Talk:Israel–United Kingdom relations

It is missing the current Muslim influence in UK on UK-Israel relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.216.20 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

March 2010 - Concerned that this page covers only recent, and only negative, developments in a small section of Israel-United Kingdom relations. Perhaps worth renaming the page to something like '2009-10 incidents related to Israel-United Kingdom relations'? Public1london (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem can be solved by adding relevant historical information as well as data on commercial and cultural ties. With the current article so short and incomplete, I don't see the need to start any new ones. --Geewhiz (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, the information that appears on the page is misleading to the point of implying there are no positive relations between Israel and Britain. With this page's title, I'd imagine people visiting would also want to know about trade and research ties (including universities that have joint research, not just about the boycott), government agreements (including BIRAX and BI-ARTS) and even maybe statements made by government and opposition parties on the status of relations. No need to start a new page - but until this is resolved I'd find this page quite misleading in terms of data.Public1london (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The current page extremely negative and misleading, and almost only refers to incidents within the last several years, and nothing on any other Israel-United Kingdom relations. The article needs to be revised and edited. --Kyuko (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a is a distorted and biased page. Please recategorise "Anti-British Propaganda" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.111.5.123 (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the comments above - this article seems to have issues with WP:Recentism. It should probably focus less on recent controversies, and more on a broader view; at the moment, most of the article is about events in 2009-10. It's worth emphasising that despite these disagreements, relations between the UK and Israel remain generally strong. Robofish (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Israeli-Palestinian conflict"

A couple of days ago an editor added a subsection "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to the article, but nothing in the addition relates any of the content to the topic of the article. To wit, the topic is bilateral relations between Israel and the UK. WP:WikiProject_International_relations#Guidelines is explicit about what content belongs in bilateral relations articles, and nothing of this addition meets any of the criteria there. Unless sources can be added to make it clear how the perspectives of the various British figures mentioned in the addition are related to the UK's diplomatic ties with Israel, none of it belongs in this article.—Biosketch (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the editor mentioned above, and my reply is as follows. First, WP:WikiProject_International_relations#Guidelines makes it clear that those guidelines are only guidelines ("These instructions are not set in stone"). Secondly, one of the elements cited there is that "they have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict". The UK government's criticism of Israeli policies amounts to a diplomatic conflict and has been perceived as such by the Israeli government. Cameron's description of Gaza as a prison camp has received strong condemnation in Israel, for instance. I do however accept that the title of the section was not ideal and I am therefore changing it. Nescio vos (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines aren't a Guideline in the formal sense, but they're sensible and are the convention that's followed in all these articles. Now, where in the text added is there any mention of diplomatic conflict? I see no mention anywhere that this incident or anything you added had any impact at all on the bilateral relations between the UK and Israel. Do you have a source that sense relations were strained as a result, or something to that effect? If not, it belongs at an article on the foreign policy of the UK or on international perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but not in an article whose scope is bilateral relations between the UK and Israel.—Biosketch (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added some further evidence. At any rate I would maintain that many similar "relations" articles do mention criticisms levied by one government against the other, as well expressions of praise and support. I will look for examples if necessary. The Israeli government did protest about Cameron's "prison camp" comments and I will try and find some evidence of that. Nescio vos (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The "evidence" added fails to answer the simple question, What impact has anything in that subsection had on the diplomatic ties between Israel and the UK? If this question is not satisfactorily addressed by the content of the additions made, then they don't belong in this article. Which isn't to say they don't belong in an article on the foreign policy of the UK, but they stray way off the topic of our article – bilateral relations between Israel and the UK. Again, the section heading is "Israel–UK tensions," which obviously is to be construed in the diplomatic sense. There's no indication the diplomatic relations between Israel and UK have been affected at all as a result of anything in the additions. It's different from the arrest warrants and the forged passports, where it's clear there was a diplomatic fallout.—Biosketch (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to imply that this page should only cover diplomatic relations between the two governments. I would like to challenge that. "Relations" also includes commercial, cultural and educational relations between the two countries. If we look for instance at Israel-United States relations, which is a larger page, there is a long passage on public opinion, as well as information on US citizen immigrating to Israel. Relationships between countries are not limited to the inter-governmental level, and that is reflected in many such pages. I note that you have now marked a further edit of mine as being unsuitable. Nescio vos (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's correct, because for some reason you're continuing to add content to the article that lies outside its inherent scope. Not only that but in this case the content you added is from a news blog. Please read WP:NEWSBLOG. Content sourced to a blog, even one featured by a reputable news outlet such as Haaretz, requires attribution to the author. In this case blogger Barak Ravid is using his personal tone of voice as part of his "Diplomania" blog. Now, if you can find actual secondary sources that discuss the incident of the ads in the context of Israel–U.K. relations, that'll be a different story. As things stand, there's nothing relating what you added to theme of the article. Furthermore, the comparison with Israel–United States relations is not a valid one, per WP:OSE, which is a convention, even if not formal policy. I haven't looked closely at your additions to that article. It's possible that when the opportunity to do so presents itself, some of the same problems that have arisen here will be echoed there. Regardless, though, a model for how bilateral relations articles should be structured and what content they ought and ought not to contain is the Germany–Japan relations article, since it's a WP:GA. One'll immediately note that the article's solid and tight in its consistency and cohesion. Nothing in it is beyond the scope suggested by title. So that, and not Israel–United States relations, is what should serve as example to you.—Biosketch (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pro Israel Rally photo

I'm not sure what the point in that picture is. It seems a bit out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.101.38 (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Bombing of the King David Hotel

‎Ashurbanippal: the section the UK's protest to Israel regarding Israel's commemorative celebration of the bombing of the King David Hotel is an important, recent and well documented issue that shows the relationship between the UK and Israel was affected by the celebration. It needs to stay in this section. However, you do not own the content of this section and when you write things to me like "You are the only one who added details about a 2006 commemoration that belongs to the King David hotel article!!! Either you leave this per NPOV balance or remove the whole section, " it appears you do not understand how Wikipedia works. You do not own the article, and our discussion needs to be about the content and format of the article, not attacks on other contributors. It is quite clear that the UK views the bombing of the King David Hotel as "terrorism," and does not view any warnings intended or given as an excuse for killing civilians. It's also obvious, given the celebration of the event, that Israel views it differently. The reason that there is a section in "Israel-United Kingdon" relations on the bombing of the King David Hotel is not simply that the bombing took place, but that Israel celebrated that event and the UK protested that celebration. When one country protests what another country does, that means there is an issue in the "relations." Therefore this matter is "on topic" in the Israel-UK relations section. VanEman

Per NPOV when you present a controversial topic you have to show both points of view, therefore you should leave intact Israel's response to the UK and the "terrorism" accusation. The opinion of the British ambassador in Israel is no less important or notable than Netanyahu's.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Israel–United Kingdom relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090329110344/http://london.mfa.gov.il:80/mfm/web/main/missionhome.asp?MissionID=34& to http://london.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/missionhome.asp?MissionID=34&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101208013329/http://ukinisrael.fco.gov.uk:80/en/news/press-centre/fs-visit/science-links to http://ukinisrael.fco.gov.uk/en/news/press-centre/fs-visit/science-links

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israel–United Kingdom relations. 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/20110613162040/http://london.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/document.asp?DocumentID=168817&MissionID=34 to http://london.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/document.asp?DocumentID=168817&MissionID=34
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130803142427/http://www.britishcouncil.org/israel-education-birax.htm to http://www.britishcouncil.org/israel-education-birax.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130803075059/http://www.britishcouncil.org/israel-arts-culture-bi-arts.htm to http://www.britishcouncil.org/israel-arts-culture-bi-arts.htm

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) 18:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)