Talk:Israel/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

→

Archive 80

Paraguay embassy now in Tel Aviv

I've noted that the page is protected. I wanna say that the embassy of the Republic of Paraguay has moved back to Tel Aviv, so the page must be adjourned. These are the sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/05/paraguay-jerusalem-embassy-moves-to-tel-aviv https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-45423581 https://www.efe.com/efe/english/world/paraguay-to-move-its-embassy-in-israel-back-tel-aviv/50000262-3740555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.125.183 (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Done Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It was reverted by an editor who either didn't read the sources you provided, or who doesn't understand the meaning of 'revoked'. Here's a little help for him.

Synonyms for Revoke: cancel, repeal, rescind, reverse, abrogate, annul, nullify, declare null and void, make void, void, invalidate, render invalid. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources don't say Paraguay backtracked from their recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but they will restore the embassy in Tel Aviv. Not the same.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Except the source in the article never said Paraguay ever recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, making that reasoning for a revert to retain misinformation in an article hypocritical. nableezy - 16:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I also noted the SYNTH in the article about countries that had supposedly "recognized" Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Was planning to remove the OR after 24-hour timer. NB. This is true for the source used for Guatemala that does not mention "recognition". Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Democracy

There is no consensus to make this change.

Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remove the "disputed" template from the lede, and add the following text:

In its Basic Laws, Israel is defined as a Jewish and democratic state, with Human Dignity and Liberty enjoying super-legal status. Israel is a multi-party representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.

Several different versions of it were supported by the vast majority of the editors in the RfCs. It's about time to add it to the article now.

2001:AC8:33:C:307:200:0:10A5 (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Not done. The issue of democracy has been raised several times in the last 30 days including here and also in no less than three RfCs. There is no consensus to make this change to the article. Ample reliable sources have been provided illustrating that democracy is disputed. Israel with its Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People has enshrined the rights of one part of its population over another. For this reason, the 'disputed' tag remains. N.B: several participants who participated in the discussions in the RfCs and other parts of the Talk Page were from sock puppet accounts. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

From your link: Knesset member Avi Dichter, the law's sponsor, stated [...] "The most you can do is to live among us as a national minority that enjoys equal individual rights, but not equality as a national minority." Unless you can provide a reliable source stating that Israel infringes on that right, your argument is obsolete. Also, if you scroll though the second RfC, you'll find that at least 9 established editors supported its "Option 1", and only 3 opposed it. How is this version not an acceptable compromise? It even includes a note mentioning the criticism from Democracy Index and Freedom House (unlike Option 1). 213.184.122.18 (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the article content will need to be reworked before another RfC about the lede. Otherwise there will have to be another RfC about the lede once there is consensus about the article content. The lede should be a summary of article content after there has been substantive discussion about how much weight the sources should receive in the article. There is a lot of dispute about undue weight on those sources that will have to be resolved by discussion about the article content and possibly at noticeboards before rushing to the lede.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet
@Seraphim System: 🔝Done. [1] [2] [3] (((TPGstalk))) 19:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted this because I didn't make a page request. I'm sorry I have to ask - is that a triple parentheses around your username? Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet
My apologies. I was referring to your suggestion above that the section should be edited before a consensus on the lede is reached. I take full responsibility for the content of my edit. My triple parentheses' are just there to meme on the trolls - don't feel sorry for asking. :) (((TPGstalk))) 19:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet

Democracy is indeed disputed. My proposal for the lede is this: In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty enjoys super-legal status from its limitations clause. Although Israel has a parliamentary system with multiple parties, proportional representation and universal suffrage, the issue of its democracy status is widely debated. (((TPGstalk))) 20:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose in this form (and any version that does not at least reference the dispute over its democratic status in the article text.) I think we definitely have the sourcing to describe Israel as some form of democracy, but considering the sources used here and the obvious debate cited to numerous equally-reputable sources in the discussions above, we can't unambiguously just say "representative democracy" with no qualifiers. Freedom House says that "Although the judiciary is active in protecting minority rights, the political leadership and many in society have discriminated against Arab and other minorities, resulting in systemic disparities in areas including political representation, criminal justice, and economic opportunity."; you note this in the footnote, but given the extensive coverage it needs to be referenced in the text if we're going to rely on that source. Similarly, the Democracy Index describes Israel as a flawed democracy. Now, it is definitely true that Israel is not the only country with such qualifiers (Freedom House recently moved the United States to the Flawed Democracy category, for instance) - but with those states, we have fewer sources directly criticizing or debating the designation, and have better, higher-quality sources describing them unequivocally as a democracy, sufficient to outweigh recent and low-profile things like these. That's not the case here, at least with the sources presented - in Israel's case, the debate over its exact status as a democracy is long-standing and well-sourced. If better sources that unequivocally describe Israel as an 'unqualified' democracy exist, we could lean on them, but the Freedom House and Democracy Index sources absolutely aren't enough to support the text you're suggesting. If we're going to rely on them, we need to discuss exactly how we're going to word and summarize the qualifiers that they mention, and exactly which of the other sources above we're going to include, since they're not strong enough sources (and not strongly-enough worded) to outweigh the rest of the debate. I think that TPG's is a bit of an improvement, but my preference would be to detail the exact dispute more precisely rather than just 'widely debated' - something like "...but has been criticized for systematic discrimination that limits the representation of Arabs and other minorities, which some say adds a qualifier to Israel's status as a democracy." EDIT: Also, regarding previous RFCs, they were tainted by heavy sockpuppetry and entirely excluded the main point of contention over whether to mention and, if so, how to characterize qualifiers to Israel's status as a democracy; they're obviously not useful and were all closed early without a consensus when the initiator was blocked as a sock. --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• France, Belgium and Austria banned the burqa, restricting Muslim freedom of religion. The United States has a death penalty. Switzerland bans the construction of minarets. Does anyone question their democracy? Stop this nonsense. Israel is a democratic country period.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Op-eds by the usual anti-Zionist crowd repeating the sam record are not DUE for inclusion. Un-biased RS agree Israel is a democracy.Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet
Support per Icewhiz's and Bolter21's points, though I must emphasise the importance of the text Democracy Index and Freedom House [...] criticize the record of some of its other civil liberties not getting excluded from the footnote, either in this version of it, or in any other. Moponoly (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Remove it already been discussed in RFC - final version of Israel's type of governance. The disputed template should be removed per the previous RFC, per template usage: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant." and per WP:UNDUE (flat Earth example). Here is my pervious comment on this:

My Previous comment on the subject in the latest RFC

Israel is considers a democracy by the top research institutions in the field. Just adding another survey of Pew Research Center who listed Israel as a democratic nation, they used the ratings of Polity data series (See table inside the article) or page 48 in the Global Report 2017. US department of State defines Israel as "a multiparty parliamentary democracy". Encyclopædia Britannica defines Israel as "democratic republic with a parliamentary system". The World Factbook: "parliamentary democracy". The footnote is a clearly WP:UNDUE "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)."

Sokuya (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Border between Israel and the West Bank

The sentence “There is no border between Israel-proper and the West Bank for Israeli vehicles” doesn’t feel right. It’s trying to communicate the lack of an actual border in practice, but it’s complex because of the checkpoints. Israelis and Palestinians both face checkpoints on certain roads. The difference being that Israeli vehicles have access to the bypass roads, which can also sometimes have checkpoints. Of course checkpoints are not borders.

Any ideas for fixing this sentence would be appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The checkpoints aren't generally aligned with the accepted international border of the West Bank. There are definitely checkpoints (at varying locations/time) in the West Bank - but where they are varies. The one on route 5 - [4] is about 5 kms into the West Bank. On route 90 coming up from the south along the dead sea - I'm not sure where the checkpoint is but is quite a ways in. Regarding bypass road access - you are incorrect - you used to be correct (around Intifada2) - but these days (for the past several years) all vehicles can access the bypass roads (part of this is actually for Israeli security - less likely to be long range shooting at the road if cars of all stripes are driving). I will also note that there, occasionally, checkpoints inside Israel proper. In practice, most checkpoints for Israeli vehicles are almost transparent - no queue and passing through with a wave and a hello ... In short - in my view checkpoints exist inside the West Bank - but the borders imposed by the checkpoints are not the same as the borders of the west bank.Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, a very good summary. The only part where you are incorrect, is where you wrote: “you are incorrect - you used to be correct”! Raja Shehadeh’s heartfelt opinion piece from last year in the NYT should give you a good picture of life for Palestinians in the West Bank. [5]; it is a long read but well worth it if you wish to exercise your empathy muscles. You could also read the 2009 analysis by the TAU’s Ariel Handel at [6]. Or Julie Peteet’s 2017 book at [7]. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that the checkpoint system does not hinder Palestinian traffic and movement. I should be more specific - up until (5-10 years ago? this was gradual) bypass roads (something that began in the post-Oslo environment in the 90s, and reached its peak in Intifada2) were "settler only" - this was enforced by checkpoints blocking Palestinian access (from every possible route). There also used to be more checkpoints - alot more (around 200+ - all manned) - they peaked in number around 2003-2005. This used to be a very hot topic. Following a draw down of army personnel in the West Bank - there are much fewer checkpoints, and Palestinians are allowed access to the roads (though often not by the most direct route - e.g. some access roads are blocked by stones/concrete blocks (unmanned)) - in fact some settlers have protested requesting closure of renewed Palestinian access following drive-by shootings - see e.g. this from 2015. My understanding (I can source this - but it would be out of the article anyway) is that the J&S Brigade is of the opinion that having bi-national traffic on the roads actually reduces the threat level.Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you source the reduction in number of Israeli-only roads / segregated roads?

I imagine it’s hard to prove. Peteet’s 2017 book quotes B’Tselem who wrote “The forbidden roads regime is a collection of undeclared measures that together form a single, undeclared policy. This policy has never been enshrined in legislation, nor stated in official declarations, nor even indicated by road signs on the relevant roads. The policy is entirely based on verbal orders given to soldiers in the field.”

Peteet also quotes this astounding statement from Shulamit Aloni: “On one occasion I witnessed an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. “Why?” I asked the soldier. “It’s an order—this is a Jews-only road,” he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. “It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some anti-Semitic reporter or journalist take a photo so that they can show the world Apartheid exists here?””

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Got it. B’Tselem’s report from last year shows 47km of firmly segregated Israeli-only road in the West Bank (incl Hebron) and 19km of restricted road. This is down from the 2011 version. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of those (with the exception of Hebron?) are on the Jewish side of the seam zone (e.g. at the top - the Route 5 checkpoint (that I mentioned above) is 4KMs inside the West Bank - and there are no Palestinian villages between it and the edge of the West Bank). The peak in checkpoints and blocked off roads (B'Tselem is a fairly good source for this) was somewhere circa 2003-2007 - at the peak there were checkpoints in every Jewish/Arab changeover as well as checkpoints inside Arab areas - and they were all mostly manned (if you look at B'Tselem's current map, you'll see that they note several of the marked checkpoints as unmanned). Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Origins of Irgun and other groups

Currently, the article states in the History portion that Irgun and other groups split off from the Haganah. While the sentence containing this is partly sourced correctly, someone added the part of the Irgun and other groups splitting off from the Haganah which isn't in the source cited for the sentence. These groups never split off from the Haganah, as they were from rival political Zionist movements. Part of the sentence needs to be deleted or changed and added to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.14.179.2 (talk)

The Irgun - or Haganah B - did indeed split off from Haganah (which in its early stages, as other Zionist organs, was not as politically affiliated as it would become) - it started out as a schism by the Jerusalem . See - Avraham Tehomi. Later - parts of Irgun went back. The Revisionist control of Irgun was a process of evolution - and partially due to the Irgun looking for a political home. Zionist politics were very different in the 20s in relation to the late 30s and 40s. Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"Longest occupation in modern times"

I think this is a very dubious claim. Firstly "modern times" is a meaningless stretch of time. Secondly the source quote says "Probably the longest...", which is not really the same as definitely the longest. Finally there are the Kuril islands, Kashmir (see https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/08/kashmir-palestine-story-occupations-160823101836524.html), Tibet. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were all occupied for longer. I think that the phrasing is unclear and the references are insufficently authoritative for such a extravagant claim. Telaviv1 (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen footnote 51? There are seven sources in there. One of them includes the word probably. The other six use fully firm language.

If you wish to cast doubt on the certainty of this, I suggest you start at List of military occupations, and particularly the talk page of that article. Most importantly, your examples suggest that you may not understand when occupation becomes annexation.

To take your examples in turn, Kuril Islands and Tibet are annexations (full citizenship conferred and permanent sovereignty claimed). See Talk:List_of_military_occupations/Archive_4#Pakistani_Kashmir for a recent discussion of the scholarly position on Kashmir. The three Baltic states were occupied for 47 years (1944-91).

When you think about how strange the status of the West Bank is (Israel controls it but doesn’t annex it because it doesn’t want the population), the fact that this is the longest “occupation” in modern history is obvious. There has never been anything quite like this.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Never been anything like this? I think that may not be accurate. From 1898 to 1917, Puerto Rico was controlled by the US, while not being granted citizenship to the US. The Philippines were controlled by the US from 1898 to 1946 without granting its people US citizenship. The US never formally annexed the Philippines, either. I'm sure those are far from the only examples. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Those two states were legally "ceded" to the US under the Treaty of Paris (1898) in a two-way agreement. Military occupation and annexation are both unilateral and therefore usually considered illegal. See the lede of Annexation which provides some explanation. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

International humanitarian efforts section

This section seems undue, particularly given how far down the list Israel features at List of development aid country donors. The text reads like an advert.

The section was added a few years ago by an editor who stuck around for less than a year making only 350 edits.

I suggest the text is moved into its own article, modelled on Foreign aid institutions of Japan or Qatari foreign aid or Pakistan Technical Assistance Programme or Chinese foreign aid. Note that despite the existance of these articles, none of these countries (Japan, Qatar, Pakistan or China) have a foreign aid section or paragraph in their main country articles.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Extending foreign aid (not so much monetary, rather in the form of relief teams) seems to be something that Israel values doing, and as such it should be in this article.

Apart from the purely technical section about administrative divisions, the "International humanitarian efforts" subsection is the smallest in the "Government and politics" section", so I don't think this subsection is any larger than is should be per WP:DUE. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If the government really valued it, they would spend as much or more than other countries, not less.

It has been criticized as a PR campaign, labelled by critics as “bluewashing”.

Our own points of view are not relevant here, of course. What matters is that we don’t allow such a high profile article to become a vessel for government PR.

Can you point to any other country articles which have such a section?

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

United_States#Foreign_relations mentions private American citizens being generous. Given that the Israeli disaster relief efforts are organised by the government, they have far more place in an article. It could probably be trimmed back a bit and a separate article linked instead, though. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Two sentences prior to the one your are referring to, it talks about US government assistant being the highest in the world. So the country article with the greatest foreign aid in the world has just a single sentence, whereas this article, for the country with one of the lowest aid provisions in the OECD, has an entire section with two large paragraphs and detailed examples? It makes no sense. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The aid asa percentage of GNI between Israel and the US is comparable. And no, Israel doesn't hand out much cash. It does its foreign aid differently, which is DUE to present balance in the article. I'm not against the 2nd paragraph going, but the first seems entirely reasonable. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have done so. I also created a new article: Israeli foreign aid.

I still struggle to understand why we need a full subsection on this topic. If the aid % is comparable to the US as you say (I have not tried to check myself), then why shouldn’t the topic have similar weighting in this article versus United States?

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE. Comparison of aid % to any other state is irrelevant. Maybe US article needs this added, you can discuss it there. What is relevant is notability of Israel's international aid efforts. “WarKosign” 08:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Of the c.200 country articles in Wikipedia, no other group of editors thought to add a full section on aid in any other article. That is a good guide as to the community’s view of the relative notability of this subject.

Separately, you have yet to establish the relative notability of the topic within the context of this article. Israel spends c.$200m annual on aid. Yet the Azrieli Sarona Tower cost $400m to build. Should we add a few paragraphs on that tower to this article?

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not about money, it's about the quality and speed of the response. There is nothing unique about Sarona tower, while some consider Israel to be among world's best in disaster assistance. “WarKosign” 09:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree this section should stay multiple source make it WP:DUE to include --Shrike (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@WarKosign: is that really the best you can come up with? Four organizations known for their propaganda pro-Israel bias (1, 2, 3, and 4)? The only reference to third party assessment of Israel as one of the best is the Arutz Sheva write-up on the WHO Type 3 verification. But if you compare that low quality puff piece to how the WHO themselves describe this assessment, it is clear that it is being overblown. The WHO mention it as the last of seven low-key news items in their monthly magazine. And they explain that it is just a single team.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Having researched this further, it is clear that this is one of the more absurd media misrepresentations. For all the PR puffery on this subject, all four of the international assessments show that Israel’s contributions here are entirely non-notable:

• The OECD [8] (table 1) puts Israel second-last within the entire OECD by % of GNI donated! In terms of surrounding countries, each of Greece, Turkey and the UAE give substantially more
• The World Giving Index [9] has four types of score:
  • World Giving Index overall: Israel is number 43, immediately between the shining lights of Northern Cyprus and Libya!
  • Helping a stranger average: Israel is number 80, just above Turkmenistan
  • Donating money average: Israel is number 27, a whole five places below Bhutan
  • Volunteering time average: Israel is number 49, between Cameroon and Zambia
• DARA’s Humanitarian Response Index is “not an index on the volume or quantity of funding provided by Western governments for humanitarian assistance. It looked beyond funding to assess critical issues around the quality and effectiveness of aid.” Their global assessment [10] is here, yet Israel doesn’t even feature
• Development Initiative’s global humanitarian assistance report (see page 38) doesn’t include Israel Yet it does include neighbours Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE.

It seems we have all been duped. Perhaps this is a good topic to add into WP:HOAXLIST.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@WarKosign and Shrike: any response to the last two posts above? Are you aware of any reputable sources which could disprove this? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have time to go over it again. I think at least one of the sources that I quoted (just the first few results I stumbled upon) did refer to something reliable, so it's not just pro-Israel propaganda, but I need to find time to look into it carefully. Assessments that you quoted deal mostly with monetary contributions and nobody claimed that Israel excels at that front. The reports that deal with humanitarian efforts discuss situation in OPT, so neglecting to mention Israel's efforts at all could be a matter of bias. Also, OPT is an ongoing situation and not an urgent crisis that requires immediate response, so perhaps this is not the correct report to check. If they had compared Israel's relief efforts in crises unfavorably to others it would squash the point, but not mentioning it at all does not disproof anything. “WarKosign” 08:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@WarKosign: see my comment above at 09:43, 18 October 2018 regarding the single reliable element of the sources you provided. It is reliable but evidently non-notable.

Is a week enough time for you to look into this? I would rather wait until you have done so before we take the section out, but since all the existing evidence points to it being an ongoing embarrassment to Wikipedia’s credibility so we can’t leave it in for too long. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the patience, at last I had time to look into it. Indeed Arutz Sheva mentioned WHO, and this is supported by WHO report and explained in more detail by many secondary sources: [11] [12] [13]. A UN agency recognized Israel's disaster relief team as best in the world, at least at the time of the report, I consider it noteworthy. Quotes from the report: "This is a team that can deploy fast, and has massive capacity" "Israeli team already had a reputation for excellence" “WarKosign” 20:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you find any international sources covering the same? The press coverage seems very 'local' to me. And the way the WHO announced it was very low key. It was just one small team of 10 people after all. Israel is a country of nearly 10 million people. Yes, these people are great, and could warrant half a sentence. But two long paragraphs for a country that provides less humanitarian aid than Turkey and Saudi Arabia?! It’s so obviously driven by PR, it’s an embarrassment to our project. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

There are international news sources [14] [15] [16] [17] and some academic sources [18] [19]. What makes you think it's a team of only 10 people ? Here they say that the field hospital is 26 to 30 tents, presumably with several people in each tent. "Israeli disaster relief delegations ... have been some of the first and largest to arrive at the scenes of natural disasters" “WarKosign” 08:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And directly from WHO: "The team, staffed by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) Medical Corps Reservists, can provide tertiary level care for almost 100 inpatients including a 12 bedded intensive care unit. They have up to four surgical theatre tables for trauma and complex surgical care, and specialists ranging from paediatricians and obstetricians to opthalmologists and infectious disease experts as well as trauma and orthopaedics." “This is a team that can deploy fast, and has massive capacity. They have 200 personnel and carry with them 100 metric tonnes of equipment” “WarKosign” 08:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Those are not international. Those are a paid-for press release by a company who provided material to the Israeli team, an Israel-focused Jewish magazine, an online news service run by two long term Israel advocates, a magazine owned by The Israel Project, and two papers written by Israeli academics. This shows exactly zero international notability.

100 metric tonnes of equipment can be carried by one large Semi-trailer truck. So we are talking about a company of personnel with a single freight vehicle. It makes no sense at all.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Dr Ian Nortoncalled this "massive capacity". He is "a specialist in Emergency Medicine, with postgraduate qualifications in Tropical Medicine, International Health, and Surgery. He is Director of Disaster Preparedness and Response at the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre" so I'll take his word for it over yours. As for notability, I provided a lot of reliable sources. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to disregard them. “WarKosign” 15:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Aditya Nigam says Delhi's sewage system has "massive capacity", and James C. Sulecki says that a Cleveland stadium has "massive capacity" as well. Yet we don't see two full paragraphs on these wonderful topics in the India or United States articles.

This is clearly entirely WP:UNDUE. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

See Hasbara fellowship itinerary. This topic represents a big push within Israeli PR. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

To try to bring this to an end, I suggest we:

• Merge the text into the military section, focusing on the work of the Home Front Command and the Medical Corps (which represents the vast majority of the government involvement on this topic)
• Remove the list of NGOs, and the 43rd place ranking
• Cut down the play-by-play description of the individual disaster response stories

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the section is already as short as it can be without losing important content. We should add a sentence about WHO recognizing the IDF field hospital as level 3. NGO's are part of the effort. 43th place ranking is indeed not notable by itself, but it should be there for balance. “WarKosign” 07:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a shame. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Rationale for weight of segment

Please could those who wish to retain this segment provide specific and measurable rationale for due weight here. The zero precedent across wikipedia’s 200 country articles, and the zero coverage in international sources, suggests to me that due weight for this niche topic at this article is also zero. No one has so far been able to justify having two detailed paragraphs. WarKosign’s fuzzy words about one particular military team haven’t so far been specific enough to support either end of a wide spectrum of possibilities – from half a sentence to twenty paragraphs. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I assume that silence implies an inability to justify the existing weight. I will wait a few more days, and if still no response will remove the section. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @WarKosign, Debresser, and Bellezzasolo:. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The section is notable and well supported by sources. I don't see a point in restating the same reasons over and over. It is ok that you don't agree with it, but accept that the consensus is to keep the section. “WarKosign” 21:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@WarKosign: WP:DUEWEIGHT is the question. If you keep ignoring the challenge to justify it, it can only be because you are unable to conjure up a rationale to have an entire two paragraph section on this PR-puffery. Your view cannot count towards consensus if you willfully ignore the actual discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have already stated my arguments in this edit.

And please, don't make it look as though you have the right to decide the weight of arguments. There are several editors who have argued that this section is due. The fact that you are not convinced, gives you the right to remove precisely nothing, against good arguments and consensus.

In addition, feel free to add "international sources", by which I guess you mean sources from press outside Israel. It shouldn't be that hard to find some. Not that I think that only "international" sources establish notability or due, but if it makes you feel better... Debresser (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

And sorry if I come over as though I am less than impressed by you. I have that reaction to editors who make it sound as though they make the decisions on Wikipedia. Is that specific and measurable enough for you? What kind of a criteria is that, anyways? Something you made up on the spot? Debresser (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

None of us alone have the right to decide the weight of arguments. Only community consensus. Our policies and guidelines have been built by very wide consensus. A handful of editors on an individual page do not have the right to override that. You know as well as I do that editors who avoid engaging in reasoned discussion get their !votes ignored. Until a reasoned, policy-based, discussion is had, this will not go away. Bullying me will not help.

As to your arguments, there were two. (1) “[it] seems to be something that Israel values doing”, and (2) “[it] is the smallest in the "Government and politics" section".” Your second point is incorrect - it is the same size as two fundamental components of the country - “Legal system” and “Administrative Divisions” sections. As to your first point, you are advocating that all government PR should be allowed free reign in every country article! That is the exact opposite of policy. Precisely because of your first point, our NPOV policy suggests we need to apply extra special scrutiny to this question. In the thread above we established that Hasbara programs are run on exactly this topic, and propaganda-full Israeli MFA website pushes this very hard. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t include it, but it does raise red flags for neutral editors.

Only one specific and measurable rationale for wp:weight has been proposed so far, and that advocated for zero weight. I await an alternative argument; in the absence of it, the section cannot remain. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Turkish rule over territory

There is little to no mention of the 400 year administration of Turkey over the current territory of Israel. When the fact is Turkey played a pivotal role as the Ottoman Empire in the founding of Israel. Jews started immigrating to Turkish palestine from the 19th century and Jews have historically seen turkey as a safe haven from barbaric european monarchies persecuting them. Its surprising we could only come up with a few sentences for 400 years of history. more written about the failures of the british and their problematic rule over the area in their short 30 or so years over the land. we could not come up with anything for 4 centuries?

@Georgepodros: please, please, please start signing your posts. ~~~~. Addressing the point, feel free to draft something about the period, and/or point out sources. However, the Ottoman Empire certainly did not want nationalistic sentiment, so the number of Jews who immigrated during the First Aliyah and Second Aliyah was fairly modest, under 70,000. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot of well sourced text on this at History of Palestine and a reasonable summary at Palestine (region). Onceinawhile (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We should probably find room to link to Ottoman Jews (which we already have an article on). I am working on a stand alone article for Ottoman Jerusalem which I will link once I've finished it. (By working on, I mean I started it but was then distracted by other things). I don't think we need to do much more in this article beyond providing links to more detailed articles.Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it turns out Ottoman Jews doesn't really cover Jerusalem at the moment (I thought it would). It needs a bit of work before it is added to this article so I will try to find some time to expand it with relevant content. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: History section

I have been drawn to this question by יניב הורון (Yaniv).

The history section is currently 39 paragraphs long, and >100kb in size (about 1/3 of the entire article). It is haphazard in the weight it puts against each of the periods of the region's history (a good visual overview is below). Some examples: we have just two paragraphs on the entire first millenium AD (i.e. from 0AD to 1099AD, including just a single sentence on the development of Christianity in the region), just one sentence on the entire Ottoman period, and just two paragraphs on the mandate period.

So I have two questions for the community:

1. How much weight should the history section of this article have? Is 39 paragraphs too much, too little, or about right?
2. What is a fair and objective way for deciding the due weight for each time period?

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• length - OK, perhaps a bit long, Weight - per coverage in RSes covering Israel. I'll note that the chart above makes some unconventional choices - e.g. the Herodian state pre 70 CE is different from the post-70 CE era - clumping them both as "Roman" is imprecise. The importance of different eras to modern Israel is should not determined by length of time, but rather by coverage of sources that deal with Israeli history. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: could you provide some example RSes which cover the entire history in the weighting you consider appropriate? I tried to find some, but I have yet to find any which cover ancient, medieval and modern together. If that seems strange, it's because the vast majority of histories of the State of Israel start with the rise of Zionism. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This really isn't a helpful line of reasoning. Raising an abstract point about due weight is really a waste of everyone's time without any specific content to discuss. Weight isn't determined on the weight given by nationalist histories. I don't even want to open that can of worms (Zionist/post-Zionist histories) because it's going to completely derail the discussion, which is about expanding the coverage on medieval Jerusalem. If this discuss turns into a tangent on that I'm taking this article off my watch list again. What is due for each section is determined by evaluating the expert sources for that period.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• I thınk it's going to have to be a bit long - per coverage in RSes is easier said then done. The Israeli state history emphasizes ancient history, but other sources discuss medieval Israel. So we are talking about a topic with thousands of RSes focusing on different periods spanning a period of millenia. We will have to make some editorial calls. Antiquity is emphasized more in this article then it might be in other articles, and I don't think there is any way around that. I agree we should add more about the Ottoman period. Beyond that I would note that we have paragraphs like

  In 1470, Isaac b. Meir Latif arrived from Italy and counted 150 Jewish families in Jerusalem.[119] Thanks to Joseph Saragossi who had arrived in the closing years of the 15th century, Safed and its environs had developed into the largest concentration of Jews in Palestine. With the help of the Sephardic immigration from Spain, the Jewish population had increased to 10,000 by the early 16th century.

  , but we don't mention Armenians or Circassians in any section of the article. Some of this coverage of non-Jews in the history of Israel should also be expanded, imo. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with the ancient period whatsoever. I think it's well summarized given the gigantic ammount of material that there is out there. And you can't expect this article not to cover extensively the history of Zionism and modern State of Israel. It doesn't necessarily have to be proportional. HOWEVER, I have a problem with the medieval and modern period. This section deals too much with small Jewish immigration waves (which probably should be trimmed) but doesn't mention at all important events (unrelated to Jews) that occurred during the 400 years(!) of Ottoman period, such as administrative divisions and changes during the Ottoman rule, the 1660 Druze revolt, Zahir al-Umar's revolt and his brief independent emirate in northern Palestine, al-Jazzar's encounter with Napoleonic troops, Arab rebellion against Egyptian Muhammad Ali (Jews didn't play any role, although they suffered massacres in Safed and Tiberias), the 1838 Druze revolt and the Tanzimat reorganization. The current situation of that particular section is ridiculous, in my opinion. I contacted several users to ask them for help but apparently nobody is interested in writing a text. Complaining is not enough. My guess is that it shouldn't be more than a paragraph or two. There's room to paraphrase content from Encyclopedia Britannica, and maybe add a few more stuff, but I lack the talent and I don't want to be accused of copyright infringement. Is anyone brave enough to start writting a text?--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this could also be trimmed from the section Yaniv highlighted:

Nachmanides (Ramban), the 13th-century Spanish rabbi and recognised leader of Jewry, greatly praised the Land of Israel and viewed its settlement as a positive commandment incumbent on all Jews. He wrote "If the gentiles wish to make peace, we shall make peace and leave them on clear terms; but as for the land, we shall not leave it in their hands, nor in the hands of any nation, not in any generation."

Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. But trimming alone won't solve the problem. We also need someone to start writing a text to cover the vacuum of the Ottoman period.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to draft it, as well as the 0-1000AD period, but only once we have some semblance of agreement on due weight. If we take Seraphim System's point above, that the debate cannot be successfully had across the whole history, only on a period-by-period basis, I am not sure we are going to be able to conclude how many paragraphs are appropriate for the missing 1,100 years (first millenium AD or so) and the missing 400 years (Ottoman). Are we going to let 39 paragraphs become 50 paragraphs? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I am already working on the Ottoman period since Yaniv contacted me on my talk page. I didn't realize he had other offers ... I don't understand why there is such an urgency about it. I would like some time to review the source material. Are there any other obvious things that need to be covered? Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What if we just transclude the lead of History of Israel (and of course link to the whole article) ? That article is is the correct place to write about every period in whatever length deemed necessary, and the lead is supposed to summarize major points of the whole article briefly. “WarKosign” 13:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That is a very good solution. It would then be consistent with how every other major section in this article is covered. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's necessary. If it was up to me, I would only touch this section. I would trimm the second paragraph, which gives too much details to the First Crusade, I would remove the fourth and sixth paragraphs completely (dealing only with individual Jewish immigrations) and expand the last paragraph covering the Ottoman period. In the end the section would be aproximately the same size of the "Classical period". Could you start drafting the new Ottoman text?--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• We can't do that, the content in this article is the product of countless hours of consensus discussions some of it determined by formal RfCs and supported by formal consensus, we can't just replace it with the lede of the History of Israel article, which has obviously seen far less discussion then this article has.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not correct. The weighting we have today was created in a single undiscussed edit in 2012: [20].

As to the specifics of the text, if we follow WarKosign's proposal, the existing detail will be merged into History of Israel, with the text from this article having precedent where there is overlap. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This is what I thought. Current situation seems like WP:REDUNDANTFORK or WP:POVFORK.“WarKosign” 13:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been involved in at least one of the discussions and it wasn't in 2012, so you are definitely incorrect. I'm opposing this proposal and I don't suggest trying to implement it without an RfC. Unless you want to check with Jytdog who implemented the current version of the Antiquity section - thr RfC was unopposed, but says If there are major objections of course the implementation can be reverted and i will be happy to reopen this. So, before erasing it I suggest you guys at least familiarize yourselves with the article history and ping the past participants. It doesn't seem like you guys are making serious proposals here, so I'm not going to continue replying to this. Seraphim System ^(talk)

I agree with User:Seraphim System. There's no reason to transclude out of laziness, specially when the other sections are fine. We only need to add something about the Ottoman period and maybe trim content from "Middle Ages and modern period". We don't need to make a dramatic change.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Bare URLs

I can't edit this article, so I can't even put this on the article itself. Can someone with WP:REFILL do the cleanup? BoogieWithStu (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@BoogieWithStu: I think this has been taken care of—I looked through the article and couldn't find any bare URLs. Does it look good to you? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No mention of the Oslo Accords in the lede?

13zmz13 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)