In the early years after Israel was establish, Israeli laws was heavily based on the British Mandate laws, Israel inherited the legal system of the British Mandate. In the coming years as Israel start its own legislation process it created its own laws that overrun the Mandate laws (Article 11).^[1] However even after 70 years of independence there some remnants such as death penalty in martial court.

The official languages of Israel has similar story. Road sings in Israel are using multiple languages: Hebrew, English and Arabic. The reason for that was the Order in Council of 1922 by the British mandate: "All Ordinances, official notices... shall be published in English, Arabic and Hebrew". Read more about it in Languages_of_Israel#History. Since its establishment Israel never legislate its official languages (or its constitution either). The first time Israel defines its languages was on The Nation Law where its says "A. The state's language is Hebrew. B. 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. C. This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect." So before this law came into effect, both Hebrew and Arabic was treated similarly as this source cited, however the first law that defined Israel's language was The Nation Law, before that Israel just rely on the 1922 British Mandate's Order in Council.

The footnote currently says the following (I bold the debatable phrase):

Arabic previously had been considered an official language of the State of Israel.^[2] In 2018 it was classified as having a 'special status in the state' with its use by state institutions to be set in law.^[3][4][5]

I think it should be change to Arabic previously had been considered as official language, because it wasn't an official language (nor Hebrew) but it was consider to be as one by many. The footnote should consider the 1922 "Order in Council". Because otherwise it would imply that Israel revoked Arabic from its official languages where it actually just defined its official language for the first time since its establishment. Sokuya (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Your information is incorrect. The 1922 Order-in-Council (as amended up to 1948) was adopted into Israeli law. The status of the three languages was then modified by the Law and Administration Ordinance No 1 of 5708—1948, clause 15(b), which removed English. There are tons of references for this (here is an example in the Israel Law Review). The official status of Arabic was also confirmed by the High Court in case 4112/99. Of course that doesn't mean Arabic got the same treatment as Hebrew in practice, but that's a different issue. Zero^talk 11:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

One of the references denies that Judaism is the official state religion of Israel, and other pages on Wikipedia put forward a "polyseme argument", can we dispel the fact that Judaism isn't the official religion. I put forward the following arguments for this that, nationality or citizenship can be conferred to Jewish religious converts outside of Israel, promoting Judaism to an elevated status among the citizenry. Also the office of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has legal jurisdiction in lots of matters in Israel. Israel has an entire executive ministry that manages Rabbinical courts, and they're integrated into the Israeli judiciary.

It is a de facto religion, with heavy de jure elements. The only thing missing is a declaration that Judaism is the state religion, but even saying it is de jure isn't particularly wrong. Jamesniederle (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The "law of return" is not based on religion, but on ethnicity (and includes non-Jews). In terms of Rabbinical courts - there are parallel state-funded religious court systems for the Muslim (Shria court), Druze, and Christian populations - each such court system being in charge of personal status affairs of its adherents. In terms of "legal jurisdiction in lots of matters in Israel" - this is incorrect - the religious courts have jurisdiction only for personal-status matters (marriage and divorce) and not for anything else (well - to be precise - if both sides to a dispute agree to settle a civil dispute at a religious court - they may do so - however, this requires both sides to agree to do so). Furthermore even in personal status, there is a competing civil family court system (jurisdiction for a case determined by where it is filed first). Other than that - the Rabbinate (as well as parallel systems for Muslims, Druze, and Christians) - only has a say on religious funding (e.g. Rabbi appointments) and on its Kashrut system. Icewhiz (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want the article to say that Israel has an official religion, you must cite multiple reliable sources that say so per WP:REDFLAG. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so now that there is clear consensus on including the disputed territories (though there are disagreements as to how this should be done), I think that it's time that we adjust the map image accordingly. I personally, prefer leaving out the West Bank for now (since Israel hasn't officially claimed/annexed the region yet). However, as a compromise, since most of the arguments from the last discussion support including the West Bank to some degree, I propose including the West Bank area in a different color (perhaps light blue) to symbolize that while Israel controls the area, they do not officially claim it. This may change within the next year or so, and if they officially annex the region, then the color for the West Bank region can be changed to light green if/when that occurs. (This is another good map that includes the West Bank, though it is in a different format than the orthographic format normally used for main infobox maps for country articles.) I am solidly opposed to including the Gaza Strip, because Israel does not exercise any direct control over the region at this moment (not since their withdrawal in 2005). Unless Israel moves to retake control of the Gaza Strip, it should not be included, because it would otherwise go against our current mapping conventions for world countries (the UN's position of the Gaza Strip being "occupied territory" is completely irrelevant here - Israel does not have de facto control of the area on the ground, and that is what really matters when we consider which disputed territories should be included or left out). Since a majority of the arguments in favor of changing the map image want to see the West Bank included in some extent, I will make the changes to the map (or find someone with better svg editing skills than me to make the changes), and then add the map to the infobox. This option seems to be the best compromise solution for the discussion from earlier while complying with our current practices on country maps. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: I created a new (more detailed) vector map partially based on the map you linked to.

thumb|150px|   Territories controlled and claimed by Israel
   Territories controlled but not claimed by Israel

What do you think? M . M 16:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: (Follow-up to edit plan talk:) I could add a note further explaining the West Bank situation - still, "controlled but not claimed" is accurate in the sense that Israel hasn't applied its full sovereignty there. Do you have a better description that's still short enough to fit properly into a map legend? M . M 16:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you first try to build agreement on the map and only afterwards on the captions. Whatever captions you suggest (unless this is completely neutral geographic descriptors) - are likely to be contested by someone. If I were you, I would try to advance the map without the captions (e.g. just what colors go where) - and after that is closed, try to close the captions.Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There is seemingly agreement for including the occupied territories as occupied territories, not as Israeli territory as the map above does with the Golan. nableezy - 16:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The Golan is controlled & claimed by Israel, just like Tel Aviv is. Though, notice how I never described any territory as "Israeli" - 30 UN member sates do not recognize Israel. I also want to note that including more than 2 shades of green would mess up the vector color coding, considerably decreasing the image quality. M . M 16:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The Golan is not at all like Tel-Aviv, and giving them both the same color is completely out of the question. Zero^talk 17:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Then why does Crimea and Moscow have the same color in the Russia infobox map? What excactly is the difference? M . M 17:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not Talk:Russia. Go ask over there. Zero^talk 19:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not Talk:Russia and WP:WAX is and has always been an argument with zero worth. But what exactly is the difference? Reliable sources overwhelmingly say that the Golan Heights are not in Israel and are Syrian territory. The UNSC likewise has repeatedly said the same. As has the UNGA. Those are just some of the differences. nableezy - 20:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

As per Abecedare's suggestion, I am now starting a general discussion about the infobox map(s). This is not an RfC, but rather intended to single out the most popular options prior to opening an RfC.

1. Should the infobox include 1 or 2 maps? If only 1, should it be ortographic or zoomed-in?
2. Should they include Israeli-controlled territories located outside the Green Line (East Jerusalem, Golan Heights, and/or West Bank)?
3. Should they differentiate, based on level of international recognition, between territories that are both controlled and claimed by Israel?
4. Should they differentiate between territories that are both controlled and claimed by Israel vs. controlled but not claimed by Israel?
5. Should they differentiate, based on level of control, between territories that are controlled but not claimed by Israel?
6. What are your general thoughts on this map?

thumb|150px|

My answers:

1. 2 maps; 1 ortographic & 1 zoomed-in.
2. Yes; all of them.
3. No. I don't know any other country infobox map that does (Russia has the same color for St. Petersburg and Crimea, India has the same color for Mumbai and their controlled parts of Kashmir, Pakistan has the same color for Islamabad and their controlled parts of Kashmir, etc.) Furthermore, too many shades/colors would decrease the map quality.
4. Yes. While it's true that many Israeli laws are applied to West Bank settlements, they are still ultimately subject to military law.
5. No. This would require separating the thousands of enclaves of the West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord, which would make the maps extremely blurry - especially the ortographic one. They also have all of this in common: ultimetley subject to military law, (at least nominally) controlled by Israel, and not claimed by Israel (insofar as the Knesset hasn't voted to apply full Israeli sovereignty there).
6. Well, it's my suggestion, so of course I support it. ;) M . M

• This map:[1] can not be added to the article because it has the same color for Israel and Jerusalem/Golan Heights so it is claiming that the Israeli-occupied Jerusalem/Golan Heights "Is Israel". Any map added to the infobox must clearly show a difference in color and borders between Israel and the occupied territories which includes the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Any map used cannot, per NPOV, present territory nearly universally recognized as being outside of Israel as though it were in Israel. This map does that with the Golan. You can show the occupied territories, thats fine, but you cannot show them as Israeli territory. nableezy - 00:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with SD and Nab. Zero^talk 07:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, as far as the claim no other country differentiates between the territory they are the recognized sovereign of and the territory recognized as held under occupation, see for example Morocco which shows Western Sahara in a different shade then what is internationally recognized as Moroccan territory. nableezy - 00:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@VwM.Mwv: I would be fine using the proposed image in this section. (The map follows current Wikipedia mapping practices, such as seen on China and Russia. However, differentiating the disputed territories more clearly may be appropriate here.) However, I would like to point out a few things, and suggest a couple of changes, per the other users above and the points made in the original discussion.

• We normally use orthographic/geographic maps in the main infobox. I would like to continue using one, specifically, use the geographic image that I had proposed (and linked) in the original discussion above, but with the changes I will now propose to the new map below.
• To differentiate between the status of Israel's territories more clearly, I propose that the Golan Heights region (beyond the borders of Mandatory Palestine - which has the borders originally intended for Israel in the Golan region) be shaded light green, and that the West Bank region is shaded sky blue instead. In this case, the light green will indicate territories claimed and controlled by Israel, while the sky blue indicates territories de-facto controlled but not claimed by the government of Israel. I think that these changes will be a reasonable compromise for an updated, more accurate country map of Israel. I can make it clear in the image labels that the disputed territories are seen as occupied by the International community. Israel's article has long been an exception to the standard mapping practices we have used for other nations, and it's nice to see some solid steps towards applying the same policies to this article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• First of all, I have no strong opinion on which kind of map we use. However, I do care quite a bit about consistency. For that reason I think this discussion is at the wrong place. Golan and Jerusalem to Israel is exactly like Crimea is to Russia; claimed, under de facto control, though limited recognition. It's out of question to continue the current situation where practices diverge. (Currently, Golan is not shown as part of Israel here, but Crimea is shown as a part of Russia). I lean a little bit towards not including Golan and Jerusalem here and not including Crimea for Russia (and other cases). I won't argue about that, however. But again, we absolutely need a coherent policy, not an "RfC case by case" policy. Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Russia is not the only country in the world. See for example Morocco which shows Western Sahara, like the Golan claimed and controlled by the occupying power as its territory but nearly universally recognized as not in its territory, a different shade. nableezy - 20:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As I had hoped would be self-evident, I provided a non-exhaustive example. The point still stands, we should apply the same principle to all countries that de facto control territory they claim but that is only partially recognised as de jure belonging to them. Jeppiz (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think the infobox should include an image of Israel with a lighter color for the Golon Heights, showing that it is claimed and occupied but disputed, and a third and even lighter color over the West Bank, distinguising that it is not claimed but occupied. Even if this is not the final solution, it should definitely not show the Gaza Strip or the Golan Heights with the same color as the rest of Israel. On almost any map you can find, the Golan Heights is shows as part of Syria, so it should not be shown as part of Israel here. It is not as relevant as to whether or not Israel controlls it, since the UN General Assembly vote on Israel's occupation of said territories recieved "167 votes in favor, seven opposed". The West Bank is different because it claims to be a sovereign nation even though it is occupied by Israel and has been since its inception. This is different from the Golan Heights, which was part of Syria before Syria invaded Israel in 1967, when Israel counter-attacked and took control of the area. Some other examples of different maps are the Wikipedia Russia map, which shows crimea as part of Russia with no distinguising color, and the China map, which shows Taiwan in a lighter color since it is claimed by China, even though China has no authority over the nation, de jure or de facto. I think citing these examples as justification does not always make sense, since Taiwan is not part of China at all, and Crimea is very disuputed yet shown as if it is just like the rest of Russia. Bill Williams (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: I've opened investigation into whether the OP is a sock. More than a year ago, user called Dank Chicken flooded this talk page with proposals to replace the infobox map. Does anyone who remember that discussion have a clue whether this is the same user or not? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: It's already confirmed it's a sock. The user is blocked. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Update concerning another user in this thread: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willschmut. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove Niqqud and Harakat from the country name in the infobox as they are already in the first line of the first paragraph. change from:

|native_name = {{unbulleted list|{{nobold|{{native name|he|יִשְׂרָאֵל|italics=off}}}}|{{nobold|{{native name|ar|إِسْرَائِيل|italics=off}}}}}}

to:

|native_name = {{unbulleted list|{{nobold|{{native name|he|ישראל|italics=off}}}}|{{nobold|{{native name|ar|إسرائيل|italics=off}}}}}}

דוד אהרון 8 (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Question: @דוד אהרון 8: Is there a guideline that the vowel marks can only be written once? I couldn't find anything under MOS or WP generally after a few searches. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 12:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Just following the Jerusalem and Tel Aviv article. דוד אהרון 8 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, and nobody has objected, so  Done —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 12:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please remove this link per WP:Recentism and WP:See also. This secion is only for general information about the country, not specific events. Bigger protests, such as 2011 Israeli social justice protests, are not covered in this section nor should be.--213.8.34.194 (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

As per consensus on Israel's Hebrew wikipedia article version (ישראל), the name of the country is "Israel" officially. To further explain the law: the name "State of Israel " is widely used and it appears for example on the covers of all Israeli passports and the name "State of Israel" was first used in the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

However an amendment in 2016 to the National flag, emblem and anthem law 1949 specifically mentioned [שם המדינה הוא "ישראל"‎] - the name of the state is "Israel". And again in the Nation State law 2018 it specifically mentions [The name of the state is "Israel"].

Hence Israel's name officially is "Israel", and the "State of Israel" is not to be used officially anymore. Israel in the United Nations is also represented as "Israel". דוד אהרון 8 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support: How have a point. Sokuya (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm opposed to making wholesale changes just for the sake of making changes. The State of Israel is—and always will be—referred to as the State of Israel to differentiate it from the many other things called Israel. I know it's focused on article titles, but I recommend that editors read WP:OFFICIAL, which explains why official names aren't necessarily the best names. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• So are you just proposing that we change "officially the State of Israel" to "also known as the State of Israel"? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Officially the State of Israel is now officially just Israel, by the laws mentioned above. דוד אהרון 8 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

More generally, for long now I've been arguing that the conventional longform should not be called "official" in contradistinction to the conventional shortform — for various country articles. El_C 23:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it per the above. See also what I wrote on Talk:India#"Also_known_as"_the_Republic_of_India? El_C 16:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

If it is the official name then it should be called that. However some countries has longer descriptors that are not the official name, like Ireland with "Republic of" and Serbia and Montenegro with "State Union of". Regarding 2016, does that mean it was changed in 2016 to simply Israel or it was never that to begin with? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Initially from the beginning, documents such as the Israeli Declaration of Independence state the name as "מדינת ישראל"/"State of Israel". However since the 2016 amendment to the National flag, emblem and anthem law 1949, it specifically mentions [שם המדינה הוא "ישראל"‎] - the name of the state is "Israel". And again in the Nation State law 2018 it specifically mentions [The name of the state is "Israel"]. Hence the name used by the government is officially "ישראל"/"Israel" since 2016, however Israeli identity cards and Israeli passports still use "State of Israel". דוד אהרון 8 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph it states: "It has land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the east and west, respectively,"...

Can we change this to "It has land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, Jordan on the east, the State of Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip) to the east and west, respectively,".. due to the fact that Palestine is officially a state?

No, because State of Palestine does not have defined territory. It is a political entity that claims the Palestinian Territories without having actual control over them. As long as SoP doesn't have well-defined borders it's incorrect to say that Israel has borders with it. “WarKosign” 21:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that argument holds. Israel doesn't have defined borders/defined territory either, nor do India, Pakistan etc. Jeppiz (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The State of Palestine isn’t a sovereign state because it doesn’t exercise sovereign control over its claimed territory. I object to the idea that Palestine is a state as it does not have sovereign control over its claimed territory or its claimed population. Île flottante (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Israel has well-defined borders, albeit some are disputed. I don't think there is any official declaration or a document specifying exactly which territory SoP claims. Many presume that it's all of West Bank and Gaza, but some statements imply that all of Israel should also be considered "occupied Palestinian land". “WarKosign” 09:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue is however the official name. The official name of Palestine is the "State of Palestine". The official name is something completely different to territorial claims. If anything, modify the text to "the State of Palestine's territories of the West Bank and Gaza strip to the east and west, respectively"... I think that encompasses both viewpoints.

No, the official name is the name used by the Oslo accords, which isn’t the state of Palestine. And given that large areas of the West Bank are under full Israeli control (East Jerusalem) and area C, parts of which Israel will likely never relinquish, I think it’s disingenuous to simply refer to a state of Palestine, because it implies that Israel is bordered to the east by a sovereign state other than Jordon. Liberland isn’t listed as bordering Croatia, for instance. Île flottante (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is this page protected? Sockpuppetery? Vandalism? Or is just protected for absolutely no reason and should be unprotected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinan Blueje (talk • contribs) 22:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It says why at the very top of this talk page, but here's a further link. I think the topic, and the type of editing activity such a topic attracts, is fairly self-evident. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Please revert this edit. India is mentioned with more detail three paragraphs below, and this source does not mention India at all, it's only about China.--Grestoremarie (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 16:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

There is too much history in the lede - and in the article itself. The lede should be short and relevant to the article, providing a summary of the contents. I will try to improve it.

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You removed nearly everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory. I do not disagree with tightening the lead, but removing anything negative is not that. nableezy - 15:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This missile system partially defends Israel – I think this info shouldn’t miss there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.199.144.109 (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This country does not exist 51.36.213.98 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. “WarKosign” 08:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

An editor added "claimed to be" to a sentence in United Nations General Assembly making it read "The two most recent, in 1982 and 1997–2017, were about the status of the territories claimed to be occupied[31] by the State of Israel." Is this in line with NPOV? Doug Weller talk 08:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course not. If they are not occupied then what are they?--SharabSalam (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted. Took me sometime because I don't have good internet connection right now. The editor marked his edit as minor lol. That is definitely not a minor edit.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I recommend the following edits to the Israel page on Wikipedia to provide "multiple points of view" in regards to the characterization of Israel as a "liberal democracy." While I realize this site is "protected" to avoid sparring, it's a disservice to readers of Wikipedia and a departure from the Five Pillars to posit a controversial claim as fact. Please see my suggested edits below. Thank you.

Debate over Israel as a DemocracyBold text

In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state and the nation state of the Jewish people.[55] FreedomHouse.org, a US government-funded agency, describes Israel as a liberal democracy (one of only two in the Middle East and North Africa region, the other being Tunisia),[56][57] with a parliamentary system, proportional representation in the Knesset, the Israeli legislature, and an elected prime minister.[58][59]

Critics argue, however, that Israel fails to meet three essential criteria for a democracy: universal suffrage, equal rights under the law and freedom to dissent.

Lack of Universal Suffrage

Over two million Palestinians live under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and though some may vote in elections held by the Palestinian Authority, Palestinians cannot vote cannot vote over how they are ruled by Israel, leaving occupied Palestinians with no control over Israeli checkpoints, home demolitions, Israeli settlement expansion and indefinite detentions of Palestinians, including Palestinian children.

While Palestinian citizens of Israel can vote to elect representatives to the Knesset, their right to universal suffrage can be nullified under a 2016 legislative amendment that allows the Knesset to expel any popularly elected member, including a Palestinian critical of Israeli treatment of Palestinians, whose political views are considered unacceptable.

Differentiation in Civil Rights

Israel, its defenders argue, must protect the right of Jews for self-determination and can only do so through legislation, such as the Law of Return, that encourages diaspora Jews to seek sanctuary in their biblical homeland.

As a result, Jewish Israelis enjoy superior rights to Arab Israelis or Palestinian Israelis under The Law of Return, passed by the Israeli Knesset in 1950. The Law of Return bestows automatic citizenship rights to Jews who immigrate to Israel while denying citizenship rights to exiled and barred Palestinians who fled their homes in 1947-48. Furthermore, under the Citizenship and Entry Law, passed in 2003, extended in 2016, an Arab Israeli living in Israel is prohibited from living with their spouse in Israel if that spouse is a resident of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, thereby making family unification impossible.

Palestinians or Arab Israeli who are citizens of Israel and live inside the Green Line or '67 borders, do not enjoy equal civil rights as Jewish Israelis. Israeli citizens are classified as holding different nationalities, with Jewish Israelis awarded "national" rights but Arab Israelis only "citizenship" rights. If there is a legal dispute between a Palestinian and a Jewish Israeli, the courts and government officials favor those with national rights.

The Basic Law, passed in 2018, stipulates that Hebrew is the official language of Israel, while Arabic, the language spoken by Palestinian Israelis, is downgraded to "special status."

Restrictions on Dissent

Freedom House, a US government-funded think tank, writes Israel "hosts a lively pluralistic media environment in which press freedom is generally respected." Still, the organization noted in 2017 the Israeli military censor requires bloggers and social media administrators to submit reports for pre-publication review.

In March, the Knesset passed Amendment No.28, giving the Minister of the Interior the authority to prohibit entry to foreigners who publicly call for boycotting Israel or its settlements. As a result, Israel restricts freedom of speech and dissent by invoking the law to deny entry to members of Code Pink, Jewish Voice for Peace and the Center for Constitutional Rights, among others. The Guardian, in referencing the Israeli press, reports the law could be used to chill speech among Palestinians living as temporary residents in Israel proper while waiting for their applications for permanent residence to be approved.

In the latest move to restrict dissent and robust debate, the Israeli government deported Omar Shakir, a Human Rights Watch researcher who defended the right to publicly call for the boycott of Israel.

Marcywinograd (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we cover this in a separate article called “Israel and the democracy debate” or similar. Then we bring a short summary into this article.

There are dozens of excellent sources summarizing the topic, many of which have been discussed on these talk pages. For example Prof Martin Beck’s recent summary: Israel: A Democratic State?. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

There is already one such article. Any reason to create more? “WarKosign” 20:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think so. The relevant points raised here are addressed in that section, and an article specifically about that would likely invite a Pandora’s Box of unreliable sources and SPAs. Israel is a liberal democracy, obviously, though those under occupation have no representation at a macro level, beyond their municipal governance, which is mostly under the purview of the PA. It’s clearly information that’s due, but I think it’s adequately covered there. If reliable sources talk about this beyond the scope of what’s covered there, then it could be expanded. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

     Beyond the issue of limited voting rights for Palestinians under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, 
     there are the other issues involving different rights afforded to Jewish Israelis (Law of Return; national versus 
     citizenship rights) and Palestinian Israelis, as well as the
     restrictions on dissent, with prohibitions on those who want to visit Israel or remain in Israel but cannot because of 
     their public criticism or support for BDS, as well as the military censor requirements that blogs be presubmitted for 
     approval before publication. The latter was not my personal assertion but one referenced by Freedom House, the original 
     source posted on Wikipedia. Attributes of a democratic society include majority rule with consideration of the
     minority's rights; equal rights; freedom of speech and right to dissent.Marcywinograd (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

We need a summary of this issue in this article, given the high profile nature of the dispute. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Then this is a weight issue, and due per the lede. I’m not so sure about the latter, but like I said, if you’re looking for prose, a one sentence addition is appropriate. It needs to reflect RS, and that likely does. I think it’s appropriate for a lede sentence.Go ahead and add it, as long as it’s phrased per NPOV. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, why is it a weight issue? Something that is very controversial about a country should be in the lead. That's because the reader most likely will be searching about it.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Weight is determined by not just RS, but a preponderance of such sources. No one reasonably disputes that Israel is a liberal democracy. It’s a matter of weight due to paucity and subjectivity. It’s certainly due to state as much, and I never said I disputed that. Disenfranchisement is an issue reliable sources have commented on. Most opinion interpretation though, in that Israel is not a democracy, is most definitely not backed by reliable sources. Hence: factual statement, weight against commentary. Articles on Israel tend to become POV coatracks, and we should avoid that, especially on a top-level article. As I said, an addition can be made in the appropriate section. But this isn’t something that’s questioned enough for the lede. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that, at the very least, the Israel page should provide a summary of the issue/debate over Israel as a democracy. While it's true that there are other pages elsewhere on Wikipedia that explore the issue, it is this page, the Israel page, that has been featured on Wikipedia, that had, as I recall, over 700,000 page views in the last 60 days, 90,000 internal linkage and over 700 external linkages. This is the first page that comes up when someone googles Israel on Wikipedia. Marcywinograd (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

In its current form, this proposal is completely non-NPOV and therefore I oppose it. Your interpretation of the recent Basic law is, in my legal opinion, wrong and in any case primary research and therefore shouldn't be included. Secondly, I might add that a law cannot stipulate. Parties to a contract stipulate but a law doesn't. I took a glance at your profile and honestly it really doesn't look like you're approaching this matter from a neutral perspective, but rather you're trying to further an anti-Israel agenda. Île flottante (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I included the reference to the Basic Law that is already posted on the Wikipedia Israel page, and the Freedom House footnote that is there, as well; in other words, that is not my interpretation but what is already there. For the record, here is a link to the Basic Law: https://knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/BasicLawNationState.pdf which says (if stipulate is a problem) that a)Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people b) Hebrew is the state language; Arabic has special status c) Jewish settlement is a national value d) Jerusalem is the capital of Israel In terms of neutral POV, I would assert that stating as fact that Israel is a liberal democracy is hardly a neutral POV, particularly since it departs, as I mentioned earlier, from Wikipedia's Five Pillars which call for "multiple points of view" on subjects/statements that are subject to debate. As for my own political opinions, those are just that. I respect Wikipedia's commitment to a neutral approach and tried my best to include multiple perspectives on the statement "Israel is a liberal democracy." I understand, however, that more experienced editors might have a better handle on wording. In general, however, it's problematic to limit a writer's jurisdiction to matters in which they are devoid of opinions. If that were the case, Wikipedia would have few writers and editors. I am transparent. Unlike others who may use aliases or handles and leave a blank on their bio pages, I use my real name and my bio.Marcywinograd (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Saying that Israel is not a democracy is a fringe theory - there are sources showing that some people make this claim, but it's far too obscure to be mentioned as part of a neutral point of view. “WarKosign” 08:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with WarKosign with regards to the fringe theory qualification. Moreover the issue with your proposal is that you’re using terms that are indeterminate legal terms for which there has yet to be case law. Even if Freedom house had its articles written by leading Israeli jurists, the fact of the matter remains that as long as there isn’t Israeli case law telling us, for example, what the centrality of Jewish settlement means, any interpretation of it is pointless moot. Additionally, facts like Jerusalem being the capital of Hebrew being the official language are simply the concretisation of Israeli policy into law. Each State is free to determine its capital city and its official language as it likes, without that having any bearing on the qualification of that State being a liberal democracy or not. Île flottante (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Israeli Supreme Court deliberations, dissents and prevailing decisions constitute legitimate material for an amplified discussion or clarification on this page's assertion that "Israel is a liberal democracy ..." I reference the 

Oxford Academic International Journal on Constitutional Law article (Dec., 2007): https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/6/1/184/669050 titled "Israel: Citizenship and immigration law in the vise of security, nationality, and human rights."

From the article: "An amendment to Israel's citizenship law sweepingly banned Palestinians residing in the occupied territories from entering the country for the purpose of residence and naturalization, even in the context of family unification with (usually Arab) Israeli citizens.1 This note analyzes the constitutional implications of the amendment and the 2006 decision of the Israeli Supreme Court that, after painful deliberation and disagreement, upheld it by a thin majority.2"

The article explains how various justices wrestled with whether the Law of Return (automatic citizenship for Jews in the diaspora) and 2003 Amendment to the Law of Return (denial of family reunification rights to Palestinian Israelis who marry a spouse from the occupied territories) constitute a violation of equal rights. The plaintiff argued restrictions on immigrationMarcywinograd (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC) "violated two rights of Israeli citizens—namely, the right to family life, infringed for those with Palestinian spouses, and the right to equality before the law, infringed by the amendment's disproportionate effect on Israeli Arabs.8" Ultimately, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled: "The decision of the Israeli Supreme Court in this matter reflects both the tensions connected with the amendment to the citizenship law and the split in public opinion. The majority opinion (six out of eleven justices in the panel) held that the amendment did infringe the constitutionally protected rights of Arab Israeli citizens,10 yet they were reluctant to intervene."

Though the Israeli Supreme Court did not side with the plaintiff (Adalah), it did acknowledge the level of controversy and debate , and did not assign that debate to fringe theory.Marcywinograd (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're trying to convey with that article. All States being free to set their own immigration policies within the parameters of international and domestic human rights law, family reunification can be limited provided the measure is proportionate. The test for the proportionality of a restriction is tripartite: aptitude, necessity and proportionality in the strict sense of the term. This analysis is only able to be made by the competent judicial authority. In the case your article mentions, this test was done and the conclusion was that the measure preventing foreign nationals from enemy states (to which the West Bank belongs as per Israeli jurisprudence) from entering Israel by means of family reunification is proportionate. That this measure would prevent an enemy national married to an Israeli of any religious appartenance from entering Israel does not, prima facie, appear to contradict the qualification of Israel as a liberal democracy. Moreover, if one were to admit that this situation renders the State of Israel an illiberal democracy, one would therefore have to apply the same logic to any country which restricts (or has restricted in a time of war, like the one in which Israel has found itself since its invasion by Arab armies in 1948) in some way or another the possibility of its nationals to have their family members join them, thereby rendering almost all Western countries illiberal democracies because such measures had been in force during times of war. The United States under Trump would therefore also certainly be classified as an illiberal democracy not only because of historical policies of exclusion during war but also due to the administration's policy of refusing entry to foreign nationals based on their country of origin. Were this excessive means of categorisation applied, it would be applicable to so many jurisdictions as to render the appellation liberal democracy almost universally inapplicable. Île flottante (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This thread consists mostly of foruming and original research. We go by the sources, and vast majority of reliable sources define Israel as democracy. “WarKosign” 05:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Currently the GINI index shown in from 2012. There is an updated one for 2017 on the OECD database: https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm which is 34.

• Definitely we should. - Python eggs (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ארץ ישראל, הידועה גם כארץ הקודש או פלסטין, היא עיר הולדתו של העם היהודי, המקום בו נחשבים הצורה הסופית של התנ"ך העברי, ומקום הולדתו של היהדות והנצרות. הוא מכיל אתרים המקודשים ליהדות, שומרוניות, נצרות, אסלאם, דרוזים והדת הבהאית. האזור עבר תחת שלטונות אימפריות שונות וכתוצאה מכך אירח מגוון רחב של עדויות. עם זאת, הארץ הייתה בעיקר יהודית (שהם בעצמם תפוח של הכנענים הקדומים) בערך 1,000 שנה לפני התקופה המשותפת (לפני הספירה) ועד המאה ה -3 של התקופה המשותפת (לספירה). אימוץ הנצרות על ידי האימפריה הרומית במאה הרביעית הוביל לרוב נוצרי יווני-רומי שנמשך לא רק עד המאה ה- 7, אז נכבש האזור על ידי האימפריות המוסלמיות הערביות, אלא במשך שש מאות שנים מלאות. הוא הפך בהדרגה למוסלמי בעיקר לאחר סיום התקופה הצלבנית (1099-1291), שבמהלכה היווה מוקד העימות בין הנצרות לאיסלאם. החל מהמאה ה- 13 זה היה בעיקר מוסלמי עם ערבית כשפה דומיננטית והיה חלק ראשון במחוז הסורי של הסולטנות הממלוכית ואחרי 1516 חלק מהאימפריה העות'מאנית עד לכיבוש הבריטי ב- 1917-18. תנועה לאומית יהודית, ציונות, הגיחה בשלהי המאה ה -19 (חלקית כתגובה לאנטישמיות גוברת), במסגרתה גברה העלייה (חזרת היהודים מפזורה). במהלך מלחמת העולם הראשונה התחייבה ממשלת בריטניה בפומבי ליצור בית לאומי יהודי וקיבלה מנדט לשלוט בפלסטין על ידי חבר הלאומים למטרה זו. לאומיות ערבית יריבה גם טענה לזכויות בשטחים העות'מאניים לשעבר וביקשה למנוע הגירה יהודית לארץ ישראל, מה שהוביל לגידול במתח הערבי-יהודי. העצמאות הישראלית בשנת 1948 לוותה ביציאתם של ערבים מישראל, הסכסוך הערבי-ישראלי ויציאת יהודים לאחר מכן ממדינות ערביות ומוסלמיות לישראל. כ 43% מיהודי העולם חיים כיום בישראל, הקהילה היהודית הגדולה ביותר בעולם. מאז שנת 1970 בערך הפכה ארצות הברית לבעלת בריתה העיקרית של ישראל. בשנת 1979 נחתם הסכם שלום מצרים-ישראל לא נוח, שהתבסס על הסכמי קמפ דייוויד. בשנת 1993 חתמה ישראל על הסכמת אוסלו הראשון עם ארגון השחרור פלסטין, ואחריה הקמת הרשות הלאומית הפלסטינית ובשנת 1994 נחתם הסכם השלום בין ישראל לירדן. למרות המאמצים לסיים את הסכם השלום, הסכסוך ממשיך לשחק תפקיד מרכזי בחיים הפוליטיים, החברתיים והכלכליים הישראליים והבינלאומיים. 71.254.11.19 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Consider reformulating your proposal in English. Île flottante (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

In the part "After World War II" we have this paragraph filled with revisionist Israeli sources: "On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (II) recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union.[40] The plan attached to the resolution was essentially that proposed by the majority of the Committee in the report of 3 September. The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan.[42][43] The Arab League and Arab Higher Committee of Palestine rejected it, and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition.[41][177] On the following day, 1 December 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab gangs began attacking Jewish targets.[178] The Mandate collapsed into civil war as the British evacuated Palestine and refused to implement the partition resolution. As Arab militias and gangs attacked Jewish areas, they were faced mainly by the Haganah, as well as the smaller Irgun and Lehi. Jewish forces were mainly on the defensive until early April 1948, when the Haganah moved onto the offensive.[179][180] The Arab Palestinian economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled.[181]"

In that piece an extreme revisionist claim that Palestinians were expelled or fled because of the economy is propelled as an explanation for what happened in and before April 1948. Also the history from 1947 to 1948 is rewritten to claim there were only defensive actions from Jewish forces or actors and they were fighting aggression of Arabs gangs. This is totally extreme and one sided. We can make it neutral by placing links and sources of this type: ^[1] or ^[2] or just not give air to modern extremist propaganda or minority revisionists like in source [181] The false balance is not good for this article and Wikipedia as a whole. Why give equal validity or more validity to extremist revisionist history? DineshVah (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Dineshvah

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Dineshvah, thanks for highlighting this.

There are a few points in here which need fixing:

1) "On the following day, 1 December 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab gangs began attacking Jewish targets."

Per List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine, for the prior eight years Jewish gangs had been murdering British police and Palestinian Arabs civilians, and the Palestinian Arabs mostly let the British defend them. After the UN vote, the realization by the Palestinian Arabs that they had been abandoned led to the 1947 Jerusalem riots. Jewish gangs burned shops and a cinema, shot into crowds, and continued their previous tactics, and the conflict spiralled into a tit-for-tat.

I mentioned the riots and toned down the language: [2] The alternative is to have a broader explanation of the behavior of both sides. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: your language "riots were initiated by Arab gangs" is not consistent with the sources. The sources say that the riots were spontaneous. Can you suggest some language closer to the sources? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the sources are actually referenced in the article. Per Morris, "The League's Political Committee met in Sofar, Lebanon, on 16–19 September, and urged the Palestine Arabs to fight partition, which it called "aggression," "without mercy." Milstein also states that violence on Jews' part was a response to the Arab riots. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: those sources say nothing about gangs, nor do they dispute other sources which state that the outbreak of riots was spontaneous. If the Lebanon political committee meeting two months before had any relevance on the ground, which I doubt, we would need a source to state that explicitly.

Would the sentence "On the following day, 1 December 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and riots broke out in Jerusalem" work for you? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I think your version is actually a better reflection of the sources, and I think it is an improvement on the article, if anything. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 22:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I have made the amendment. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

2) "The Mandate collapsed into civil war as the British evacuated Palestine and refused to implement the partition resolution."

Just two weeks after the UN vote, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones announced that the British Mandate would end on 15 May 1948. I think "refused" is the wrong word.

I replaced the "refused" with a less emotive explanation: [3] Onceinawhile (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

3) "As Arab militias and gangs attacked Jewish areas, they were faced mainly by the Haganah, as well as the smaller Irgun and Lehi. Jewish forces were mainly on the defensive until early April 1948, when the Haganah moved onto the offensive."

The April-May 1948 Haganah offensive is certainly correct; they used the push to take full control of their UN allotted land as well as some of the land allotted by the UN to Palestinian Arabs and the corpus separatum. The statement that the "Jewish forces were mainly on the defensive" is not a fair reflection of the nature of the civil war between December and March. Prior to the Haganah offensive it was a civil war like any other.

I removed the "mainly on the defensive" statement: [4] Alternatively we could explain the strategy of both sides more fully. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: since you just re-added this statement, please provide a quote from the source which supports it. If you cannot verify it, it will be removed.

One of the other problems with this wording is that by being silent on the Arabs it implies that they were mainly on the attack, which is not a correct reflection of how this all happened. It was a civil war, both sides were fighting each other. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: just checking if you were able to find a source for this?

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh crap, I didn't even mean to restore this version, my apologies. I somehow missed this comment, too. I think it's better to continue our conversation at the bottom of the talk page (if you wish to continue it) for better visibility. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 22:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I have made the amendment. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

4) "The Arab Palestinian economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled.[181]"

This juxtaposition is clearly incorrect and ignores a whole host of Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

I linked to the causes article rather than trying to set out the arguments here: [5] Onceinawhile (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with the x-y format changes User:Onceinawhile has suggested. That would make the wiki article balanced and neutral. Please have a look at his comment and make the changes, thanks. DineshVah (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)DineshVah

I oppose this proposed edits. They are non NPOV and quite clearly biased towards an anti Israel perspective. I propose leaving the text as it stands. Île flottante (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: are you saying you consider the current draft to be perfect? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think any changes are necessary. Île flottante (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: your comments will be ignored because you refuse to explain them. See WP:DEM if this is not clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

you’re abusing WP:DEM. I just disagree with the premise of the suggestion that these parts are problematic. You can’t just ignore my opinion on the basis that I must fundamentally agree with you for my opinion to count. This is not consensus building; you’re just pushing your POV. Île flottante (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion cannot be considered valid unless you are able explain it. If we operated any other way, Wikipedia would be open to abuse by mindless partisans. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The comments above are not in the "change X to Y" format that is needed, and they do not yet have consensus. "Change X to y" means: quote an existing section of the article, then write the exact words that you would like to replace that quoted section. Cite reliable sources if you are adding new claims that may need verification. Please continue discussion and re-activate the edit-protected template only when consensus has been reached. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have made four changes, linked above with explanations. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The page reference Israel as a country - it's state as confirmed by UN; the capital is not Jerusalem and the only a hand full of countries recognise it has such; also there is no subheading in "5. Government and politics" for Human Rights. I think it goes without saying the BDS movement and expulsion of journalists (and deaths and blinding of) is an issue which the public need to know about. Israel has broken 48 UN resolutions and are being investigated by ICC for War Crimes - why are these not included on the page? It is not good enough to be mentioned in Israeli-occupied territories - There has been 7 decades of abuses it warrants it's own subheading 'Human Rights. I'm sure the Zionists will not want people to rewrite the history of the Holocaust so have the decency to apply facts with relation to Palestinians. This is a pro-Israel zionist propaganda page and needs to be checked by a neutral 3rd party. PalBrighton (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please describe the changes you would like to see as "Change X to Y", backed up by reliable sources. “WarKosign” 13:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Could someone revert this edit? It's completely unsourced and false. Only Arabic has the status of "recognized language" in Israel, not Yiddish (almost nobody below 80 years old speaks Yiddish in this country anyway!).--Aroma Stylish (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Although the article is not a BLP, and the content is not contentious if it's false and no sources are available to support it, then sure it shall get removed. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 16:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

“Sovereignty over PARTS of Jerusalem has only partial recognition.” Helpfulguy101 (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Helpfulguy101: not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. In other words, be "helpful" and show the exact edit you would make if you edited the article yourself. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Any sensible person not born yesterday knows there is no real controversy, but if no other change is made, then at the very least, it requires citation. And there should be a footnote to another Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ecognition_of_Jerusalem_as_capital_of_Israel

But I feel compelled to ask, if an encyclopedia should source from the international consensus or decontextualize info in a way tantamount to relying on Trump and his ilk for knowledge/accuracy/veracity? Would u look internationally or choose between the Jaish-e-Mohammed and the Indian government when sourcing an article about Kashmir? Would u let Hideki Tojo determine the political map of Asia?

sorry if my reply is in wronh place but this isn't too bad for example, https://www.britannica.com/place/Israel

CapitalofIsrael=TelAviv (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there supposed to be a point in your post? You seem to be unhappy and it seems to be somehow related to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, but I fail to discern the details. “WarKosign” 13:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the change that has been made. Thank you. (If u require further info, please refer to the links I provided.) CapitalofIsrael=TelAviv (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone please revert this. There is no consensus for removing the only specific map on Israel. Of course, the map is far from perfect, but it shows neighboring countries and some of the major cities, which is better than nothing.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done I agree. Removing this map reduces the quality of the article and there was no consensus. Île flottante (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)