recognized as in Syria, and not in Israel at all. Also removed the 500px-JRiver en svg.png image uploaded by Amoruso since it displaced the West Bank and Gaza strip as part of Israel, clearly in violation of npov and also in violation of his topic ban. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi SD! are you happy being on your own here and having it your own way? did it ever come to your mind that it wd be fair and more civil to inform the former editors that you were editing this article in an autonomous way? is that according to you a collaborative work? when there is nobody around one doesn't rush to make potentially controversial changes! so pls rv your edits and try to gather a nb of involved editors here, thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope&Act3! (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am informing whoever is interested by posting on this talkpage. Amoruso is topic banned, his edits with his sockpuppet are in violation of his topic ban, and also a violation of npov. Whoever re ads his edits may be sanctioned for repeating the edits of a sockpuppet of a topic banned user, I have seen it before. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

do you mean that whatever valuable input these former editors brought was privately own by them and since they are banned so is the information, like say, if they have brought a RS stating that Jaffa lies on the Mediterranean sea coast or that Syria claims the Golan is hers, or even indicated the annual nbs for rainfall in Israel, these are never to be used again? too bad for this article's rating... for all I understand about wp good editing it's only about the RS and not who brings it in, right? I have no idea of which contributions they made, surely some were not to your liking but the quality of the article is our only aim and any valuable RS which contribute toward that is to be included, no? Hope&Act3! (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BAN. nableezy - 03:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness take a look at the source https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html it says "22,072", every article use this as their source, you are not smarter than them. and about the image, dont you dare touch the image, it says "hula valley and mount hermon" hula valley is in israel and there is no doubt about it, if there is mount hermon behind this, its not youre business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.110.10 (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the above argument, which has actually left the article without any area being displayed, I have tried to look things up in politically independent sources and find:

• 20,600sq km [7,954sq mi] in "Israel" World Encyclopedia. Philip's, 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t142.e5900>

and

• Land area: 21,000 sq. km. in "Israel" Oxford Guide to Countries of the World. Peter Stalker. Oxford University Press 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t42.e102>

Both require a subscription to reach. They don't pretend to give details to as many figures as the CIA, but have the advantage of being politically independent and therefore do not advance information that is convenient to an organ of a government and its foreign relations aims.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! an IP edited with references and Frederico reverted all of it because these were edits without comment, sure not all IPs are wp culture savvy but still a veteran editor is expected to show respect to fellow editors and to know that contributions, even of IPs, must be considered and not reverted without proper check! I did check the first one: SD gave as reference an out of date data Before June 1967, the area composing Israel (resulting from the armistice lines of 1949 and 1950) was about 20,700 square kilometers which he picked up, neglecting the sequel The area added to Israel after the June 1967 War which does specify 'added to israel' so that means that Israel after 1967 is equal to area before 1967 plus the added area -doesn't say Israel exists only in the pre 1967 reality, just straight and plain: added to Israel (nothing about recognised borders probably because Israel was not recognized by the Arab states already before 1967 let alone her borders!) if you understand English as I thought but worth checking; SD's ref number of choice is 20,700 plus 7,477 = 28,177 square kilometers, CIA's facts book is a free and accessible RS on wp and gives total: 22,072 sq km .-I see s/he mentions a picture of the Hula Valley was deleted too-, no need to start behaving in a disruptive way, hope you agree with that, obviously if you prefer 28,177 sq km over 22,072 that's fine too,

@SD: I read WP:BAN and you should read it too, IMO you distorted its contend a bit, English? it'ok, language comprehension is due to be some times challenging in an international community, cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope&Act3! (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook figures are likely to state accurately what the CIA wants it to state. However, that does not mean it is politically neutral. If you look at our article on the fact book you'll see that it states things according to the US political position. So that, for example, it will only list countries that are recognised by the US and not those that aren't. The two sources I gave are published by a respected academic source which does not have an obvious political axe to ground and are therefore more reliable.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

IP is most likely topic banned Amouroso, who also told you to help him out here:[7] CIA source although reliable, contains occupied territories, most likely annexed EJ and GH but not WB and Gaza. The internationally recognized 1967 borders/numbers are the neutral one. And btw, it was topic banned Amouroso who before with his sock changed the area numbers without any discussion or agreement for the change: [8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@PC: if you don't agree that CIA Facts is to be accepted as RS I'm sure you know how you can try to change that. Note that personally I don't believe in that species 'politically neutral' not in academics (money...) nor any kind of publication or media, only the juxtaposition of different sources can nuance the picture, and as I said CIA Facts is free and easy to access to

@SD:you are assuming... that means you don't know, but as usual what suits you is considered true no matter what, your thinking is very distanced from reality... and even if that IP is that s.o. you know of, so what? did s/he make up the sources? I 'know' only an IP and I don't ask for more, as I said above his?her? edits are referenced with RS, s/he can be the king of Arabia doesn't change that, all I have to be concerned with is the references proper. You think that your source is more neutral although it too computes the OT in Israel's size after 1967? fine with me, lets use their data then,

- oh, wait a minute, comes to my mind an horrible thought: you rushed to delete the editor's edits as soon as s/he was banned, right? these were valuable RS referenced, right? only they did not fit your agenda, right? so that's partisan sabotage... quite destructive actually, did you act the same way after every one editor you succeeded do have banned? did you delete their edits that did not please you? just for that reason? although they were valuable and constructive? well there is a need to check that, you still can undo the damage -you'll say it was done in good faith, that you misread the guide lines because of your limited understanding of written English, and that as soon as you were made aware of your mistakes you corrected them (you know... been there, done that)- do that and in the meantime I look for s.o. who's got the technical means to check your contributions regarding those edits unpleasant to you that you deleted rashly, ok? Hope&Act3! (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope&Act3!, you have not gotten any consensus for you reinserting the area numbers from a sock of a topic banned user. Even if you believe it is correct, you cant just re ad this topic banned socks numbers as there is objection for the change. Is that according to you a collaborative work? The original status quo of the article was the numbers without occupied territories and it was changed by Amarusos sock in April against his topic ban. And no I'm not "guessing" that "22,072 sq km" includes occupied territories, it says in this source [9] that the pre-1967 borders are about 20,700 sq. And as we all know the 1967 borders are the internationally recognized borders, and to represent the entire international view is the neutral way. To include occupied lands is pov.

You have also re added some other edits by Amorusos sock without even explaining your edits, you re added a mountain that is 100% in Syria and Lebanon to the Selected elevations list and also an image of this non-Israeli mountain. And you aslo re added a deleted image which is now a red link in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

@SD: discussing points of disagreement is collaborative in nature, deleting broadely without prior dicussion is not... do we have a consensus on that?

(1) I did not reinsert area numbers from a 'sock' but from CIA Facts... =sock for? and I repeatedly said that if you prefer your reference's (U.S. Library of Congress) numbers, it's fine with me ('obviously if you prefer 28,177 sq km over 22,072 that's fine too,' and 'You think that your source is more neutral although it too computes the OT in Israel's size after 1967? fine with me, lets use their data then,')

'as there is objection for the change.' on that I agree, Frederico should not have changed them!

(2) see above: 'I'll revert Frederico's and suggest you discuss individual modifications here before any move '- let's discuss then

(3) And no I'm not "guessing" that "22,072 sq km" includes occupied territories,???: I didn't write that!

I did mention though that you're assuming that the IP is some banned editor, without any proof

(4) 'And as we all know the 1967 borders are the internationally recognized borders,' uncorrect statement! if by WE you mean you and me, you probably believe that but I for one only know that some would like these to be recognized as the final borders . Check Borders of Israel for a detailed exposé (extract: When the tide of battle turned against the Arab forces, they agreed to a ceasefire in the 1949 Armistice Agreements, popularly in Israel referred as the Green Line. These ceasefire lines were expressly declared in the Armistice Agreements as not being final borders.)

In other words Israel's recognized borders are not to be confused with the armistice green line which is not a border

(5) 'To include occupied lands is pov.' balance is reached by giving different pov. See above @PC: 'only the juxtaposition of different sources can nuance the picture,' -to exclude the OT is a pov too-

(6) I simply reverted an overall revert which did not distinguish between well sourced edits and may be unacceptable ones, as I said there is a need to dicuss every one of them, not throw every thing you don't like indiscriminately into the trash bin.

(7) 'you re added a mountain that is 100% in Syria and Lebanon to the Selected elevations list and also an image of this non-Israeli mountain.' are you refering to the 'Hula Valley and Mount Hermon' picture? as you already know we have an issue with the IN word. You may claim that the Hermon belongs to Syria and Lebanon but stating that it is IN these countries requires a strecht of imagination to say the least! ...let alone 100% in ....

(8) 'And you aslo(sic) re added a deleted image which is now a red link in the article.' what happened to it?

are these all the points you want to discuss? Hope&Act3! (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna change the numbers back to without the numbers for the occupied territories, as that was the original status quo and there is objection for the change, and it was changed by a topic banned user. So if you want to change it, please get consensus for the change first.

Here is a map:[10], it shows that the mountain is in Syria and Lebanon and you can clearly see that its not in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Library of Congress gives 28,177 sq km since you chose that source you should use it correctly, and as far as that map is concerned... well I'll assume that you can't read a map properly and we'll keep Mt Hermon IN Israel for the time being, and what's about that red link? Hope&Act3! (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The United States does not say anywhere that Mt Hermon is "in Israel". The US considers the Golan to be Syrian territory held under military occupation. See this map where Mt Hermon is clearly labeled as being in Syria in territory under Israeli occupation. nableezy - 21:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope&Act3!. The U.S. Library of Congress gives 20,700 square kilometers for Israels 1967 borders. These are the internationally (including the Unites States) recognized borders. Do you know what that means? Its means that all countries on earth see these as the borders of Israel, and no country including the United States accepts Israels occupation of Golan and the West bank as part of Israel. (Please read: Due and undue weight) Same thing with Mount Hermon, the south of it is in Golan, not in Israel. Now I showed you this map [11], now if you have a problem with your computer so you cant view the map, I cant help you with that. If you want you can ask an admin to view the map for you and the admin can tell you if the mountain is in Israel or not. Nableezy also posted another map above from the CIA, give that image a try and see if you can view it, it also shows that mount Hermon isn't in Israel. What do you mean "what's about that red link?" ? Its a red link, there is no image. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is stupid. Israel says x while the intl community says y or x-y. Easy fix. And if we want to continue the sources game we surely can find contradicting sources over and over and over again. Pulling teeth.Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it that you repeatedly show up at articles and talk pages you have never edited shortly after I have done so? nableezy - 15:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@SD: I'll try to explain again clearly to you. - all countries on earth see these as the borders of Israel,

not quite, as I wrote above: (4) 'And as we all know the 1967 borders are the internationally recognized borders,' uncorrect statement! if by WE you mean you and me, you probably believe that but I for one only know that some would like these to be recognized as the final borders . Check Borders of Israel for a detailed exposé (extract: When the tide of battle turned against the Arab forces, they agreed to a ceasefire in the 1949 Armistice Agreements, popularly in Israel referred as the Green Line. These ceasefire lines were expressly declared in the Armistice Agreements as not being final borders.) In other words Israel's recognized borders are not to be confused with the armistice green line which is not a border

if this armistice line was the 'already recognized borders of Israel' all these politicians would be wasting our money spending so much on so called 'peace talks'. This green line is only a starting point for discussion, don't pretend you don't know that by now, and every body knows that there will be some landswaps -if they ever manage to agree on something while they are presently unable to even to agree to talk to each other...- so this will never be the 'recognized borders of Israel' and anyway we are to state what is not what will be according to so-and-so

- no country including the United States accepts Israels occupation of Golan and the West bank as part of Israel. what the US or your uncle G. accepts has nothing to do here they don't rule in wp where we deal only with reality not with wishful thinking of any kind and I wd be surprised if there was an actual official US declaration that the Golan or Jerusalem are not in Israel whatever they consider should be if they did we wd say so: the US... as an opinion -wp is an encyclopedia, remember? not a site describing a fantasy land-, FACT: Mt Hermon is in the Israeli governed part of the Golan not levitating in a no man's land. Another pov can be mentioned if relevant but cannot supersede the reality or we wd be just philosophying: caressing this and that thought,

- your map -which by the way is copyrighted and should not be used here- shows that Mt Hermon is in the Golan, I think we all knew that already! don't try to bring up any other map, if it shows that this mount is not IN Israel then it's either outdated or a fictitious map just as you can find maps which show between the river and the sea only the Palestine dream pov. -N.B.: my computer is fine and I can read maps while I believe that you cannot, and no I don't need anybody tells me if Mt Hermon is in Israel or not since I can visit it and check by myself-

- once again (copied from above): SD gave as reference an out of date data Before June 1967, the area composing Israel (resulting from the armistice lines of 1949 and 1950) was about 20,700 square kilometers which he picked up, neglecting the sequel The area added to Israel after the June 1967 War which does specify 'added to israel' so that means that Israel after 1967 is equal to area before 1967 plus the added area -doesn't say Israel exists only in the pre 1967 reality, just straight and plain: added to Israel (nothing about recognised borders probably because Israel was not recognized by the Arab states already before 1967 let alone her borders!) if you understand English as I thought but worth checking; SD's ref number of choice is 20,700 plus 7,477 = 28,177 square kilometers,

for consistency's sake since you stick to that source you have to use its numbers not the ones you prefer

- the red link means there was sth previously, what happened to it?

- @Nab.: so the US do not say that Mt Hermon is in Israel nor that it is in Syria or anywhere else, so? do they say where it is levitating? neither. Israel says it is in Israel and I believe that since I can drive from my home in Jerusalem (Israel) to Ramat haGolan (Israel) without crossing any roadblock or border, without a passport and a visa, that's called a 'reality check'. Maybe it's practicing some kind of religion that you keep repeating your mantra 'it's not in Israel' but by that you can convince only the believers, until a political decision is made to change that, the Golan and Jerusalem are in Israel, this is concrete geography not an hagglers market negotiation, it's also about taxes, judiciary authority, police and army control, health and education, housing, banks and commerce, currency and language, etc. about a full fledged real state. A religiously obstinate denial is subjective and out of sync. Simply put: you are trying to flatten the Earth.

I am probably overdoing it in the patience range it's because I want to make sure that you understand the difference between facts and fantasy, at least nobody can say I didn't try. And please do take into consideration that it will be less tedious if you read the previous posts before adding any new one and then we could move on. So now that we are on the same page, let's keep out of fiction writing and back to the article: the area is 28,177 square kilometers and Mt Hermon is in the Golan which is in Israel for the time being, OK? Hope&Act3! (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope%26Act3!, Syrias international border is clear, Golan is Syria, not Israel. There is two maps above, neither put Hermon in Israel. You have no consensus for you pov edits. If you do not have any consensus you can not change the numbers. Mount Hemron has been discussed many times at its talkpage. If you want to ad a mountain that is internationally recognized as in Syria get consensus at the Mount Hermon talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You dont seem to understand this basic point. Occupied territory is by definition outside of the country that occupies it. Israel controls the Golan, yes that is true. That control is called military occupation. The Golan is in Syria, except for a small sliver east of the sea. This is not a "POV", this is an established fact that I can give you a thousand sources for. Mt. Hermon is in the Golan which is territory occupied by Israel. The US says that Mt Hermon is in the Golan which is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. That an Israeli can go to the Golan without a visa does not mean that the Golan is in Israel. You are attempting to push an extreme minority view that even the Israeli government does not claim. The Golan Heights are Syrian territory held by Israel in a state of belligerent occupation. That does not mean they are in Israel, in fact it emphatically means they are not in Israel. nableezy - 13:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@SD: You have no consensus for your pov edits. If you do not have any consensus you can not change the numbers! but still you did that many times - additionally you cheated on the numbers... you have no consensus to dishonestly edit the numbers! OK? I'll change to the correct numbers from your source

@Nab: even the Israeli government does not claim well check again. in a state of belligerent occupation check that too, it's the quietest border of Israel! that's the reason why the Israelis want to keep it that way you see? so, according to you, the fact that the Golan (2/3 of it) is in Israel is proof that it is not in Israel? like you go to file a complaint against your neighbour who stole your TV set and the police officer asks: is it in your neighbour's house? and you answer: no! surely not! it's mine so it's in my home!... so as the Golan is Syrian and it has been captured by Israel, it is nevertheless in Syria not in Israel 'kuz it is Syrian... right? hummm sounds very un-Cartesian to me... sure that's a basic point that I can't accept a tortuous demonstration demonstrating an insane position. I accept only facts (may be you could get an account in Second Life virtual land?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope&Act3! (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not changing anything, the original status quo was the numbers without the occupied territories. And a sock of a banned user changed it:[12] There is no consensus to change them. You're a 59 year old women, why are you acting in this manner? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhh no. I dont need to check, Israel has never claimed that the Golan is annexed as a part of the state. And it being "quiet" does not mean it is not "occupied". It being "occupied" means that it is not in Israel. I never said that the Golan is in Israel so I have never said "the Golan (2/3 of it) is in Israel". The comparison that you made to "is in your neighbor's house" is inane, but Ill play along. The comparison is actually "my neighbor has taken control of the second floor of my house". The second floor remains part of the person's house though they do not control it. The fact is that the Golan is Syrian territory held by Israel in a state of belligerent occupation. Sources:
Roberts, Adam (1990), "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967", The American Journal of International Law, 84 (1), American Society of International Law: 44–103, doi:10.2307/2203016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) p. 60 Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.
The CIA World Factbook for 2010: the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights
Issue Brief for Congress: Israeli-United States Relations", Congressional Research Service, April 5, 2002. pg. 5.: the United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal
ICRC activities in the occupied Golan during 2007, International Committee of the Red Cross: In the ICRC's view, the Golan is an occupied territory.
Many more sources can be provided demonstrating this simple point. The Golan Heights are not in Israel. No real sources even try to make the claim that the Golan Heights are in Israel. You, a random person on the internet, are the one making the claim. Wikipedia does not care what you think or what you recognize. The sources clearly say that the Golan is Syrian territory outside of Israel and held in a state of belligerent occupation. nableezy - 17:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I havn't read this whole thread, but commenting on the last post, I think a differentiation needs to bared in mind. The Golan is legally part of Syria. But it is physically part of Israel. (A tourist will not be able to enter the Golan from Syria.) So it is in some form "in Israel" and part of its geography. Chesdovi (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Physically it is part of Syria, physically it is not part of Israel, it is not "in Israel" or part of its geography. Its an occupation of southwestern Syria. Please see: npov --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the article include the most common number (~20,000), the number including E.J (+60) and the numbers including the Golan. The 26,000 number includes the Golan, EJ and the entire West Bank and Gaza and should not even be mentioned on the page. Where we include EJ and the Golan it should be clearly spelled out that the territory is considered occupied Palestinian/Syrian territory. nableezy - 23:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The source cited for the size of Israel being 28,177 km2 does not once say that the size of Israel is 28,177 km2. The source, which is taken from this book gives sizes for Israel and "territories occupied" and "annexed territories". The same book says the following in the beginning of the section on geography of Israel, [13]:

Size: About 20,700 square kilometers. Occupied territories compromise additional 7,477 square kilometers: West Bank, 5,879; Gaza Strip, 278; East Jerusalem, annexed in July 1980, 70; and Golan Heights, annexed in December 1981, 1,150

So not only does this source not say the total size of Israel 28,177 km2 as Hope&Act3 has been contending, it in fact says flat out that the size is 20,700 km2 and that occupied territories account for an additional 7,477 km2. It lists those occupied territories as being the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights. This is not only original research, it is introducing blatant political misinformation into encyclopedia articles. These numbers should be reverted now. nableezy - 19:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now corrected the information with this source, Hope&Act3, stop your edit warring, you have no consensus for your change. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Judean Desert

The - 1,368 ft. elevation in the Judean desert, is it in the West bank? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"disputed", "Judea and Samaria" and other such nonsense

This revert violates multiple policies and guidelines. To begin with, there are an abundance of sources that clearly say that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights were occupied in 1967 and remain occupied to this day. The usage of "disputed territory" is POV, it reflects the extreme minority view that these territories are not occupied and disregards the overwhelming majority of sources that say that it is. This is the chosen language of the right wing of the Israeli political spectrum, and it is not in compliance with NPOV to use it in the encyclopedia's narrative voice. Additionally, the repeated usage of the terms Judea and Samaria when referring to a territory violates WP:WESTBANK. This edit should be reverted. nableezy - 19:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Until this is resolved I am adding templates about neutrality and factual accuracy. nableezy - 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

While "disputed" is logically correct, the default term is "occupied". On the specific edit: yes, it should be reverted. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, tags removed. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, nableezy - 18:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

occupied vs controlled, location of Mount of Olives

The section on Selected elevations lists a few places outside of Israel. One of the entries Mount Hermon, located in the Golan. As this article is supposedly about the geography of Israel, and not of Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories, it is necessary to stipulate that this elevation is in the occupied territories. Currently it simply says it is in the "Israeli controlled Golan Heights", whereas the correct term, as evidenced by the title of this article is "Israeli-occupied". Also, the Mount of Olives misleadingly says that it is located in Jerusalem, full stop. The Mount of Olives is also located outside of Israel, being in East Jerusalem, part of what is internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian territories. By removing the fact that this place is actually in occupied East Jerusalem, Wikipedia is tacitly endorsing the expansionist Israeli POV that "greater Jerusalem" is one unit that is part of Israel. This is an extreme minority viewpoint that Wikipedia cannot portray as fact. I am tagging the section until this is resolved. nableezy - 14:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Instead of taking political status into each and every point on the map (which would be justified in an article dealing with modern politics), why not rename the article? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree.WP:NPOV requires that a minority view does not remain unchallenged.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

ElComandanteChe, I would be fine with a rename, though the article should still specify what is in Israel and what is in the occupied territories. nableezy - 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. We'd better see more opinions on rename before we go. Is there a procedure for that? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and WP:RM lays out the process. nableezy - 13:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Gilabrands edit

Gilabrand, in this edit[14], you re ad Mount Hermon and East Jerusalem to the Selected elevations section section with the edit summary "geography is about a physical place - take your politics somewhere else", what does this edit summary mean? Yes geography is about a physical place, this article being about Israel, neither Mount Hermon or East Jerusalem are in that place, so that was the reason for its removal, how does your edit summary justify its addition? how is this politics?, this is facts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

Hertz, you have removed that Israeli occupied territories are Israeli occupied and they are therefore presented in the article as part of Israel. Despite the discussion about this above. This is not neutral and is factually inaccurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The political distinctions are amply covered and explained in the earlier "Locations and boundaries" section (para. 3 and table), and even there do not change the name of a region, only its description. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The name of the article is "Geography of Israel", the elevations in Israel are mixed together with those in the occupied territories without pointing out which are are in Israel and which are in the occupied territories. Every time a place in the article about the occupied territories is mentioned, it must specifically be pointed out that it is in the occupied territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Every time? You can't be serious. The distinctions are clearly set forth in the "Locations" section, as stated above, and also in the lead, and also via links for further information on the political dimensions, for exploration by those not concentrating purely on the geography. I don't think readers are in any danger of being misled. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Continuing on from above, there are even more non neutral things about this article, its about Geography of Israel, yet it contains a lot of info about the Israeli occupied territories. There are two ways we can correct this, 1. either to remove all info about the Israeli occupied territories, or 2. the info about the occupied territories stays, but the name of the article is corrected to "Geography of Israel and the occupied territories" so the name reflects the scope of the article. A name change is also suggested in this discussion above:[15] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Recipes for destructiveness. Before you can correct anything you need to prove that something is incorrect. As I have noted above, the article contains ample information to distinguish the political status of the different areas. Geography should be broadly construed. Astronauts have found it refreshing to note that from space no borders can be seen. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the proof: name of article: "Geography of Israel". Despite this, this article contains a lot of information about occupied territories. Them no being Israel, there is something incorrect here. The article is written in a way where there is no difference between places in Israel and the occupied territories, therefore, occupied territories are presented as being Israel. Example: Selected elevations list, "Rainfall varies from season to season and from year to year, particularly in the Negev Desert. Precipitation is often concentrated in violent storms, causing erosion and flash floods.[28] In winter, precipitation often takes the form of snow at the higher elevations of the central highlands, including Jerusalem.[28] Mount Hermon has seasonal snow which covers all three of its peaks for most of the year in winter and spring. In rare occasions, snow gets to the northern mountain peaks and only in extremely rare occasions even to the coast. The areas of the country most cultivated are those receiving more than 300 millimeters (11.8 in) of rainfall annually, making approximately one-third of the country cultivable." "South of the Galilee, in the West Bank, are the Samarian Hills with numerous small, fertile valleys rarely reaching the height of 800 meters (2,625 ft).[15] South of Jerusalem, also mainly within the West Bank, are the Judean Hills, including Mount Hebron.[15] The central highlands average 610 meters (2,001 ft) in height and reach their highest elevation at Har Meron, at 1,208 meters (3,963 ft), in Galilee near Safed.".

It contains so much information about occupied territories, that the scope of the article is not only about Israel. Even though it says that Israel occupies WB, EJ and GH, the examples above also shows that its is presented in a way that a reader who hasn't read every single sentence of the article (which most do not) is mislead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hertz of course. Shoving "occupation" verbiage into every possible sentence is unencyclopedic for a myriad of reasons, as outlined above.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course you agree with Hertz, how many times have we not seen you shown up to article disputes where you never previously edited only to give your "vote" or "support" to one specific side? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Address the issues, please, instead of attacking other editors. It is unencyclopedic, of course, to repeat and repeat what is already well-explained, as you are proposing to do. On the other hand, I suppose that because readers do not always read thoroughly, it is our responsibility—in all articles—to repeat absolutely everything constantly. And then to say it again. We've provided the information, but somebody might overlook it, so we had better repeat it a few more times. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not only the occupied, there are also larger problems if you had seen my previous posts: [16][17] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This issue could be resolved by moving all mention of locations in West Bank or Golan to a separate section called "Occupied territories". The article as it stands today is simply not neutral as it adopts the Israeli POV of Golan being part of Israel. A disclaimer in a separate section is not good enough as the reader should not be expected to have read the article top-to-bottom. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is about "Geography of Israel" not "Geography of Israel and the occupied territories", so there is no reason to have information about West bank and Golan here. So we could correct this npov problem by simply removing this info not about Israel. The only neutral way the information could stay in the way you have suggested, is that it also includes a name changes of the article so to reflect the content of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that most readers here would value being able to understand that Israel controls some land, and shares control over other land. So I think we should improve the article to explain this better. The table is to my mind a fair reflection of the complexities of the situation - the rest article would benefit if it followed a similar structure. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What table are you referring to? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The one that's now at the bottom of the Location and boundaries section. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OK to remove the factual inaccuracy tag? The table under "location and boundaries" seems to me to be properly sourced and attentive to the political dispute. I'll give it a day or two more. Shilton (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This article should be about Israel. Israel and the Palestinian territories collectively are covered at Geography of Palestine which desperately needs development. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, there was no clear-cut definition of the geographical and territorial limits of the area known as "Palestine.""

This claim is false. Palestine as of May 1948 was defined as the mandated territory. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Amended. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

administrative divisions

Why does this article have "Political geography" section, administrative divisions are outside the scope of "Geography of" articles. Look at the "Geography of" articles in the Asia navbox at the bottom of the article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll remove it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Israeli location map incident

An incident occurred recently at template:Location map Israel, when user Sepsis II modified a long-standing version of Israeli map into "1949 borders" version without any discussion, suspiciously naming it File:Neutral Israel location map.svg instead of File:Israel location map.svg. Further, upon resulting edit-warring, an administrator protected that template, but perhaps mistakenly, without restoring the stable version prior to Sepsis II edits. Interestingly, there has already been a comprehensive discussion at Module_talk:Location_map/data/Syria, with an accepted solution regarding Syrian and Israeli map issues, but some editors apparently fail to acknowledge it. An administrator raised the issue at ANI, but there was not attention. There is a discussion going on to return to previous status quo before alleged system gaming by Sepsis II, but the undiscussed change shouldn't have happened in the first place. I invite editors to discuss the incident at ANI thread.GreyShark (dibra) 18:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Border with Africa?

It says in the article that Israel "is bounded to the north by Lebanon, the northeast by Syria, the east by Jordan and the West Bank, and to the southwest by Egypt, with this border also being the border between Asia and Africa." The border between Asia and Africa part is not correct. Israel shares no borders with Africa. The border in the southeast is with the Asian part of Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula, which is according to Wikipedia "the only part of Egyptian territory located in Asia as opposed to Africa, effectively serving as a land bridge between two continents." It is widely accepted that the border between Asia and Africa lies inside Egypt. Even the reference that follows that claim is not saying the border between Israel and Egypt is also the border between Asia and Africa. This claim contrasts many other pages and maps on Wikipedia in which Sinai is always is Asia and never in Africa. This claim should be removed. --Abtalion (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Geography of Israel

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Geography of Israel's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CIA":

• From Singapore: "Distribution of family income – Gini Index". CIA. 2012. Retrieved 15 August 2013.
• From West Bank: "The World Factbook – Middle East: West Bank". Central Intelligence Agency See also Geography of the West Bank.
• From Economy of Israel: "Economy of Israel" in CIA 2011 World Factbook, web:CIA-IS.
• From Palestinian territories: Based on figures of the CIA World Factbook. The Factbook estimates the land area of Israel (excluding the Golan Heights) 20,330 square kilometer, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem, but excluding Mt. Scopus) 5,640 and the Gaza Strip 360.
• From Geography of Afghanistan: Afghanistan, CIA World Factbook.
• From Geography of India: "India". CIA Factbook. Retrieved 16 June 2007.
• From Geography of Hong Kong: "Hong Kong". The World Factbook. CIA. Retrieved 18 September 2009.
• From Geography of Tajikistan: The World Factbook,Economy of Tajikistan
• From Syria: "Syria". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 22 April 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent terminology

There is a wideranging use of insonsistent terminology across many geographic articles connected to Israel, notably the use of 'hill' to refer to mountains, and capitalisation of topographic features where the standard is only to capitalise Geographic names.

The reason for bringing this up is that it is irrational, elevation being determined since ancient times by the terrain presenting obstacles to logistics of trade often requiring goods to be distributed from the coast to inland areas. These days it is even more impractical since even children now have use of GPS-enabled devices which are always callibrated to sea level.

As an example, the 'walk' from the coast to Jerusalem is in fact a 53km climb to an altitude of over 770m, and is not literally for the faint hearted. Calling the various summits in Jerusalem 'hills' is therefore misinformation from both, historical and scientific perspectives. Please see what I suspect will turn into an edit conflict in the Mount Zion article. Crock81 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Geography of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577321/Jordan_%28river%29.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208072052/http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st02_15.pdf to http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st02_15.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720034201/http://www.populationmatters.org/documents/overshoot_index_2011.pdf to https://populationmatters.org/documents/overshoot_index_2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Geography of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013032616/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_barrier_report_july_2009_english_low_res.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_barrier_report_july_2009_english_low_res.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.geckogo.com/Guide/Israel/Natural-Environment/Climate/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517120121/http://www.jafi.org.il/education/noar/sites/roshhan.htm to http://www.jafi.org.il/education/noar/sites/roshhan.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577321/Jordan_(river).html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080407043121/http://mama.indstate.edu/users/gejdg/rural.pdf to http://mama.indstate.edu/users/gejdg/rural.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314022637/http://www.kafkas.org.tr/english/diaspora/israil.html to http://www.kafkas.org.tr/english/diaspora/israil.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2018

Change "Ranked 147th" to "Ranked 150th" Wow323^{Talk•Stalk•Sign} 18:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Abequinn14 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate climate map

The koppen climate map is inaccurate, for example it shows parts of the Judean desert with a mediterranean climate (quite bizzare) and Tiberias as mediterranean while it is semi-arid (understandable), this map is more accurate (it includes the west bank and golan heights which can be edited away, the global koppen climate map from which the map here is taken shows the entirety of the west bank as mediterranean as well, while a simple check of the table at [Jericho] shows otherwise))

--89.139.215.64 (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You’re right דולב חולב (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

Area: (1/3 of Srilanka) 46.31.101.31 (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Maritime border

Which countries have maritime border with Israel in Gulf of Eilat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.185.56.57 (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Search in location

Which sector is the mgar in Israel 2405:204:22A1:B14F:0:0:244A:28A1 (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Golan Heights in lead section

The Golan Heights as part of Israel are recognized by the US. I suggest it be changed to "not widely recognized" Helpfulguy101 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2023

u

2A04:4A43:57DF:C6F9:0:0:330:5098 (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

🇵🇹 Portugal is Mediterranean 2A04:4A43:57DF:C6F9:0:0:330:5098 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Central Israel

As a person who lives in central Israel, it looks to me because of evaporation that the center is actually semi arid. The only vegetation here is a really tiny brown and burned grasses דולב חולב (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Unseen דולב חולב (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@PAper GOL דולב חולב (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the region, does it include Jerusalem(which seems to be in the center)?PAper GOL (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

kind of

Jerusalem is also pretty arid דולב חולב (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Climate

“Israel has a Mediterranean climate with long, hot, rainless summers and relatively short, cool, rainy winters (Köppen climate classification Csa).”

so first of all, only 40% of Israel has a Mediterranean climate. 60% has a hot desert climate.

second: the winters are really mild and not cool. דולב חולב (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Better say mild to cool if highland locations have winter averages below 10. Otherwise mild.

I agree with the desert part.PAper GOL (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

So can you change it? דולב חולב (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, the classifications are visible in the map.PAper GOL (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Great 👍🏼🙂 דולב חולב (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I saw someone added “from Lachish to the north” which is not completely accurate.

the demographic center of Israel, is very different from the north of Israel.

the north is really characterized by Mediterranean scrubland. But the center has mostly dry brown grasses, more like a semi arid climate. דולב חולב (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, for Lachish there is no historical data, so that may be WP:OR.

Climate and Biome are not exactly the same, though.PAper GOL (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Something you can add

Another interesting point, is that Israel has the most southerly area in the northern hemisphere featuring a Mediterranean climate. דולב חולב (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Description

I think it’s a bit misleading. there’s only one snow caped mountain (Mount Hermon), that covered with snow only in January, February and he’s in a disputed area. דולב חולב (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)