Eisspeedway

Talk:Israel/Archive 72

Archive 65←Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75

Request for Comment - final version of Israel's type of governance

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Which one of the following statements shall be included in the lead? 22:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Which one of the following statements shall be included in the lead?

1. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state.[1][2] Israel is a representative democracy[3][4][5] with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.[6][7]"

2. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state.[1][2] Israel is a representative democracy[fn 1] with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.[6][7]"

3. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state.[1][2] Israel is a parliamentary republic[3][4][5] with proportional representation and universal suffrage.[6][7]"

4. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state.[1][2] Israel is a parliamentary republic[fn 2] with proportional representation and universal suffrage.[6][7]"

  1. ^ Israel is described as a "free country" and a "democracy" by non-governmental organizations including both Democracy Index[3] and Freedom House.[4] However, it has been described by Israeli scholars Gideon Doron as a "non-liberal representative democracy",[5] and Sammy Smooha as an "ethnic democracy", while As'ad Ghanem, Nadim Rouhana, and Oren Yiftachel have described it as an "ethnocracy".[8]
  2. ^ Israel is described as a "free country" and a "democracy" by non-governmental organizations including both Democracy Index[3] and Freedom House.[4] However, it has been described by Israeli scholars Gideon Doron as a "non-liberal representative democracy",[5] and Sammy Smooha as an "ethnic democracy", while As'ad Ghanem, Nadim Rouhana, and Oren Yiftachel have described it as an "ethnocracy".[8]
  1. ^ a b c d "Basic Laws". knesset.gov.il. Retrieved 2018-07-30.
  2. ^ a b c d "Israel". Freedom in the World. Freedom House. 2008. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
  3. ^ a b c d Israel ranks within the top 30 in the world out of 167 countries. "Democracy Index 2017 — FULL REPORT by the Economist Intelligence Unit" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  4. ^ a b c d Israel ranks the aggregate score of 79 points out of 100. "Freedom in the World 2018 — FULL REPORT by the Freedom House" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  5. ^ a b c d Augustus Richard Norton (2001). Civil society in the Middle East. 2 (2001). BRILL. p. 193. ISBN 90-04-10469-0.
  6. ^ a b c d Rummel 1997, p. 257. "A current list of liberal democracies includes: Andorra, Argentina, ..., Cyprus, ..., Israel, ..."
  7. ^ a b c d "Global Survey 2006: Middle East Progress Amid Global Gains in Freedom". Freedom House. 19 December 2005. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
  8. ^ a b Dowty, Alan (1999). "Is Israel Democratic? Substance and Semantics in the "Ethnic Democracy" Debate". Israel Studies. 4 (2). Indiana University Press: 1–15. Sammy Smooha classifies Israel in the historically-rare category of "ethnic democracy"; As'ad Ghanem, Nadim Rouhana, and Oren Yiftachel challenge the "democracy" component of that taxonomy and suggest instead the label of "ethnocracy," a somewhat less rare but still infrequent species; Ruth Gavison argues for moving the debate into explicit rather than submerged normative terms, and concludes that there is no necessary conceptual inconsistency between a state being Jewish and its being a democracy. All, however, describe the actual situation of non-Jews in Israel, in law and in practice, in similar terms. In Smooha's words, "minorities are treated as second-class citizens, feared as a threat, excluded from the national power structure, and placed under some control," while "at the same time [they] are allowed to conduct a democratic and peaceful struggle that yields incremental improvement in their status".

ששש.מ.ל (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that this RfC was initiated by a sock-puppet account as per this investigation. It has been blocked. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose all 4, and any other option which excludes reference to the ongoing dispute: Dozens and dozens of sources have been brought, now and over the years (see archives), showing that the nature of Israeli democracy is a fiercely debated topic. The recent change to the Basic Laws has brought this issue into greater focus. The various positions must be shown to the reader, else we look non-neutral, or worse, like we’re trying to hide something, particularly since all other scholarly or press sources discuss the issue widely and openly. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Did you miss the ref note? I included all of your scholars and phrases in options 2 and 4. So what's the problem? ששש.מ.ל (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The footnote is ok but there needs to be a few words in the main text pointing to the issue. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Extended discussion, no votes
The footnote also starts off by repeating that Israel is described as a "free country" or "democracy" by "Non-governmental organizations" and follows up with "However, Israeli scholars..." - as a footnote intended to qualify and balance the article text this could also be written "Though Israel is described as a free country and democracy ... , Israeli scholars". I also don't support any of these options, and I think it best to continue the discussion in a single RfC.Seraphim System (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
In that case, create a new article or section in which you explain the issue in detail. But that's too long for this lead. I still can't understand why you won't even accept option 4? ששש.מ.ל (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Is it not fairly obvious that the conclusions of internationally praised NGOs weigh just a little more than the personal opinions of individual scholars? Thus the phrasing. Also, option 4 doesn't repeat the word "democracy" in the footnote as it's never mentioned in the text/half-sentence before it. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
You don’t even believe that yourself, since you object to the term they use “flawed democracy”.
There is an active and well publicized debate on this topic; neutral presentation means acknowledging that fact. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Good luck using that term in the lead of the United States article (both countries are almost full democracies, within the top 30 out of 167 globally). Then come back here. And why exactly is "parliamentary republic" not neutral? ששש.מ.ל (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The content in the lede should be as simple as possible. If it needs a footnote it doesn't have to be in the lede. Most laypersons won't understand that in the US universal suffrage means everyone who is born in the country and in Israel it means something else. Unless you are willing to explain briefly what universal suffrage means in Israel, it shouldn't be in there. Some of the sources like David Vital define it as "men and women".[1]. This meaning is substantially different from the common usage of the word and needs to be explained if it's going to be used. The use of these terms without explanation doesn't serve any purpose beyond front-loading the lede with jargon that will bias the average reader, making them unsuitable for the lede.Seraphim System (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"Universal suffrage" means the same voting rights for all citizens. Period. Different countries have different systems as to how to receive citizenship (jus sanguinis vs jus soli), but that's a separate issue. As you wrote, the lede needs to remain as simple as possible. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
In the US denying citizenship to persons born in the country has not been allowed since the Dred Scott decision caused the civil war and the 14th amendment was passed. (It is not really jus sanguinis and jus soli as those are types of natural-born Americans, but neither includes naturalized citizens - you are correct insofar as the latin terminology is unrelated to this discussion.) In your above comment you compared the US to Israel as "almost full democracies" - this is inappropriate. Keeping the lede simple is not an excuse to introduce fundamentally misleading jargon and refusing to add the necessary balancing content. The lede is not the right place for disputed content, and I think we've sufficiently established that this is disputed. You asked why I opposed option 4, I answered your question.Seraphim System (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Excactly. That's why I used the neutral term "parliamentary republic" and mentioned the "dispute" in a footnote instead. So no, you haven't answered my question as to why you rejected it since all of your requirements are actually fullfilled in option 4. Also, you're grasping at straws. Most European countries frequently deny citizenship to persons who are born in their countries, are they too not democracies? ששש.מ.ל (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Which Western democracies deny citizenship to persons born in their countries, besides Israel? Seraphim System (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
All of them, except for the U.S. and Canada, which practice full jus soli. So what's your point? ששש.מ.ל (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Not all of them, but Swiss nationality law, Austrian nationality law, and Icelandic nationality law are quite similar to Israel in use of jus sanguinis.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not jus sanguinis either. I can not think of many citizenship laws, present or historical, that are quite similar to Israel's. I think that is a violation of NPOV to introduce disputed content without qualification when there are other significant views, and certainly the lede is no exception to this. Simplicitly only dictates that some content be excluded altogether, which may be a good idea here. Seraphim System (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Let me amend that, those who defend it will say it's an unusual type of jus sanguinis -but even those sources admit that it has considerable implications for the characterization of Israel as a democracy. It's not just op-eds. The recent coverage is just a continuation of an ongoing debate about democratization in Israel, and by most accounts is a step in the wrong direction. "Israel is a democracy, by the usual standards, in which power-sharing techniques have functioned fairly effectively among Jewish groups, but from which the Palestinian Arab minority has been excluded" - I won't support any proposal that represents this as "A (whatever) form of government with universal suffrage".[1]Seraphim System (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ben-Rafael, Eliezer; Schoeps, Julius H.; Sternberg, Yitzhak; Glöckner, Olaf (2016-10-24). Handbook of Israel: Major Debates. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. p. 768. ISBN 978-3-11-035163-7.
Your source merely implies that most of the Knesset parties tend to freeze out the Joint List Party (which BTW doesn't represent all Israeli Arabs) from their coalitions, but what does that have to do with citizenship or universal suffrage? All of the Arabs who were born & raised within Israel's sovereign borders enjoy full citizenship and voting rights. 213.184.122.101 (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a false statement. Many have been unable to obtain citizenship and the process is more like a naturalization then jus soli citizenship. There is a Hebrew language requirement and other issues. Most of the applications are denied.[2] It is also not true for other non-Jewish ethnicities who were born in Israel and raised in Israel. Children born in Israel to migrant parents have faced deportation, but for now Israel has chosen to separate families instead keeping the children. The children are not citizens [3]. This family separation policy has literally been opposed by survivors of the Holocaust, for what weight that carries around here. [4] These types of comments should really be scrutinized.Seraphim System (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Israel is not a republic (one could perhaps have argued it was a republic during the "direct election" of the PM - a short-lived experiment in the 90s), but a parliamentary system (similar to the United Kingdom or Canada which are not republics - and Israel's system is "purer" in that that there is a single house, and no monarch figurehead (though the elected (by parliament) president does perhaps serve in the same role)). The footnote is UNDUE - op-eds and advocacy positions by pro-Palestinians who generally oppose the state of Israel - should not be used as these positions are highly biased. We should prefer neutral independent sources, such as Democracy Index, which do not use such language.Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Extended discussion, no votes
I prefer option 1 as well, but it seems the anti-israel advocates on this talk page won't accept it.
(Parliamentary) republics don't require direct elections of the head of government. In fact, those are usually referred to as presidential republics. Finland uses the same system as Israel does, and it's still a parliamentary republic. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, you want to use Democracy Index without using their conclusion “flawed democracy”. Is that some kind of joke?
Also you appear to have forgotten to make reference to the views of the entire scholarly community in your comment. Please clarify. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"Flawed democracy" is too broad. Israel is in the top 30 (almost a full democracy), but "flawed democracy" stretches all the way down to the top 80. Again, add that term to the U.S. lead, then we add it here. And what "community"? A few individual scholars do not constitute a "community"! ששש.מ.ל (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Re the research, with “a few individual scholars” you sound like an anti-vaxxer or a flat-earther. This is all the subject specialists saying the same thing. They are unanimous. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is circular reasoning, and trying to have your cake and eat it. If you want to go with DI, then “flawed democracy” is their conclusion. If you prefer scholarly sources, then “ethnic democracy” and “ethnocracy” are core parts of the debate. If you want to go with media views, it’s even more complicated. You choose. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I choose Democracy Index and Freedom House, both of them define it as a "free country" and a "democracy". I could also add their exact rankings, but that would be a little excessive, and people can find those themselves if they look at the sources. And if you insist on also including the personal opinions of individual scholars without mentioning the word "democracy" outside of the footnote, you can just pick OPTION 4!!! ששש.מ.ל (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There. I've added the rankings and scores of Democracy Index and Freedom House within their citations, respectively. I hope that Onceniawhile can at least accept option 4 now. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment I agree with this strongly. Usually controversial RfCs about the lede that are proposed before consensus is reached about article content accomplish little beyond disruption and they circumvent the regular consensus/editing process. Given the frequency of these types of proposals, it may be a good idea to add a note in the RfC policy that proposals about the lede that are likely to be controversial should reflect the outcome of consensus discussions about the article content. Proposing these very controversial RfCs about the lede content before there is consensus about the article content is a major waste of community time.Seraphim System (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 1, the importance of research by independent research institutions far outweighs comments made by specific people, not all of whom (if any) are experts on the subject. Every democracy has certain flaws, and each person can argue over the merits of one aspect over another—this does not even deserve a footnote. For example, Israel ranks #2 in citizen participation according to the Democracy Index, which is a major tenet of democracies that can't be imposed from the top down. There is no justification for any notes unless they are also added to articles about every other democratic country pointing out certain problematic aspects. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Democracy Index should probably be discussed at RS/n at some point. I don't know why editors believe these measures are authoritative over a highly-cited book or other scholarly secondary sources. These types of measures shouldn't ever be used as RS for anything other then the results of the study [5]. Seraphim System (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yet another op-ed. 83.250.139.231 (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Additional sources were added in the extended discussions by Onceinawhile. I'm confident more can be found but it doesn't seem like it would be productive to add them at this time, as the sources that have already been posted should be sufficient. Most likely we are going to have to revisit this in a more organized way and take it point by point. This RfC has been a bit disorganized from the outset.Seraphim System (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Representative democracy is not a high bar to reach. No evidence presented to the contrary.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Prefer Option 1 -- it's better than the three alternatives, two of which have a pretty unstandard treatment of a country's democracy in the lede. See Indonesia, Armenia where the info is to be found only in the specific in-depth section, etc -- although we mention controversies in some like Turkey, even then we don't subject the state to an academic debate about the validity of its official form of governance -- going in depth like that is for the relevant sections. --Calthinus (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Either options 1 or 3 are fine -- These two options are stylistically best. Israel is generally considered a democratic country by other democratic countries. The democratic system of government in Israel is a fact, whereas the issues of the Israeli-Arab conflict are political question outside Wikipedia's purview to take a stand on. Israel's parliamentary system fits quite well within the normal parameters of a democratic country -- in almost all democratic countries there are some flaws: USA (a weird electoral college system and a recent electoral result influenced by outside actors), India (a history of political corruption and communal tensions), or Croatia (purged their ethnic minorities in the 1990s). Finally, hyperbolic op-ed columns (of which there are plenty questioning U.S. democracy too) do not count as reliable sources. OtterAM (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 1 As the best representation of current situation --Shrike (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion

First and foremost, when trying to evaluate any consensus here and in relevant discussions on this page, it should be noted that the following user accounts were blocked as sock puppets:

Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

All of the arguments in favour of using option 1 are the conclusions of Democracy Index, Freedom House, Pew Research, Polity Data, and Encyclopedia Britannica (as well as US State Dept. and World Factbook, but those two are arguably biased), as they all listed Israel as a "parliamentary democracy". So we have at least five internationally praised NGOs specializing in the field, up against the personal opinions of a few op-ed writers and anti-Israel activists. I think it's time to close the RfC and go with option 1, alternatively also add the three other reliable NGOs as sources. 83.250.139.231 (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the entire academic research community. You also forgot to mention that all the NGO sources you refer to caveat Israeli democracy in some way.
You are creating a strawman by implying that the NGOs disagree with the academic community and the high-end jouralistic organizations. There is no disagreement - everyone recognizes the open debate. Some formats are just less suited to publishing details in full. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, what "community"? You only listed three radical leftists who used the term "ethnocracy". And yes, there is an open debate on everything - because guess what - Israel has free speech! That still doesn't mean you get to value personal opinions above objective facts on Wikipedia. They "caveat" every country in some way! Shall we remove the term "democracy from their pages as well, or only Israel? 83.250.139.231 (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
This talk page has already seen numerous sources including Huffingtonpost, the New York Times, ABC, Haaretz , Time, amongst others that all describe Israel’s democracy as disputed. This is sufficient reason to keep it in the article. There is no doubt of the dispute. The article does not say that Israel is not democratic – only that the dispute exists. It should remain this way until the dispute ends. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I suggest to 83.250.139.231 (talk) to see WP:JUSTDROPIT. To other editors, it might be better to not waste our time further by responding to him/her and his/her host of other blocked sock puppet accounts. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I just want to emphasize that op-eds in newspapers do not count as reliable sources for fact or the official opinion of the publication. In many cases, a newspaper may run opinion pieces by multiple people with diametrically opposed views, and in many cases these opinion pieces may include political hyperbola. Many of the arguments above are based on this-or-that op-ed in the New York Times, Haaretz, etc. However, these op-eds is not usable in Wikipedia, except for demonstrating the view of the author. Instead, we should go with sources that are more often used for this type of question, such as the CIA Factbook, Encyclopedia Britannica. If we do want to include opinions, they should be whose opinion is notable like Democracy Index, Freedom House, or Pew Research. OtterAM (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear at this point that this was a disruptive RfC. I don't think this can be taken as any kind of consensus. These four options were unilaterally proposed by an editor who didn't participate in the relevant discussion Talk:Israel#Ethnic_democracy_vs_ethnocracy - the proposal basically ignored the ongoing discussion. This was made even worse by the second RfC which added additional options over the objections of the participating editors. The RfC should reflect a point of dispute between editors on the talk page, not four options made up by one editor without any input from participating editors. There shouldn't even be a dispute over whether the sources are reliable because this should already have a consensus before we even begin to discuss the lede. This has caused more problems then it has resolved. Now, a new editor has added an option 5 in a separate RfC. Seraphim System (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This is such a confusing RFC. However, here's a recent (July 2018) article from Times of Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-democratic-nation-state-law-raises-questions-over-israels-purpose/ Jewish? Democratic? Nation-state law raises questions over Israel’s purpose .. While critics accuse the government of denying the existence of the Arab minority, others say newly adopted legislation merely states the obvious

IMHO, this article does a good job of covering both sides of the issue, and if I were involved in editing this page, I would rely on it as my primary source. 

   Akin to a constitutional amendment, the "basic law" declares — much like the country’s Declaration of Independence — that Israel is "the home of the Jewish people". Unlike the declaration, however, it asserts that Jerusalem is its capital, that national self-determination in the state of Israel is "unique to the Jewish people," and that Hebrew is the state’s language — while Arabic, previously an official language, is now designated as having "a special status in the state." ... the nation-state law will only anger, and further alienate, Israel’s Arab citizens. The message the law sends to them is unequivocal: "This state is not yours and this land does not belong to you."

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

New options

5. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state.[1][2] Israel is a multi-party[3] representative democracy[fn 1] with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.[6][7]"

6. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state.[1][2] Israel is a multi-party[3] parliamentary republic[fn 2] with proportional representation and universal suffrage.[6][7]"

7. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state.[1][2] Israel is a multi-party parliamentary republic[3] with proportional representation and universal suffrage.[6][7] Both Democracy Index and Freedom House describe Israel as a "free country" and a "democracy", ranking it among the world's top countries in the areas of political rights and freedom of speech, but criticize the record of some of its other civil liberties.[4][5]

8. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state.[1][2] Israel is a multi-party parliamentary republic[3] with proportional representation and universal suffrage.[6][7] Both Democracy Index and Freedom House describe Israel as a "free country" and a "democracy", ranking it among the world's top countries in the areas of political rights and freedom of speech, but criticize the record of some of its other civil liberties.[4][5] Some scholars also use different descriptions for Israel's form of government.[fn 3]"

  1. ^ Both Democracy Index and Freedom House describe Israel as a "free country" and a "democracy", ranking it among the world's top countries in the areas of political rights and freedom of speech, but criticize the record of some of its other civil liberties.[4][5]
  2. ^ Both Democracy Index and Freedom House describe Israel as a "free country" and a "democracy", ranking it among the world's top countries in the areas of political rights and freedom of speech, but criticize the record of some of its other civil liberties.[4][5]
  3. ^ *Augustus Richard Norton (2001). Civil society in the Middle East. 2 (2001). BRILL. p. 193. ISBN 90-04-10469-0. Israel has been described by Israeli scholar Gideon Doron as a "non-liberal representative democracy".
    *Dowty, Alan (1999). "Is Israel Democratic? Substance and Semantics in the "Ethnic Democracy" Debate". Israel Studies. 4 (2). Indiana University Press: 1–15. Israeli scholars Sammy Smooha classifies Israel in the historically-rare category of "ethnic democracy"; and As'ad Ghanem, Nadim Rouhana, and Oren Yiftachel challenge the "democracy" component of that taxonomy and suggest instead the label of "ethnocracy," a somewhat less rare but still infrequent species; Ruth Gavison argues for moving the debate into explicit rather than submerged normative terms, and concludes that there is no necessary conceptual inconsistency between a state being Jewish and its being a democracy. All, however, describe the actual situation of non-Jews in Israel, in law and in practice, in similar terms. In Smooha's words, "minorities are treated as second-class citizens, feared as a threat, excluded from the national power structure, and placed under some control," while "at the same time [they] are allowed to conduct a democratic and peaceful struggle that yields incremental improvement in their status"
    *"Ethnic Democracy Revisited: On the State of Democracy in the Jewish State". Israel Studies Forum. 20 (1). Berghahn Books: 3–27. 2005. Abstract: The current state of the debate over Israeli democracy and the state of Israeli democracy itself are analyzed through the citizenship status of Israel's Palestinian citizens. The two main theoretical models featured in this debate - Smooha's "ethnic democracy" and Yiftachel's "ethnocracy" - are discussed, focusing on the 'framework decisions' that inform their arguments. After demonstrating that the question of Israeli democracy should be viewed dynamically and historically, it will be clear that the Israeli state has been evolving from non-democratic ethnocracy, though ethnic democracy, toward non-democratic majoritarianism. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
    *Peled, Yoav (1 October 2013). The Challenge of Ethnic Democracy: The State and Minority Groups in Israel, Poland and Northern Ireland. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-44893-7. As it has unfolded up to this point, then, the debate over whether Israel should be characterized as an ethnic democracy or an ethnocracy has been largely semantic, because it turned mostly on definitional issues: whether "democracy" should be defined thinly or thickly, and whether "Israel" itself should be defined broadly or narrowly.
    *Greenstein, Ran (14 June 2018). "Israel as an Ethnic State". In Jeenah Na'eem (ed.). Pretending Democracy: Israel, and Ethnocratic State. Afro-Middle East Centre. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-620-54042-1. The debate over the meaning of Israel as an ethnic state, an ethnocracy as its critics call it, or an 'ethnic democracy' as it is referred to by some of its supporters, continues. An editorial in the December 2009 edition of Mada al-Carmel's journal addressed these debates by expressing regret over the global spread of the 'political discourse of two states for two peoples - a Palestinian state and a Jewish state'. In their view, 'the ethnic state is a recipe for continued injustice and for resistance to it, and thus for the continuation of the conflict. It is the democratic state that will guarantee equality among all citizens'. Whether the democratic state would be merely 'a state of all its citizens', or a state which recognises that its citizens are divided into ethnic groups, to be represented as collectives and not only individually, is an ongoing question."
    *Peled-Elhanan, Nurit (1 October 2013). Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-0-85773-069-5. In spite of Israel's success to advertise its regime as a Democracy, it is often defined by researchers as either an 'Ethnocracy' or as an 'ethnic Democracy.' This is because ethnicity and not citizenship is the main determinant for the allocation of rights, power and resources in Israel. Jews who are citizens of other countries and Jewish settlers who live beyond the official border of the state have full citizenship rights while Arab citizens inside the state's borders don't, and Palestinians from the occupied West Bank are listed 'state-less.'
    *Koensler, Alexander (28 March 2015). Israeli-Palestinian Activism: Shifting Paradigms. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-4724-3947-5.
  1. ^ a b c d "Basic Laws". knesset.gov.il. Retrieved 2018-07-30.
  2. ^ a b c d "Israel". Freedom in the World. Freedom House. 2008. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
  3. ^ a b c d "Israel - Government". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2018-08-06.
  4. ^ a b c d Israel ranks within the top 30 in the world out of 167 countries. "Democracy Index 2017 — FULL REPORT by the Economist Intelligence Unit" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  5. ^ a b c d Israel ranks the aggregate score of 79 points out of 100. "Freedom in the World 2018 — FULL REPORT by the Freedom House" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  6. ^ a b c d Rummel 1997, p. 257. "A current list of liberal democracies includes: Andorra, Argentina, ..., Cyprus, ..., Israel, ..."
  7. ^ a b c d "Global Survey 2006: Middle East Progress Amid Global Gains in Freedom". Freedom House. 19 December 2005. Retrieved 20 March 2012.

Duoble 07 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I personally prefer Option 5 or 1. Duoble 07 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 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.

Arabic is no longer an official language in Israel, as of Aug 2018

According to this recently approved Israeli law: Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. The Hebrew version of Wikipedia has alraedy removed the Arabic translation of "The State of Israel" from its Infobox. We should do the same. 79.182.115.76 (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's still a special status language, which shall be used by the State's institutions according to the law. Normally, translations of lagnuages with such status are included in the wiki infoboxes. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not support the proposal to remove all uses of Arabic from the info box. Arabic has a special legal status in Israel and a large number of its citizens use the language. Thus, translation of "The State of Israel" into Arabic is perfectly appropriate. OtterAM (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I also support keeping Arabic in the info box. It is a language that is vital and important within the State of Israel -- official or not.--Calthinus (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Arabic still need to be mention in the Infobox cause it have a 'special status' and its differ from other spoken languages such Russian, Amharic, Yiddish etc. "The Arabic language has a special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions or by them will be set in law; This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect. " It should be mention in Other languages with a footnote explaining the status of the language. The Arabic name of the state should be still feature in the article even though it not longer official language. See examples Algeria, Brunei, Cambodia, Somaliland, Tunisia, Mauritania, Nigeria. Sokuya (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how any non English text helps those that read English.--Moxy (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Well under that criterion we'd delete the Hebrew too. --Calthinus (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yup.....we have links on every page to language specific wikis if need be. Not sure how having non readable text is helpful. Its already in the lead breaking up the first sentence making it hard to read.....why do it 2 times?--Moxy (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You are assuming that those reading English Wikipedia can't read other languages. Obviously it is incorrect for some of the readers. “WarKosign” 11:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Arabic should be listed as a language with Special Status. According to the Times of Israel (https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-democratic-nation-state-law-raises-questions-over-israels-purpose/ Jewish? Democratic? Nation-state law raises questions over Israel’s purpose): 

... and that Hebrew is the state’s language — while Arabic, previously an official language, is now designated as having "a special status in the state."  Peter K Burian (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel/Archive_72