Talk:Israel

Long standing issue in lede

For years, the lede has downplayed the Arab history of modern-day Israel, and also its legitimacy.

“ Later rulers included the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great, the Seleucid Empire, the Hasmonean dynasty, and, from 63 BCE, the Roman Republic and later Roman Empire. From the 5th century CE, it was part of the Byzantine Empire, up until the 7th century Rashidun Caliphate's conquest of the Levant. With the First Crusade of 1096–1099, Crusader states were established. Muslim rule was then restored in 1291 by the Mamluk Sultanate, which later ceded the territory to the Ottoman Empire. ”

None of the empire's mentioned are labelled as "conquerers", except, it seems, for the Arab Muslim Rashiduns, who, paradoxically, do not come from a different continent or culture, as do the Romans, Crusaders, etc. If we are going to mention civilizations that have had minimal effect on Palestine's ethnic and cultural make up, namely the Seleucids, then we might as well mention the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid and Ayyubid empires that have had enormous effects living on to this day.

The cherry picking on such an important aspect of any state's history deeply hurts Wikipedia's credibility on a page that is frequented by millions of people every year. There needs to be a discussion here that sets out clear criteria on the civilizations that deserve to be mentioned in this paragraph, and the weight given to each. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Islamic or Arabic history is often rather underplayed in many articles in this area, whether due to active expunging or passive disinterest I do not know. However, lead summaries should be brief, and some of what you mention above has simply come about by way of editors seeking brevity. But yes, objectively, there are almost certainly some issues with due weight and balance. At the same time, there is almost as much an argument to be made that all of this material should be removed as it should be expanded. As for the 'conquering' framing, tweak away! Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, what happened in the 5th century CE was the fall of the Western Roman Empire, one of the two halves which the Roman Empire had been divided into before and after the time of Constantine the Great. "Byzantine Empire" is just a name with which the eastern half of the empire, which continued to exist until the 15th century CE, was later labelled, the name stemming from Byzantium, the original name for Constantinople, the empire's capital. I think, therefore, the statement that the area encompassing modern Israel was part of the Byzantine Empire from the 5th century CE is, at best, misleading. Unless it actually ceased to be under the control of the continuing, eastern half of the Roman empire at some point, it would be truer to say that it remained under the control of the remaining part of the Roman Empire until the "Islamic" invasions.     ←   ZScarpia   12:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The Romans and Byzantines in Palestine were "invaders" and "conquerers" as well. The Byzantine Empire was a continuation of the Roman Empire but it is treated as a separate entity in the literature. The point here remains the same: there is bias in listing and describing the civilizations that ruled over modern-day Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

From the Byzantine Empire article:

"The Byzantine Empire was known to its inhabitants as the "Roman Empire" or the "Empire of the Romans", Romania, the Roman Republic, or in Greek "Rhōmais". The inhabitants called themselves Romaioi, and even as late as the 19th century Greeks typically referred to Modern Greek as Romaiika "Romaic". After 1204 when the Byzantine Empire was mostly confined to its purely Greek provinces, the term 'Hellenes' was increasingly used instead. ... The Libri Carolini published in the 790s made the first mention of the term "Empire of the Greeks", which was an insult first formally attributed to Pope John XIII, with western medieval sources thereafter using the same terminology. This was done to reestablish equal imperial dignity to the Empire of the Franks and what would later become known as the Holy Roman Empire. No such distinction existed in the Islamic and Slavic worlds, where the empire was more straightforwardly seen as the continuation of the Roman Empire. In the Islamic world, the Roman Empire was known primarily as Rûm. The name millet-i Rûm, or "Roman nation," was used by the Ottomans until the 20th century to refer to the former subjects of the Byzantine Empire, that is, the Orthodox Christian community within Ottoman realms."

So ... the labelling started as a Papal insult and was based on Catholic European envy. Non-Orthodox Europeans like to think that the whole Roman Empire ended in the 5th century CE. It's worth remembering that one of the first acts of the "Franks" when the crusades started was to sack Constantinople.

If, as you wrote, the "Byzantines" were invaders and conquerors in Palestine, when did they do that invading and conquering? The 5th century CE, when, according to the current version of the article, Palestine became part of the Byzantine Empire?

    ←   ZScarpia   17:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Just remove all references to conquest, leave rulers and have done with it. This is some serious lead summary minutiae of very little import at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and enacted this. The lead summary shouldn't be getting into how each and every empire came to acquire this land plot. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: You're bloating the lead again with this diff, and blending macro and micro history. Failed revolts, for example, are not historical details that stand shoulder to shoulder with the passage of empires. More ambling prehistory is also far from helpful. The notability of the Hasmonean's semi-independence is debatable. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

For one thing, both sources ("The human habitation of coastal Canaan can be traced back to Paleolithic and Mesolithic times, and excavations have revealed that a settled community and an agricultural way of life existed at the site of Jericho by 8,000 bce."[1])("The southern Levan has been more or less continuously occupied for more than a million years."[2]) directly contradict this sentence: "The land held by present-day Israel saw the earliest traces of the human occupation, and was inhabited by the Canaanites during the Bronze Age." (The sentence it replaced: "Inhabited since the Middle Bronze Age by Canaanite tribes,[20][21] the land held by present-day Israel was once the setting for much of Biblical history, beginning with the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which fell, respectively, to the Neo-Assyrian Empire (c. 720 BCE) and Neo-Babylonian Empire (586 BCE).")     ←   ZScarpia   12:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, there seems to be some clear contradiction. It's also pretty useless without specifying the level of civilization being discussed. If it's the first source that's being preferred here, i.e.: the one referring to urban human occupation in the form of Jericho, well, that's a firmly Palestinian city these days, so wrong article. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the part about earliest occupation, which is simply false and the source doesn't say otherwise. Some question exists of what "human" means; does it include pre-sapiens humans? The next part "inhabited by the Canaanites during the Bronze Age" is a bit silly, they are called Canaanites because they lived in Canaan so it's rather like "America is inhabited by Americans". Zero^talk 13:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources mentioning ancient human remains found in Manot and Misliya caves: [3][4]. On hybridisation - Race (1974), John R Baker, p11: "Very strange facts are revealed when we turn to the Neanderthaloid remains of the mid-Pleistocene found on Mount Carmel, south of Haifa in Israel, and in other parts of Palestine. A considerable number of rather well preserved specimens have been studied in great detail by McCown and Keith. The people who lived in this area at the time were remarkably varied in structure, some of them verging towards the Neanderthal, others towards the early sapiens type, others again intermediate. It was suggested by the American anthropologist C. S. Coon that hybridization between Neanderthal man and sapiens might be the explanation. This view was strongly supported by Dobzhansky, an authority on the origin of species and races." Modern genetic testing has shown that anybody with ancestry outside Africa (if I remember correctly) carries Neanderthal DNA, with the area including modern Israel being a favourite for where the hybridisation with Homo Sapiens took place.     ←   ZScarpia   15:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Source concerned with ancient settlement in the Levant: the examination of the remains of a neolithic shepherd[5].     ←   ZScarpia   11:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

“ A successful Maccabean revolt led to the rise of an independent Hasmonean kingdom, but it was gradually incorporated into the Roman Republic. A series of large-scale Jewish revolts against Roman rule were unsuccessful, and led to wide-scale destruction, a high toll of life, and mass displacement. ”

A series of -objectively- irrelevant and undue historical events that occurred more than 2,000 years ago are given more detail and weight than a macro-historical narration of the lands that make up what is today modern-day Israel. Again, we have to agree on an inclusion criteria, so this discussion doesn't have to keep popping up again every week. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll take advantage of this discussion to leave my opinion, suggestions and a question. Israel is a Jewish state, so it is relevant to mention the Jewish states that existed in the region in the led because it is the legacy of these ancient Jewish states that influenced the creation of modern Israel. The current led is almost perfect. I noticed that the introduction does not mention the name of the land held by present-day Israel, and this makes sense due to the various names that this land has and the polemic with the term Palestine that can confuse the reader. The article avoids citing the name of this land until it mentions Ottoman Syria, a term that can also confuse a lay reader and that I suggest be replaced by Levant, an equivalent term, or just "region". “West Bank and Gaza were held by Jordan e Egypt”, I think it's better to replace this with "were occupied by Jordan and Egypt". “whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement (in 2005) is disputed”, as I have suggested before I think we should put the year in this text. The question: why does the article only mention 260,000 Jews who emigrated or fled from the Arab world to Israel, while the article Jewish exodus from the Muslim world mentions 850,000? Why is that 850,000 not mentioned here? Mawer10 (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Being a Jewish majority state does not mean the state has no non-Jewish history. There's a big difference between mentioning supposedly ancient Jewish kingdoms, and mentioning revolts and their proceedings, in a space that should be taken up by a macro-historical narration. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mawer10 – re your question – this discussion from the archive and this discussion about that number explains the reasoning for the difference in the number; briefly: 260k in the first several years after 1948; the rest came over a longer period of time; LavenderGroves (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to trim the ancient history in the lead a bit further, notably removing the random bible reference: this does not need mentioning here; it is not a pertinent geographical detail. I also trimmed the duplication of the word 'caliphate'. Unfortunately, the remainder is rather tricky to summarize further without loss of fidelity given the long history. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah: If you are going to blanket (rather than a partially) revert the work of other editors (against the guidance of essays such as WP:RV calling for restraint), it would be nice if you could at least dignify your reversions with a response to their explanations on talk as to why their work is so utterly disruptive/vandalistic that this is required. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought your changes were definite improvements, and I'd support restoring them. My only minor quibbles:

• Could we cut "briefly independently" about the Hasmoneans? If so, a comma is needed between them.
• Do we need "only" in "The crusaders were only pushed back"?

Otherwise, it's an obvious concision improvement, with the trimmed detail better discussed in the body (or nowhere, for stuff like "During that period, much of the Hebrew Bible was written"). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, very fair observation. Both of those are adjectival elements the removal of which would only more strictly enforce the summary style. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Eladkarmel: With this edit [6], could you expand on "not an improvement", which is not really a useful edit summary for a specifically full, not partial, revert. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of any follow-up explanation of this revert, I have restored my edit, per a few of the reasons found at WP:BADREVERT, WP:REVERT etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not the largest city in Israel.

Jerusalem is not the largest city in Israel Tel-Aviv is. 67.246.161.112 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It is unless you take the whole Metropolitan area around Tel Aviv Nlivataye (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it is only if you include the population of East Jerusalem, which isnt in Israel. There used to be some clarification about that in the infobox. nableezy - 20:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

And there still is, footnote 2. nableezy - 20:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead paragraphs include the sentence "Israel's treatment of the Palestinians within the occupied territories has drawn accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid"?

Should the lead paragraphs include the sentence "Israel's treatment of the Palestinians within the occupied territories has drawn accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid"?

Note: this drafting is taken from the body of the article (Israel#Israeli-occupied territories), which currently states Israel's treatment of the Palestinians within the occupied territories has drawn accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid by Israeli human rights groups Yesh Din and B'tselem, and other international organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, with the criticism extending to its treatment of Palestinians within Israel as well.[475][476] Amnesty's report was criticized by politicians and government representatives from Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Germany, while it was welcomed by Palestinians, representatives from other states, and organizations such as the Arab League.[477][478][479][480][481][482] A 2021 survey of academic experts on the Middle East found an increase from 59%[483] to 65% of these scholars describing Israel as a "one-state reality akin to apartheid".[484]

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: It is probably the key international relations question of the day for the country, and that the accusations themselves exist is very matter of fact at this point. These accusations are based on very serious reports by both domestic and internationally respected human rights bodies detailing decades of human rights abuses. At present, the term 'human rights' is not even referenced in the lead, and that is probably also an omission - one not made for other countries with deeply checkered human rights records. As for this specific statement on apartheid, I would argue that it is actually required in the lead per WP:NPOV to provide balance to the clearly one-sided and deeply simplified picture currently presented by the obfuscating human development index statistic in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes:, the subject is notable and relevant and deserves to be in the lead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Not yet:, Israel's treatment of Palestinians, and its own Arab citizens, is certainly discriminatory and (in my view) immoral. Even so, there are several problems with the "apartheid" comparison. First, the sources given are mediocre. Amnesty International, which used to have very high reliability, has lost much of it in recent years (see for example the reactions and almost universal condemnation following its report on Ukraine). Second, the apartheid analogy seems to be applied very deliberately to make a point. I don't see any discussion of "apartheid" regarding Turkey's treatment of the Kurds, for example, even though it's even more discriminatory. So using the word "Apartheid" to make a politival point is not suitable. Having said that, I'm all in favour of extending the coverage of Israel's rampant and increasing discrimination of its Arab population. I am also open to revisit the "Apartheid" analogy in a relatively near future in the new extremist government in Israel introduce policies making it more relevant. Jeppiz (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment Amnesty is green at WP:RSP following a recent RFC and a personal opinion that it should not be green is just that, a personal opinion. Thirteen Israeli human rights organizations issued a statement defending Amnesty and the report. In addition, the description as analogy is outdated, the relevant article, Israel and the apartheid analogy has been recently retitled Israel and apartheid which in part reflects that "There is certainly a consensus in the international human rights movement that Israel is committing apartheid." Neither pointy nor political, a well sourced accusation. Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Strong support: This is a claim that is substantiated by several reputable organizations, both Israeli and international. It is already stated in the body and is notable enough to deserve a mention in the lede, as a bare minimum in my opinion. More needs to be mentioned regarding length of occupation, settlement expansion and state violence. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: The phrase "accusations that it is guilty" is awful and POV, and it is missing that the analogy is significantly rejected by multiple governments and groups. Drsmoo (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

With that logic, maybe South Africa wasn't apartheid after all, considering that Israel denied it being so and abstained from condemning its racist system. Governments are not neutral sources, not to mention that not a single pro-Israel government has debated the situation. All they did was reject the apartheid label, they did not give any counterarguments nor elaborations. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear who you're referring to, and "governments are not neutral sources" doesn't make sense. You are besides the point. It is POV pushing to include an accusation and not include the very notable rejections of that accusation. Drsmoo (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

States in strategic alliances always cover their allies backs and therefore dismissals of these claims by allied states are political positions, not judgements of merit. When there is a nigh universal consensus by NGOS that apply the same universal criteria for all instances of human rights that come within their global purview, that Israel is a state that practices ethnic discrimination (I don't imagine Drsmoo would deny that: they deny only the analogy with the historically most egregious state example of the practice), only dissent from within such politically unattached NGOs has any relevance. One could add 'Israel (and some other countries) rejects this.' As it is a lead, all the mechanical details about the US, Germany etc dissenting are for the relevant section, for the simple reason that the US ewt al., like Israel have never once provided counter-evidence of susbstance to disarticulate the evidence on which that conclusion is based.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Rather critically, the proposed statement also does not refer to an analogy; it refers to legal accusations that the bar has been met for the "crime of apartheid" as defined in the Rome Statute. The accusations by NGOs abide by strict legal definitions; they do not reference 'analogy'. I would hope the confusion is an innocent mistake. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a problem to include a statement that the accusations have been denied. If that's what's wanted. Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The only assertion here is the fact that accusations have been made. The veracity of the accusations is not an aspect addressed in the proposed statement. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: I largely agree with the reasoning of Drsmoo. The proposed sentence is poorly written, POV and definitely undue for the lede, although a mention of human rights criticism should probably be in the lede.GreenCows (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Striking comment by blocked sock. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment. That Israel rigorously discriminates against Palestininians in the occupied territories is admitted by all. It is an extension of its ethnocratic foundations. That the point merits inclusion in the lead is almost impossible to dispute because it is an enduring characteristic of Israeli rule there. So the only point for discussion is the phrasing. I would suggest:

'Israel's discriminatory practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories have been increasingly likened by human rights groups to the practice of apartheid.'

Eliminate 'guilty', and attribute apartheid to human rights groups. I don't think, responding to Jeppiz, that we can infer anything about the generic 'reliability' of Amnesty by comparing the reception of its Ukrainian analysis with its extensive, and intensive, decades-long analyses of the occupation of Palestinians. It, like Human Rights Watch, was criticized for decades for refraining from that analogy. Over the last three years, all their reservations have withered in the face of the ongoing logic of events and the insurmontable massing of constent evidence. And the only significant result was that a lobby's financial swing at Harvard succeeded in torpedoing its former head, Kenneth Roth, from taking up a fellowship there, evidence if ever that what dictates the parameters of coverage is an irrational defensiveness about what can and cannot be said regarding Israel. Responsive protests that HRW covers 100 countries, not just Israel, and is equally severe on Israel's adversaries, Jezbollah, Hamas et al., die on their feet. Here we are not dealing with source evidence, but with the tacit pressure - on the principle that Israel's situation is sui generis and therefore cannot be the object of negative comparison- to make a thoroughly documented claim and set of arguments off-topic.Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Comparison between a free and democratic country to murderous terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban is completely absurd. This is really not proof of decency, but the complete opposite. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

All these groups' coverage of the I/P conflict have been far more intensive than their work in the Ukraine. Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I am OK with this. FYI the prior version was drafted a year ago at Talk:Israel/Archive_82#Apartheid_material.

"Likened to" instead of "accusations that it is guilty of", and "practice of" instead of "crime of", I would say are less accurate but also less emotive. So it seems a good compromise. Any suggestions about whether I should amend the RfC proposal would be appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The RFC is really about the principle of the thing, the precise wording can be left to further discussion or even just the usual editing process, I would have thought. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is about endorsing or rejecting a specific formulation. Much needless argufying would be avoided by simply asking if the 'lead should allude to the fact that major human rights groups liken Israeli discrimination against Palestinians to apartheid.' That way, once consensus on that principle emerges, one then tinkers with the right phrasing.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If the wording becomes "likened ... to the practice of" then it is a statement about the decades of analogy, not the Rome Statute accusations. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This shifts the focus of the sentence from the fact that Israel is practicing apartheid against the Palestinian people as characterized by INGOs, to a focus on that INGOs are increasingly viewing Israel to be practicing something that is likened to apartheid. I find this watering down of years of scholarly and humanitarian consensus to be deeply offensive and misleading. It feels as if I am reading "this mass killing of people has been increasingly likened to the practice of massacre"! Really?! Makeandtoss (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, this is not a forum, please read up on WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:RS. Most of your comments, in contrast to everyone else (regardless of their opinion) seem to imply that what you think is fact and should be implemented, and your description of the sources are too often flat out wrong. For example, it is a legitimate opinion that Israel is practicing apartheid; it is not a "fact". Similarly, there is certainly no "consensus" that Israel is practicing apartheid, though there is a considerable and noteworthy body of opinion saying that they do. Jeppiz (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Makeandtoss. What my views (i.e., more or less those of Arnold Toynbee in A Study of History vol.12, and in his interviews in the 70s, that Zionism is a parlous ethnocratic ideology and that the model developed in South Africa suits that framework) are is irrelevant. The evidence for climate change has been sufficiently overwhelming to make that 'factual' for decades, but, thanks to lobbies and political shortsightedness, a consensus took over two decades to emerge. No empirically minded person could entertain reasonable doubts that Israel practices apartheid, but it has taken decades for the obvious to get widespread traction, and anyone hostile to the obvious can cite dozens of sources still denying that. So, since wikipedia stays neutral between conflicting discourses one cannot state the obvious to be a fact until the commentariat comes clean and faces the facts. As Jeppez duly notes, the new government, if it executes what the less embarrassed extremists in its midst propose, will put the nail into the coffin of all of those 'liberals' who hitherto have dutifully swept the fact under the carpet with blanket dismissals of the reality as just a 'subjective' point-of-view, like any other. In the meantime, whatever our private views, however closely documented and analysed, we are under an obligation to adopt neutral language that presupposes that what a state says it is (not) doing and what virtually all independent observers document as what is actually does have to be accorded equal weight, even if the former's spokespersons are probably quite aware that politics and policy require them, like dipèlomats, to lie abroad for their country.Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. WP:VALID: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Makeandtoss (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz this is not a forum indeed, that is why everything I mentioned in my comment was in relation to the RfC's scope, unlike most of your comment which is discussing me as an editor. I said I find, stating my personal opinion as an editor, that this watering down is not acceptable. A well-founded legitimate opinion [of INGOs and scholars] can be said to be a fact. Just like how evolution, which is well-founded [by scientists], is also considered to be a fact. This is not to say that these facts are holy and cannot be challenged, but rather that no one reputable and specialized has challenged them convincingly and gained consensus for them yet. Let's leave semantics and personal motivations aside and focus on what is actually important here. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes:, the subject is notable and relevant and deserves to be in the lead. I would suggest "Israel's discriminatory practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories have been likened by human rights groups to apartheid." (ie losing "the practice of" and possibly "increasingly"). The analogy is just that, an analogy. SA and Israel - and their respective histories - have overlaps but aren't 'identical twins'. Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify once more: the original proposal refers to the legal accusations of the crime of apartheid as defined by the Rome Statute, not analogies. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Um, "likened" is rather understating what the NGOs have said, they are straight up accusations not a comparison. Amnesty "taken together, Israeli practices, including land expropriation, unlawful killings, forced displacement, restrictions on movement, and denial of citizenship rights amount to the crime of apartheid." and HRW ""in certain areas ... these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution." B'tselem "·"the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met." The accusations are also being leveled by UN agencies, world churches and others, it's not just NGOs. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment - problem Looking at some other country articles of notorious human rights offenders, such as China and Turkey, I cannot find anything similar in the ledes. While I'm well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, this is a bit more problematic than that. A rather standard definition of antisemitism is holdingbolag Jews to a different standard. If Wikipedia singled out only Israeli human rights violations, that would seem to match that definition of antisemitism rather exactly. What we would is a broader discussion about whether and how to include serious human rights violations in country article ledes or not (and I'm in favour of doing it, both for Israel and for a China, Turkey and others). Jeppiz (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Jeppiz. That is a known hasbara gambit, I'm afraid. In the cases you instance, both China and Turkey have assimilationist ideologies that apply to all the inhabitants of the area they declare to be under their sovreignty. Uyghurs and Tibetans must become Han Chinese, intermarry preferable and forget their languages. Kurds within Turkey must recognize themselves as Turks. Further both discriminated are small minorities within the states. Israel's human rights situation is radically different: They have effect control over a population equal to their own, discriminate 'moderately' (fiscally, and in intermarriage and planning) against Israeli Palestinians, but have consistently applied inexorable, harsh policies of deracination, underdevelopment, indiscriminate killing etc., against half of the population of the area that lacks Jewish ethnicity. The figures mean that Israel cannot properly be defined without reference to the reality of apartheid on which the security of the state is perceived to be predicated (most of its massive defense forces are confined to controlling that 'internal proletariat' with the wrong genes). And, please mind your language. 'holding Jew to a different standard'? One holds Israel to the same standard as that by which we judge all human right abusers, and Jews, as opposed to Israeli governments that arrogate to themselves the specious claim to represent all Jews, have always been in the forefront of those affirming the UN declaration of 1946 to be the benchmark. Again, all of this is in Toynbee, writing 60 years ago.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

::Agree. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Editor with less than 500 edits not qualified to participate here.Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

While I cannot speak to the situation on the China and Turkey pages, examples exist: Iran and Saudi Arabia both feature statements about human rights. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Did this just turn into a WP:FORUM while I wasn't paying attention? Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hardly. Apart from this comment you just made, every comment discusses how to deal with human rights violations in the lede, wouldn't you agree? Jeppiz (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Antisemitism allegations are out of place here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Selfstudier, I see your point now. Perhaps I was unclear: I had no intention whatsoever to allege any antisemitism in this discussion, and I believe arguing for the inclusion of the sentence is a perfectly valid point of view. My comment referred to how it might be read, although the comments by Iskandar323 and Onceinawhile make it clear that risk is much less of a problem. Jeppiz (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I just checked Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea - all have serious human rights violations in the lead. South Africa's lead mentions apartheid four times. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Iskandar323 and Onceinawhile. In the ideal case, a cross-country article discussion could be good rather than a case by case. To reiterate my own position, O fully support addressing Israeli human rights violations in the lede; I am a bit hesitant regarding the use of Apartheid in Wiki-voice. Jeppiz (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The first line of Israel and apartheid says "The Israeli government is accused of committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, charges the state and its supporters deny." That's been sitting there for a while, something wrong with that? Selfstudier (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

From a purely semantic perspective, with some implications for how it's read, it's poorly worded. The sentence presents two passive affirmations, with an imbalance between them as the first one doesn't make it clear who the chargers are, while the second lists the defenders. So if you ask if I find any fault with the content - no, I don't. If you ask if I think it's a well-written sentence, I don't - but I wouldn't start a discussion just over semantics. Jeppiz (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

:::This needs a wiki wide approach. If mentioned in some and not others it's a recipe for conflict. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Editor with less than 500 edits not qualified to participate here.Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Undue weight on a theory that has been gaining territory on leftwing circles but that is not mainstream and that is highly disputed, which would at the very least require mentioning the opposing side as well. The inclusion of that line would not be NPOV.

...But on the matter of human rights though, maybe it would be interesting to mention in the lede that Israel doesn't treat women like second-class citizens and doesnt kill gays like neighboring countries do (including Palestine). –Daveout(talk) 21:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Might want to get off that soapbox. nableezy - 21:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Individual, isolated actions and actions perpetrated by the State itself, as a policy, are not comparable. Sorry. In the West killing gays is a crime; In Palestine, being gay is the crime. A tad different. –Daveout(talk) 22:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Lets see how long that lasts. Didnt expect to see such a blatant example of pinkwashing a human rights record, but all the same, please try to stay on topic here. nableezy - 22:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It's probably enough just to say that Israel's policies in the occupied territories have been likened to apartheid.Achar Sva (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• No For a subject as broad as a country, "accusations" are highly unlikely to be WP:UNDUE in any lead. Also, Israel's terrorism problem, which is obviously not just accusations, and in general has much more sourcing that these accusations, is not in the lead. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• I dont necessarily think that either we need apartheid in the lead or that this needed to be an rfc. We do need something on Israel's human rights record and the sustained condemnation in its policies wrt to the occupation. That is certainly lead worthy. Do the now few year old formal charges by leading human rights organizations need to be in the lead? Meh, not really imo. But I think it a better use or peoples time to figure out how to address the criticism of the treatment of the Palestinians than it is to quibble over this or that specific charge against Israel. Why not condemnations on deportations or targeted killings or collective punishment or disproportionality or any of the hundred other war crimes Israel is accused of committing? Just cover the whole thing, not just one aspect of it. nableezy - 03:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  That is the whole point. The crime of apartheid encompasses "systemic oppression" and the "denial of many basic human rights", so allows for efficient summary communication. I believe that to ask for much more than this, i.e. to spell everything out in detail in the lede, would end up being undue in the wider context. Can you draft what you have in mind so we can assess this? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Comment. Onceinawhile's objection to Nableezy's point is cogent. We don't need elaboration in the lead of the details. The only objection to the relevance of the list of apartheid like practices given in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is that regarding compulsory corvée labour. Secondly, we would only be stating that the major global NGOs have made the comparison. From the initial suggestion, a good deal of compromise has been accepted to meet objections, but going beyond these to elide the fact that the apartheid claim has been made would effectively gut the proposal, as desired by the few editors who object to anything like this obvious and significant element in Israel's exercise of its statehood.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would include something like Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violations of international human rights law against the Palestinians, and human rights organizations have accused Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Could include a listing of those, including apartheid. Apartheid doesnt even cover the most severe accusations against Israel, so I dont even get why people are agitating for it to be added over say unlawful killings and forced displacements. nableezy - 23:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes but as I suggested in the RFCbefore, the root causes are now said to lie in permanent occupation/de facto annexation as well as the discrimination ("...enshrined a system of domination by Israelis over Palestinians that could no longer be explained as the unintended consequence of a temporary occupation" Michael Lynk, the previous rapporteur, per the NYT source above). Yes the specific charge of apartheid is important but I would myself prefer wording in the lead that incorporates the broader views of the UN rapporteurs and investigators given subsequent to the Amnesty, HRW, B'tselem (apartheid) reports.Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, it's a fundamental part of their history and past and current politics. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope, notable accusations of apartheid are fairly recent and currently popular only within a "political bubble". By highlighting these accusations in the lede, even if it's for a noble cause (bringing awareness for the harsh situation of Palestinians), it would only fuel the already well know left wing Wikipedia bias and diminish its credibility even more. We should make an effort to be balanced and as neutral as possible. –Daveout(talk) 17:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

We should make an effort to be balanced and as neutral as possible We should indeed. Interesting that you argue a reduced credibility for WP by citing WP? Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Even wikipedia itself recognizes its biases. It speaks volumes Indeed. –Daveout(talk) 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, with the reservation that the language be tweaked, per several suggestions above. The state of Israel has an historical span of 74 years, 18 of which saw its Palestinian citizens placed under military law, and 55 of which have witnessed the grinding occupation, theft, settlement in or strangulation of, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank with its 165 programmatic bantustans, all attesting to an enduring principle of ethnocratic rule to the disadvantage of Palestinians, as numerous Israeli scholars recognize.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

While we can talk about ethnocentric privilege when talking about Jews in Israel (since race and culture are intermingled in that case), we should not forget to mention that Palestinian societies are theocratic (having the Quran as their constitution) which is just as bad or worse than an ethnic privilege; Palestinian theocrats heavily discriminate against other minorities includind their brothers in faith, the Shias. I thought this was worth mentioning. Should we really point fingers at Israel when Palestinian authorities and governments are doing worse? –Daveout(talk) 18:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to add appropriately sourced material to the relevant articles, this one is about Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Since the beginning of the apartheid accusation in Israel, the world's western democracies, neutral scholarship and mainstream media sources regarded it as at best untrustworthy and morally wrong (and failing to recognize what apartheid really is), and at worst as a biased narrative propagated by radical leftist organizations for advancing their own solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which opposes Israel's own designation as a Jewish state and calls for its replacement with something else. If this passes, it will signal that this really amazing project, which - once reliable - has been unfortunately plagued by ideological prejudices and BDS propaganda in recent years, has now fully caved in and subscribed to the pro-Palestinian, or may I say anti-Israeli, radical-left view. Tombah (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Tombah: So where do the world's (as well as Israel's) most respected human rights organizations fit along the "radical leftist organizations" spectrum? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment You write of 'neutral scholarship' denying the analogy. Those who support the comparison are, implicitly, 'untrustworthy'. Well, if someone acts on that, you'll find that 60% of US scholars of the Middle East will be purged from tenure, and the world's foremost Indologist, David Dean Shulman of Hebrew University, who has spent every Saturday for two decades helping harassed people in the West Bank and documenting their plight (unlike those who write or read the 'mainstream press'), is due for forced retirement for making precisely this analogy.

Sixty per cent of academics and scholars in Middle Eastern studies across several American universities have described Israel's occupation of Palestine as "a one state reality akin to apartheid," a new survey shows.

When writing earlier of scholarly views, I had these and many other examples in mind. We use the mainstream press only as a makeshift until we have coverage from specialist scholarly sources.Nishidani (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Could I ask Daveout to stop all the forum-talk about what Palestinians are doing? It is entirely irrelevant. It is perfectly possible for both Israelis and Palestinians to behave appallingly (and in this outsider's opinion, that is what both do) so all these arguments yesterday and today to shift focus from the matter at hand to instead discuss "Palestinians and gays" (yesterday) or "Palestinian theocracy" (today) are starting to look downright disruptive. The discussion here is about whether to include a sentence about apartheid in the lede, any other discussion is off-topic. Jeppiz (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Comments striken. –Daveout(talk) 21:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support, some years ago there was only a trickle of sources which mentioned "Israel" and "apartheid" in the same sentence. Today that trickle has become more like a flood; more than enough to merit mentioning in the lead, Huldra (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose it's not RS and BIAS. Claims from Amnesty or HRW regarding Israel should not be used considering they are not reliable and biased. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Joseph: Sorry, that there exists a state of apartheid is what you are referring to here. However, that there have now been 'accusations' of the crime of apartheid is surely quite beyond doubt with respect to reliable sources? Other words that have been used include claims and charges, but "accusation" has been used, among other sources, by the Times of Israel [7], [8] and Jewish Chronicle [9]. I am eager to have your input on how these two sources in particular are unreliable and injecting bias into their stories through this simple factual reporting. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Amnesty is biased and cannot be considered a source. It is also a double standard, as there is no precedent in other countries accused of apartheid Dovidroth (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Dovidroth Amnesty is not a source. Reliable, secondary sources reporting on the accusations are the sources. And no, firsts are not double standards.Iskandar323 (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree on any of the sources being credible. And yes, there is double standard here; there are many countries that have serious human rights violations who do not get singled out. Dovidroth (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Any source that disagrees with your POV is biased or not credible? That doesn't sound like a NPOV. The argument about a double standard makes no sense as well as being unsourced. What other country accused of apartheid is treated differently and by who? Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no substance in the charge of bias or unreliability, so editors should try to avoid harping on this. Both Amnesty and HRW baulked from using this term for two decades even as substantial evidence emerged that the SA Bantustan example informed the thinking of major figures in the political and planning establishment (See Palestinian enclaves). Both held out until the foremost Israeli NGO B’tselem adopted it as the proper term. So we have strong prima facie evidence that Amnesty and HRW’s late conclusion, rather than being biased, was, rather, traditionally biased against the use of the term until the evidential mountain toppled their reserve. They dropped plying the worry beads of political ramifications.

If one insists they are biased, then one should first read Human Rights Watch Report 217 pages (2) Amnesty International Report 278 pages, I,e, 495 pages of evidence and analysis by the two major human rights organizations on this planet and then come up with a secondary source which meticulously addresses that evidence and shows strong cause for concluding that both have tampered with and distorted the evidence. Otherwise, an opinion is neither here nor there, just an echo of the official Israeli government line of (spluttering) outrage at being 'smeared', even as the PM asserts, as of yesterday, that Jews the world over alone have exclusive rights to all the land in historic Palestine, the word 'exclusive meaning its traditional population has no right, and therefore is squatting on other people's property. That is very SouthAfricanist. Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of the "Jewish" press, up to and including (at least the last time I looked) Arutz Sheva, is counted as reliable in Wikipedia terms, as are organisations involved in lobbying on behalf of Israel such as the ADL. Would you regard those as problematically biased (though bias isn't normally a disqualification from being regarded as reliable, except, apparently, in the case of sites such as The Electronic Intifada).     ←   ZScarpia   16:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• No. As others have said, the words 'guilty' and 'crime' are biased. I support Nishidani's more neutral phrasing: 'Israel's discriminatory practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories have been increasingly likened by human rights groups to the practice of apartheid.' 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Ficaia: The term 'crime' is not biased; it is the required technically accurate terminology for the proposed statement, which pertains to accusations of guilt of the specific "crime of apartheid" as defined by the Rome Statute. Nishidani's proposed phrasing entails a broadening of the statement to refer to general comparisons to "apartheid"-like practices. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. It is the only country in modern history since South Africa that other fully-recognized countries, full UN-members have officially classified as an Apartheid state, and the only country since South Africa that all top Human Rights NGOs - both internationally and within the country itself - have labeled as "Apartheid". Not having it in the lead is obviously partial. Dan Palraz (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Regarding the interplay between occupation and apartheid, ToI reports that Navi Pillay...called apartheid "a manifestation of the occupation" and "We’re focusing on the root cause which is the occupation and part of it lies in apartheid". The Commission of Inquiry's two reports through October 2022 have not addressed the apartheid issue to date, "We think a comprehensive approach is necessary so we have to look at issues of settler colonialism," and "Apartheid itself is a very useful paradigm, so we have a slightly different approach but we will definitely get to it." Whereas the October 2022 report of the UN rapporteur calls for the UN General Assembly to "develop a plan to end the Israeli settler-colonial occupation and apartheid regime". These sources (and there are others) link occupation and apartheid together and I see no reason why we should not do the same. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, but I think that dropping "that it is guilty of the crime of" would be a major improvement as would Nishidani's proposed phrasing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

*Oppose Not supported by reliable sources and does not fit with WP:NPOV.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read the thread, where it is established that RS sources have made that accusation. NPOV does not mean eliding any reference to criticism, it means balancing different evaluative views with due weight.

• Comment - um Amnesty International already has consensus for being a reliable source. See this RFC that established a consensus for it to be a generally reliable source. Beyond that, the sources for the accusations are pretty much every single newspaper that covers the region in any depth at all. The not supported by reliable sources argument is just bunk and should be entirely ignored by any closer as being patently untrue. nableezy - 17:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I like Nableezy's reformulation of the text (above at 23:57, 8 January 2023) but I would insist on replacing human rights organizations have accused Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which is too vague, with ...accused Israel of the crime of apartheid. The crime of apartheid has received a fairly precise definition in the Rome Statute and human rights associations refer to this legal concept when they accuse Israel of committing the crime of apartheid. I think we should do the same, as the concept expresses in a concise and effective way the meaning that Amnesty International and other human rights organisations intended to convey (widespread human rights violations + institutionalized and systematic oppression by one racial group over another). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  The point of that sentence is that apartheid is not the only war crime or crime against humanity Israel has been accused of. Thats just one in a list. Sure, include it in the list of them. But to me this focus on apartheid disregards all the other things that human rights organizations and supranational entities have documented over decades. nableezy - 20:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  I get it. But my point is that the concept of appartheid encompasses and summarises the other crimes Israel has been accused of in the past, adding an important (and obviously controversial) element to these accusations. On the other hand, your "all the other things that human rights organizations and supranational entities have documented over decades" seems to be conveyed by the first part of the sentence you suggested, Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violations of international human rights law against the Palestinians. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Re the concept of appartheid encompasses and summarises the other crimes Israel has been accused of in the past, it absolutely does not. Apartheid has nothing to do with disproportionality or collective punishment or arbitrary killings or diversion of water resources or expulsions or or or or. Apartheid is one crime, one of many that Israel is accused of. And it does not even begin to encompass the other, more serious, charges against it. nableezy - 21:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Apartheid has very much to do with collective and disproportionate punishment, arbitrary killing, etc. I suggest you have a look at how the crime is defined in the Rome Statute (article 7(2)(h)), in particular the notion of "inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1". Paragraph 1 includes murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment, torture, persecution and "other inhumane acts". Really, it's all-encompassing and basically includes all crimes against humanity. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, each of those is their own crime against humanity, see that same paragraph one that lists what the crimes of humanity include, of which the crime of apartheid is just one in the list. And they dont speak to war crimes like disproportionality. nableezy - 01:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Then again all the things you mention would be present to the reader if one simply linked. I.e., 'Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories where what you mention is given detailed coverage. Of course that means the reader would be able to click on the link for clarification and if they do so, we just leave it to the reader to decide whether that lengthy summary of what is done to Palestinians is criminal, or just a self-defensive set of necessary measures to ward off an existential threat to the state posed by a squatter horde of antisemitic terrorists. Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You mean there are reliable sources that support the same kind of sentence proposed in this rfc ? Sorry but on my end never seen such a source, maybe i'm mistaken though.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I already gave "A United Nations special rapporteur has accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid in the occupied territories, joining a growing group of international, Israeli and Palestinian rights watchdogs that have sought to recast the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a struggle for equal rights instead of a territorial dispute." Have a look at the Israel and apartheid article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

References

• Oppose The lede should summarise the article so probably it should say something about the situation with human rights but the proposed addition only talks about the accusations of apartheid. There are plenty of other violations of human rights, so it's not clear why mention just one of them. Also, we should adhere to WP:NPOV and avoid giving undue weight to the (real) problems. For example the lede of Egypt article mentions "poor human rights record" without going into details. Alaexis_¿question? 21:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. First of all, is it a fair summary of any large sub-section of the page, even such as Israel#Further_conflict_and_peace_process? I do not think so. Secondly, I think the leads of pages about countries should focus on indisputable factual info rather than any "accusations" that have been disputed, or can be disputed by definition. If it were a matter of fact and framed as a fact in the text (as for Nazi Germany), rather than merely an accusation, I would support. My very best wishes (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is a terse summary of a substantial subsection, namely here. It is, secondly, a fact that the foremost human rights organizations in the world have accused Israel of practices akin to Apartheid, and I would think it reasonable to say that half of the press coverage I for one read deals with aspects of this single feature. Israeli readers come across such material every day in their local newspapers.Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this section is properly summarized already in 4th paragraph of the lead, i.e. Israel has since fought wars with several Arab countries... However, the "crime of apartheid" appears only in the last very short paragraph of the linked section. While adding the suggested phrase in the end of 4th paragraph of the lead (RfC does not say it) is not entirely unreasonable, I would say "no" simply based on the lack of significant coverage of apartheid on the page Israel. My very best wishes (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I added material to the article body to meet this objection. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that you added some content from the lead of page Israel and apartheid. I do not know if there is WP:consensus for such inclusion. I would say your addition is a content fork and creates a repetitive text. In addition, as I said above, this is just a matter of opinion and advocacy (yes, by human rights organizations), not a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more material re apartheid so I provided some. It is not just NGO's, it's multiple UN sources, world churches, along with many countries. Even Harvard Law School. That there are accusations is a fact and that's what the RFC is about not whether apartheid itself is a fact. Not that I have any expectation of changing your stance, I just want to point up the inaccuracies in your position. Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

A content fork is a more than a snippet of repeated text. Israel and apartheid contains 10,500 words of prose: 300 words here is hardly undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the accusations are a fact. But the apartheid in Israel is more like a controversy. The discrimination is also probably a fact, but it is not the same as apartheid. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Its an interesting question as to how and in what circumstances does discrimination rise to the level of apartheid but again, we are not trying to determine the answer to that question in this RFC. Also your phrasing "apartheid in Israel" appears to discount the fact of the occupied territories which are not in Israel and the fact of Israeli settlers who are also not in Israel but treated as if they were. Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is exactly the question if the discrimination rises to the level of apartheid. But this brings yet another issue with RfC wording. Why the Palestinian citizens of Israel have been omitted, even though they are described as alleged victims of apartheid in the text of the page? My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Well it is not a problem to omit PCoI per se. Not sure which page you are referring to but if you mean Israel and apartheid then yes, some reports, notably Amnesty's, extend the accusation to Israel proper whereas all reports agree on the term being applicable in the territories. Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I refer to this page ("with the criticism extending to its treatment of Palestinians within Israel..."). But no more comments from me here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

So from the article body here but that is not inconsistent with adding the RFC proposed phrasing into the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm more amazed by the idea of discrimination in the context being something merely "probable" - a fairly mind boggling axiom. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I said "probably a fact" just to be careful. OK, that's a fact.My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• No. The lead is for hard facts, not accusations. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be some elementary confusion as to what 'fact'means. (a) an empirical fact - the world is round (b) a fact as '"Israel's treatment of the Palestinians within the occupied territories 'has drawn accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid. This is a factual statement - that accusations has emerged among authoritative bodies. One should not confuse the fact that such an accusation has been made, with the 'subjective' viewpoint constituted by the accusation itself. They are quite distinct.

There appears to be a pattern or correlation on wiki in reporting in the lead details about human rights abuses. The greater the distance from Western geopolitical alliances, the greater the details. Conversely, the stronger the identity of interests, the lower the interest in reporting human rightgs abuses. The United States of America mentions only elliptically the core realities of extermination and expropriation suffered by the original population, and the central role of slave labour in the growth of that countrtyìs economy.Mark Stelzner, Sven Beckert, “The Contribution of Enslaved Workers to Output and Growth in the Antebellum United States,”

Other countries comparison

Compare Egypt Egypt's current government, a semi-presidential republic led by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has been described by a number of watchdogs as authoritarian or heading an authoritarian regime, responsible for perpetuating the country's poor human rights record. Syria Assad his regime have been condemned for numerous human rights abuses, including frequent executions of citizens and political prisoners, massive censorship[18][19] and for financing a multi-billion dollar illicit drug trade.. Syria was ranked last on the Global Peace Index from 2016 to 2018,[22] making it the most violent country in the world due to the war.-/blockquote> Iran The Iranian government is authoritarian, and has attracted widespread criticism for its significant constraints and abuses against human rights and civil liberties,[30][31][32][33] including several violent suppressions of mass protests, unfair elections, and limited rights for women and for children. It is also a focal point for Shia Islam within the Middle East, countering Saudi Arabia The state has attracted criticism for a variety of reasons, including its role in the Yemeni Civil War, alleged sponsorship of Islamic terrorism and its poor human rights record, including the excessive and often extrajudicial use of capital punishment.[30] Russia Since the turn of the century, Russia's political system has been dominated by Vladimir Putin, under whom the country has experienced democratic backsliding and a shift towards authoritarianism. Russia has been involved militarily in a number of post-Soviet conflicts, which has included the internationally unrecognised annexations of Crimea in 2014 from neighbouring Ukraine and four other regions in 2022 during an ongoing invasion. International rankings of Russia place it low in measurements of human rights and freedom of the press; the country also has high levels of perceicorruption. China It ranks among the lowest in measurements of democracy, civil liberties, government transparency, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and human rights of ethnic minorities. The Chinese authorities have been criticized by human rights activists and non-governmental organizations for human rights abuses, including political repression, mass censorship, mass surveillance of their citizens, and violent suppression of protest and dissent.

Note that while not given the teflon treatment we reserve for ourselves and close geopolitical allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia's lamentable records are subjectivized whereas similar abuses in our geopolitical adversaries are written up as objective facts. I happen to think that violent abuses are massively documnted for all of these countries, and as such are facts. I assume the glaring disparity between subjective and objective descriptions reflects the interests, cultural background (occidental) and political passions of editors, rather than the imposition of a coherent cross-article set of neutral principles.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the "violent abuses are massively documented for all these 6 countries, and as such are facts", absolutely. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

As they are for Israel's rule over the territories since 1967, a 55 year span more minutely documented for its violation of international conventions than those other cases. So what we agree on is that the violent abuses in all 7 cases are 'facts', but that the several UN rapporteur, B'tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International determinations since 2019 that this pattern closely resembles the apartheid model, being grounded in thoroughly analysed realities on the ground, wideluy reported in the Israeli press and informed by a rigorously ethnic system of separation and dispossession, a model long appraised explicitly as suitable for Greater Israel/the Land of Israel by strategists like the PM Ariel Sharon, and underwritten by the majority of American scholars specializing in the MIddle East, is not significant enough to be mentioned even as a claim in the lead, though it is outlined in a subsection? If so, then we are insisting on a far higher bar for inclusion of such material for, uniquely, Israel.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You are making substantial and valid arguments here, and admittedly, I am not that much familiar with this subject. But I think that Israel is simply not in the same league in terms of committed atrocities, persecution, and the lack of democracy/basic human rights as Iran, Syria, Russia or China. Not even close. My very best wishes (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarification for MVBW I thoroughly agree. The art of comparison is heuristic for not only drawning analogies but, once made, eliciting the differences. I was not comparing Israel and the other countries. If one classifies Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afganistan under the category of fundamentalist countries, the point of convergence is their shared underwriting of a theology of rigorous doctrinal originalism, after which they differ in much else. Two, as Ernest Gellner theorized, subscribe to the notion that doctrinal primitivism is not incompatible with a hyper-technological modernity (China just replaces lipservice to a canonical authority like Marx, with an archaic Confucian gloss, to the same end, and of course chucks out the islamicist obsession with gender role differentiation). Israel is a democracy, in the avant-garde of technological developèment, a close strategic ally unlike those others (and so far intelligently reserves a tolerance space for fundamentalists while roping them off from attempts to rewrite the secular state). Any Western visitor can immediately feel absolutely at home travelling around and enjoying the suburban secular comforts of modern life, and fit in to a thriving social and cultural milieu not unlike New York. The analogy made regards strictly the concepts of the historic 'other', which vary on a sliding scale to 'light' distinctions within to extreme, almost theologically intolerant separativeness without (in the occupied territories). An Israeli Palestinian has the full protection of Israeli law: a Palestinian without has no such redress, being subject to military law, which in practice means Rafferty's rules or no rules at all. In comparativist theorizing, to borrow a line from Anna Karenina, 'All families (constituents of a set) are alike, but every member of any family (category) is different in its own way.'

I believe abstract concepts like states or societies or 'ethnic' groups are intrinsically dangerous, to be used with great caution, because they betray the complexities of each case by facile stereotyping. To state that practices adopted to regulate Palestinians in their territories are likened to Apartheid doesn't allow one to infer that the two cases (Israel/South Africa) are interchangeable. It only highlights one feature, while ignoring all of the historic differences between the two. Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! No, according to my understanding (and as outlined on page Israel and apartheid) it is asserted that the apartheid in South Africa and Israel was similar if not essentially the same. This is a very strong accusation.My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of the recent sources go out of their way to emphasize that they are not comparing the Israeli case with South Africa, the situation you describe was the case until the early 200o's and began to shift thereafter. Example "https://www.timesofisrael.com/amnesty-accuses-israel-of-apartheid-both-inside-country-and-in-west-bank-gaza/ "In a report unveiled in Jerusalem, the group [Amnesty] did not directly compare Israel to apartheid South Africa, but said it was evaluating Israel’s policies based on international conventions." Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Be serious -- this is just WP:UNDUE highlighting a fringe use of a sensationalist WP:LABEL from an advocacy group. It seems clearly just sensationalist hyperbole and posturing, we should not be saying 'crime or' here when the situation is not literally apartheid and there is no trial for a 'crime' here or charge from a legal body, and apartheid is not even a literal criminal charge. This particular phrasing is not a large part of external coverage so lacks the WP:WEIGHT for much to be here and specifically since it is not a large part of the article it does not suit the guideline WP:LEAD for placement in the lede. The majority of serious criticisms seem to not use such wording so put in the more common phrasings or some neutrally phrased summary that there is criticism. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Joy. More absent subject familiarity. From the perspective of the human rights groups (plural) it is 'literally apartheid' in the "crime of apartheid" sense. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  User:Iskandar323 what I said remains mostly correct, though thank you for the additional information and link. It is not literally apartheid and there is no legal charge of apartheid, this is just about some sensationalist hyperbole and posturing by advocacy groups that is not the majority of criticisms nor actual legal proceedings.

I appreciate the additional info that the Rome Statute 11 types of Crimes against Humanity has proposed "apartheid", prefaced unlike the others to be "crime of apartheid". However, the proposal is not about that -- it is about statements by HRW (and others) outside of those. That I said 'literally' apartheid was to emphasize the use seems a sensationalizing WP:LABEL use here when factually it is not the South African program Apartheid and/or an Israeli official program named "apartheid". Your link does show the posturing to be a form of criminal accusation, again not an actual legal proceeding and the articles of Rome statute and Crime of apartheid mention significant lacks in ratification by the UK, Canada, United States, China, Russia, Australia, etcetera, so I would not say this is accepted and officially a 'crime' despite the impression given by the name of article titling starts 'crime of' because that is the phrase in discussion. I have even seen mention this clause is not legally tenable (e.g. here and here). There seems a similar past "We Charge Apartheid" (e.g. here or here or here). But all of these are not a major portion of the article nor how a majority of the criticism is phrased so the proposal just does not suit lede position per WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There's definitely some posturing going around, must be catching. Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Selfstudier - Posturing is an advocacy groups job. But the WP editing point is we should not put the proposed line into lede because that would be WP:UNDUE highlighting and contrary to guideline WP:LEAD, whether it is about an advocacy groups posturing or something else with those issues. Externally, WP:UNDUE against making this prominent as there is a lot of reporting about Palestinian treatment, but the WP:WEIGHT is without the phrase 'crimes of apartheid'. WP:LEAD guidance to summarize the article is also against it as this is not a major portion of the article, it is from just a single line in the body and flawed by losing the context of it being advocacy groups making the statement with major nations opposing it, plus adding a link accusations that it is guilty to a wider article not about the body section. Seriously, I urge restraint and caution about leading with content about labels, sensationalism, and crimes. I would also suggest the body this is related to could use some actual content about the treatment and events (e.g. 2014) instead of just being about what phrasing HRW uses to posture about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The entire point of the 52,000-word HRW report, and why it was called "A Threshold Crossed", is because the HRW's crack teams of international human rights lawyers have determined that the weight of evidence has reached the point at which, in their legal opinion, the qualification of the crime of apartheid has been met. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Iskandar323 - you are flogging a two year old paper of no WP:WEIGHT from a source that is not the authority of a court which has not led to a legal proceeding or any other significant consequences. This does nothing to address my stated reasoning it would be WP:UNDUE to mention it in the lead, let alone as the proposal is phrased. Also that paper or phrase is not a large portion of the article so again it is not suitable for the lede summary per WP:LEAD. The article could objectively mention “occupation” of Palestine and “criticism” of the treatment of Palestinians “human rights”, and as an aside to this RFC I think it would be good if the article actually detailed specifics of real world actions and what norms of Palestinian treatment has been, as widely covered to suit WP:WEIGHT. But the proposed language is not appropriate for the lede. Be serious folks, obviously UNDUE and inappropriate per LEAD, and just be more restrained with content about labels, sensationalism, and crimes. There is meaningful stuff to say but this proposal is not a good way to go. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The RFC proposal doesn't even mention HRW so this another irrelevancy. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Pretty ridiculous assertion that one of the leading human rights organization has no weight on the subject of human rights. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Iskandar323 Oh, that the “crime of” phrase and associated HRW paper of April 2021 item has no significant WP:WEIGHT is pretty clearly a simple fact. In Wikipedia policy WEIGHT is prominence in external coverage, and if you go looking at bbc.com or theglobeandmail.com or pick your own major sources you’ll likely find any of them have scores or hundreds (or thousands) of pieces on Israeli occupation, but that mention of the phrase is just once in April 2021 HRW they have a piece reporting HRW said the phrase. The phrase is simply not the typical or even common usage so by WEIGHT it does not belong much (or at all) in the article, and lede prominence is WP:UNDUE. I think you understand my input based on facts and WP policy+guidances, but if you actually have a question about my input, feel free to ask me. Otherwise, just let it be. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What a load of clap. Your input is entirely questionable. "Crime of apartheid" is a set phrase in international law. You cannot speak technically about the accusation of the crime, as defined in the Rome Statute of the ICC in 2002, without it. To not use the word "crime" is to blur boundaries between the offense, as defined in international law, and the decades of analogistic references made to 'Apartheid' with a capital 'A' (South African Apartheid) in the decades before that. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The description 'advocacy groups' is misleading in its cheap confusion. The several groups who have made this interpretation researching the vast evidence, which on wikipedia we document here and here, have no known or effective lobbying power, unlike the bodies who protest that designation. They simply fulfill their remit of analysing and making known the results of their inquiries into human rights abuses, from Iceland to Israel, Pakistan to Palestine, wherever. Of course, since we are talking of violations of fundamental human rights as set forth by a foundational document for modern states, they accompany their work with a plea for a restitution of denied rights. If that is 'advocacy' it is not advocacy as practiced generally by pressure groups. A second point is that, if you, unlike the majority of denialist editors opposing this here for months, examine the documentation of those two articles, you will see that the majority of it comes from Jewish(Israeli scholars, i.e. from within Israel or those who are deeply attached to that country. Within Israeli discourse in Hebrew, there is no problem in using the term Hafrada to describe the principles of separation Israel seeks to implement and maintain. It is the Hebrew word for apartheid. Apparently, the different sound means the concepts must differ. Finally, a majority commenting here think we may best resolve this by remodulating the proposed phrasing. Since there is no doubt that for 57 years Israeli has rigorously pursued separation/hafrada policies as part of its occupational regime, in such an intensive way, and dedicates most of its state military budget to the occupation, it is difficult to deny that this principle of hafrada/apartheid is one of the principle exigencies of the state and requires attention in the lead. Nishidani (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Nishidani UNDUE and LEAD is not affected by disliking some noting HRW is an advocacy group. I think your mention of “hafrada” (e.g. hafrada wall) would be a good informative add to the article body though. That phrase would be specific, objective, neutral, and factual with sources on all sides, and be in the body as appropriate to its external WEIGHT. As contrasted to the proposal here of a sensationalist phrase being flogged for inappropriately high placement. As an aside, ‘advocacy group’ is simply factual, in particular note line 1 of Human Rights Watch and their own self-descriptions. Any advocacy group, noble or not, works by posturing and their phrases simply do not have the authority of a legal body. For any source though, something that is not a phrasing used by most means by WP:WEIGHT that the article should give it little or no space, and when an article has given something little space WP:LEAD guidance says it is not suitable for the lede. The guidelines might have their issues, but they are what they are. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Are the UN, three world churches and multiple countries all posturing too? I have a sneaking suspicion that if the ICJ (or CERD) says it is so, there will immediately be charges of "posturing", blah, blah, blah just as there was with the WB barrier finding. So you will forgive me if I have little faith in such shopworn argumentation. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

(Hafrada)' would be specific, objective, neutral, and factual with sources on all sides. . .contrasted to the proposal here of a sensationalist phrase (apartheid)

(a) neither 'hafrada' or 'apartheid' are 'phrases'. They are words.

(b)It is shooting yourself in the foot to claim a Hebrew word is 'neutral' whereas a word in English with an almost identical meaning is 'sensationalist. Evidence?

'The Hebrew term Hafrada is the official descriptor of the policy of the Israeli Government to separate the Palestinian population of the territories occupied by Israel from the Israeli population, . . .The term Hafrada has striking similarities with the term apartheid, as this term means ‘apartness‘ in Afrikaans and Hafrada is the closest Hebrew equivalent.' Ephraim Namni, 'National-Cultural Autonomy as An Alternative to Minor Territorial Nationalism,' in David J. Smith, Karl Cordell (eds.), Cultural Autonomy in Contemporary Europe, Routledge, 2013 ISBN 978-1-317-96851-1 pp.9-28, p.25 n.4

(c)Quoting wiki articles (HRW) or Hafrada is pointless since they are often in an early state of composition. The Hafrada article is primitive in its bias to restrict the meaning to physical structures like the Wall, and underplay the source evidence for its policy use to develop reticular institutions of racial segregation beyond the wall. The Wall was made to 'separate' Israel from Palestine, per Daniel Schueftan's suggestion, but Sharon and Ehud Barak while finding his utter contempt for Arabs and his advocacy of rigorous territorial 'hafrada' by means of a wall congenial, went beyond the wall, and like all following governments extended the 'Hafrada'/apartheid/separation/segregation principle deep into the West Bank.

The only reason these things are not set forth with clarity here, where reportage is dominated by vague timelines of peace talks, is that the article has a history of diehard reverting of attempts to succinctly and yet comprehensively outline Israel's problem with Palestinians. In political science, one definition of a state is in terms of what its budget and practices define as acceptable waste, investments with a negative return but with a net positive geopolitical value. Enforcing hafrada/racial segregation, in the West Bank devours 50 to 75% of the Israel Defense Forces' resources, more than the cost of countering all of Israel's armed foreign enemies. Considerable resources also go to hasbara that brands any attempt to correlates its explicit racial segregation with apartheid like practicesd as 'offensively anti-Zionist' ergo 'antisemitic'. All we are doing here, with this proposal, is asimply noting that the major global human rights groups now converge in likening this hafrada to apartheid. That is a fact. Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Nishidani Up to you if you want to try it, but I will repeat my side note comment that brief mention of “hafrada” (e.g. “hafrada wall”) could be a good informative edit to the article body about something specific and objective. That reflects my view the one line this RFC is about (beginning of the 8th paragraph in the section Israeli-occupied territories) is basically that HRW used the phrase “crime of apartheid” that lacks identifying any specific item in the treatment of Palestinians. It’s just describing an argument over posturing, framing and labelling, not identifying any specifics in treatment of Palestinians. Seemed to me it would be good if at least some clue was put in what they were talking about. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to argue further but I must correct something you have now said twice, the phrase "crime of apartheid" is very commonly used and not just by HRW. We have an article on Crime of apartheid because it is notable. I already gave NYT using it and there are many others. Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not “common” in the amount of coverage for Israel. Just WP:UNDUE highlighting a fringe use of a sensationalist WP:LABEL phrase from an advocacy group. I’ve already said you can Google to find the coverage of Israel and/or Palestine and see the huge number of articles not using the phrase let alone being about HRW saying it as showing it is not “common”. And this RFC is about giving lede prominence that the phrase was said by HRW re Israel, not over whether the legal conception is WP:NOTABLE enough to deserve its article. Look, if you didn’t understand my input said UNDUE about lede placement per WEIGHT, or inappropriate lede per LEAD guideline feel free to continue to ask me by being indented here. But if you want to say something opposing such, put that in your own input area. Over & out. Markbassett (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And this RFC is about giving lede prominence that the phrase was said by HRW re Israel This is as well false, the proposed addition does not mention HRW at all (because they are not the only ones who used that phrase). Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Selfstudier The phrase “crime of apartheid” was discussed as HRW finding and mentioned in the body includes HRW. Don’t blame me if the proposed text is also flawed by losing the context of it being advocacy groups making the statement with major nations opposing it, plus adding a link accusations that it is guilty to a wider article not about the body section. For any other post you want to make to my RFC input pointing at UNDUE and WEIGHT and LEAD, unless you are not understanding my input on those points I suggest you instead read WP:BLUDGEON and just don’t do it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Count your lines of text and count mine. And I don't make false statements either. Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is just sensationalist hyperbole and posturing. UNDUE, and clearly grinding a point here on Wikipedia. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-12-02/ty-article/.premium/u-s-warns-against-unilateral-israeli-steps-in-west-bank/00000184-cf5f-d4f4-a79d-df5fefcd0000?lts=1669977731622

  "While far-right figures claim they intend to equalize the settlers’ status to that of all other Israelis, the U.S. officials said this would be seen as racist discrimination between Jews and Palestinians, and the international community will not stand for it. Annexation that would keep the Palestinians in an inferior status would be tantamount to practicing an apartheid regime, they said. A senior Israeli official who was privy to the talks assessed that a situation in which the Israeli control of the West Bank would be seen as apartheid was now “closer and more real than ever." Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  More blathering about the findings of multiple human rights bodies being sensationalist, when it is the claims of sensationalism that are sensationalist. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – in my view this fails MOS:LEADREL. The sources in the relevant part of the article body are recent and show the term remains contested and gained traction from 2021 onwards; I think this indicates that, in a broad article about a country (and its history/features etc.), the apartheid accusation isn't core "significant information" requiring lead inclusion. If apartheid is treated as a defining controversy of Israel throughout the next period of years, this may change. There's WP:NORUSH and Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs – it's premature at this time to include "apartheid" in the lead. I also agree with Alaexis' points. If, rather than focusing on the contested, untested and specific legal accusation of the crime of apartheid, the proposal was to simply state there have been widespread accusations of human rights abuses in the occupied territories/against Palestians, I think there'd be a stronger case when weighing the significance of this fact in proportion to the rest of Israel's history. I also agree with My very best wishes' concern about prioritising widely accepted facts over accusations in country article leads. Jr8825 • Talk 22:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/iiclr/article/view/17379 Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel John B. Quigley (1991):

  "The apartheid claim has been leveled in Israel, whose treatment of its minority population of Arabs has been the subject of controversy. The United Nations General Assembly called Zionism, the national ideology of Israel, "a form of racism and racial discrimination," [in 1975] a charge prompted primarily by Israel's treatment of the Arabs within its borders.' British historian Arnold Toynbee called Israel "a racialist state. . ." [in 1973] and said that "it is wrong that people feel differently about the rights and wrongs of the existence of the state of Israel versus white South Africa ...." Many Israeli scholars and politicians have said the same over the years.

  So no, the accusations are not "recent". That's without even mentioning the Palestinian viewpoint. The accusation that Israel practices apartheid may be contested but the accusations themselves are incontestable across a wide spectrum of views for many years and that's what we are discussing here.

  Creeping annexation is a fact, permanent occupation with no obvious intent to terminate is a fact, dual legal systems is a fact, how many facts before the charge becomes a fact? If the ICJ declares the occupation illegal, will that be accepted? Evidently not, the policy is deny, deny, deny with a few antisemitism charges thrown in for luck. There's no righting great wrongs, that's crap, its just accusation versus denial.

  If we want to label it (gross) human rights abuse/discrimination instead, that's fine, we can dispense with accusations because that's a fact as well. Selfstudier (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with everything you've said, apart from the suggestion that WP:RGW is irrelevant and equatable to denialism. I don't think Wikipedia should be morally blind, every political/ethical topic requires an editorial balance between basic moral positions and a detached, impartial tone. Sometimes good faith editors will disagree on where the line is drawn: "accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid" is a relatively recent development in the history of Israel's creeping annexation of the Palestinian territories, so in my view isn't unambiguously leadworthy.

Additionally, I think caution is needed because it involves prominently attributing a crime to a country. Yes, Israeli society's problem with Zionism is responsible in large part for sustaining the situation, but the lead doesn't have space to explore this. Including a criminal accusation in the lead of any encyclopedic article (especially a country) requires careful consideration and editorial responsibility.

I also think it's unnecessary (even counterproductive) to use accusations to convey human rights abuses where factual statements can do the job (an exception might be ongoing abuses where observers lack access, e.g. Xinjiang). I oppose the proposed wording for these reasons, but I don't inherently oppose adding a mention of discrimination/human rights abuses to the lead. Jr8825 • Talk 03:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

but I don't inherently oppose adding a mention of discrimination/human rights abuses to the lead. OK, speaking for myself, I would go along with that, sticking to things that are sufficiently sourced over time is not a bad thing.the status and treatment of Palestinians in occupied territory is a significant subject of Israeli policy and the Israel–Palestine conflict per thebiguglyalien below although the precise wording could be clearer as it doesn't actually mention discrimination or human rights abuse. Selfstudier (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I definitely think it's worth considering something along those lines, although your proposed sentence doesn't explicitly mention human rights violations. I think we could be more clear about the widespread international criticism of Israel's human rights record in the occupied territories. @Levivich has helpfully highlighted the relevant part of the article body below, which I also had in mind. Jr8825 • Talk 06:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We are still reserving exceptional treatment to Israel in the extreme delicacy and caution exercised by holding to ransom any attempt to summarize a highly significant and enduring practice of human rights abuses. I have just added what the United States Department of State says regarding the situations of Palestinians within Israel and in the occupied territories. It is extensive, detailed and confirms what international NGOs, here lambasted as partisan 'advocacy' groups, state. Whether one calls this apartheid or not, a summary of such material is required by the lead since it is a structural part of the Israeli state's history. Compare the lead for China

It ranks among the lowest in measurements of democracy, civil liberties, government transparency, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and human rights of ethnic minorities. The Chinese authorities have been criticized by human rights activists and non-governmental organizations for human rights abuses, including political repression, mass censorship, mass surveillance of their citizens, and violent suppression of protest and dissent.

Note, every abuse is linked to a special wiki page. Wikipedia has similar articles for every variety of Israeli abuse of human rights, but we can't do that here. We can't even mention the fact itself. China is an adversary, Israel is an ally. Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Michael Sfard puts his finger on it and is well qualified to do so. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose mention of accusations or labels (including apartheid) in the lead as undue per My very best wishes and Jr8825. I would support, however, including the fact that the status and treatment of Palestinians in occupied territory is a significant subject of Israeli policy and the Israel–Palestine conflict. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to remind participants in this discussion about WP:BLUDGEON and WP:SOAPBOX. There are a few users that are replying to a dozen different !votes, all of whom are engaging in a soapboxish manner. If you find yourself replying to more than one or two !votes, consider whether you've become too invested in this topic and whether you need to recuse yourself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Everyone has a right to an opinion. When there is a conflict in judgements, at least in Western civilization, one is taught to master the evidence, analyse arguments, avail oneself of things like the Socratic elenchus etc., to achieve a consensus. A soap-boxer and their hecklers at Hyde Park are one thing, debating a proposition at the Oxford Union another. The discursive criteria differ, and the difference is qualitative. In collaborating on building encyclopedic articles on an area where passions, politics and ignorance commingle, often chaotically, the rational interrogation of what each of us believes or had concludes is a sine qua non for achieving narrative accuracy, and requires extensive reading, close argument and patience. Bludgeoning is repeating oneself without adducing anything new, or of substance, for consideration. I can't see evidence of this. Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• No but... - like others above, I oppose the particular proposed language, because accusations and 'apartheid' aren't really WP:DUE enough for the lead, and are more labels than description. However, I do think the lead should be expanded to include content about human rights violations by Israel, which, according to the RS and the article body, go far beyond "accusations" by human rights groups, or even beyond the question of whether it's "apartheid" or some other human rights violation. Maybe the UN should be mentioned, I'm not sure exactly how to summarize it for the lead, but something that summarizes this part of the body: "Israel has been criticized for engaging in systematic and widespread violations of human rights in the occupied territories, including the occupation itself,[450] and war crimes against civilians.[451][452][453][454] The allegations include violations of international humanitarian law[455] by the UN Human Rights Council,[456] The U.S. State Department has called reports of abuses of significant human rights of Palestinians 'credible' both within Israel[457] and the occupied territories.[458] Amnesty International and other NGOs have documented mass arbitrary arrests, torture, unlawful killings, systemic abuses and impunity[459][460][461][462][463][464] in tandem with a denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination.[465][466][467][468][469]". I agree generally that the lead should convey widely accepted facts, not accusations, and there are widely accepted facts about human rights violations by Israel in the occupied territories. Levivich (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Completely UNDUE and POV. Just the usual attempt to push POV stuff into this article every couple of months. Doesn't belong. Potential human right abuses do not belong in the lead, particularly when they are outside the borders of Israel described in the article. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Despite appearances there is, unless I am mistaken, a fair consensus on a compromise here and the aut/aut stand-off of opposing votes is specious. The consensus is that apartheid claims are inappropriate for the lead but that some lead notice be given of the extensive human rights violations, since these are uncontested structural facts, defined as significant' even by the US State department, and not an NGO advocacy POV.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Potential human right abuses do not belong in the lead Agreed, actual human rights vios do. I don't really agree with apartheid being merely a label but I am willing to go around that issue and just stick to well sourced vios, leaving it to the reader to decide whether they in sum, constitute apartheid as alleged. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• No. The lead is very long already. If the lead is going to mention human rights issues (and it probably should), then it should be at a much higher level of summarisation. The apartheid accusation is one very specific and very WP:RECENT accusation of many and I see no reason why this one should be the one featured in the lead. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Striking comment from <500 edit user not permitted to participate in internal project discussions per ARBPIA restrictions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support, it's a well sourced statement, not sure why it wouldn't be included.

Ortizesp (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The issue of Israeli crimes against Palestinians is under investigation by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. I know they are investigating this and are going to submit their opinion soon. In my opinion to wait for their opinion to confirm it finally and then add the paragraph for sure. At the moment, no body has yet declared Israel to be "apartheid" or to have "committed crimes against humanity", so in my opinion the addition of this paragraph should wait until the conclusions of the ICJ are submitted Qplb191 (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The issue of Israeli crimes against Palestinians is under investigation by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. I know they are investigating this and are going to submit their opinion soon. In my opinion we should wait for their opinion to confirm it finally and then add the paragraph for sure. At the moment, no body has yet declared Israel to be "apartheid" or to have "committed crimes against humanity", so in my opinion the addition of this paragraph should wait until the conclusions of the ICJ are submitted. Qplb191 (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. POV and poor sources. From time to time, activists try to insert their agenda into the article, thereby damaging its encyclopedic quality. Unsurprisingly accusations of "apartheid" are accepted by autocratic regimes, while being rejected by democracies. Obviously, this is not a neutral analysis. For example, the European Union's foreign minister, Josep Borrell, just rejected calls to state that Israel is implementing apartheid. Israel gives full equality of rights to Arabs and Muslims – provided they are its citizens. Thus more than 20% of its residents enjoy full rights and affirmative action. The citizens of the Palestinian Authority receive their rights from the Palestinian Authority, not from Israel. They are not citizens of Israel and do not want to be citizens of Israel. Therefore, there is no reason for Israel to give them civil rights. Those who do receive these rights are millions of other Arabs, who are indeed citizens of Israel. In addition, there is no mention of the fact that Israel's policy is reactive to the Palestinian violence directed towards it. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Activism? Poor sources? For two decades any reader of the Hebrew press will have constantly noted that prominent people at the core of government policy, security services, even the Israeli winner of the Nobel Prize for literature have reluctantly admitted that Israel's policies towards Palestinians smack of apartheid, if not indeed that. Two prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, a former Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair, a Shin Bet head Ami Ayalon, and, to name just a few, Shulamit Aloni,Yossi Sarid and A. B. Yehoshua (see here), for a small sample. They took the evidence of their senses, familiarity with the territory and its prime architect, Ariel Sharon at his word when he stated off the record that the SA apartheid model was appropriate to Israel. You know undoubtedly that this is obvious in Israel, widely recognized as such. We know know that any foreign endorsement of the idea there are similarities is greeted by lockstep politically correct disavowels by spokesmen like Borrell, who have zero knowledge of the issues, or otherwise sanctioned by an immediate stop to the career of anyone who goes public by noting the issue in the US or Europe, as happened when Kenneth Roth was refused a fellowship at Harvard because, though a Jewish head of Human Rights Watch, he was associated with an organization that, after dragging its feet for decades, finally conceded that what Israeli politicians openly admitted, what Israel practices, looks something akin to apartheid. (For once public outrage led to a retraction). In short, among Israelis one can call a spade a spade, but this frankness cannot be allowed to trickle outside (because it would have serious legal repercussions for the state)m ergo a taboo. Indeed lobbying pressures are exerted to punish even mention of the fact that the similarities have been noted, which is not an assertion that the systems are identical, but simply stating what dozens of senior Israeli figures admit to be self-evident. It is a pity that wikipedia's voting method leads to a similar outcome in the face of very strong source evidence -Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - totally NPOV. There's a reason why authoritarian countries and far-left lobbyist groups are the main backers of the apartheid accusations. We do not want Wikipedia to take the BDS position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Eladkarmel (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

:Natural - I understand the point of view and I defiently have some criticism about the Israeli control over the occupied territories, although, I don't think Wikipedia should promote a political position in the way some people here want it do. I think a different proposal is preferable in this case. אקסינו (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Editor <500 edit not allowed to participate in internal project discussions per ARBPIA restrictions. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support - the suggested language does not judge whether it is occuring, merely mentions the noteworthy accusations that occur on a regular basis, and, as users above have mentioned, are not entirely without prominent similar sources domestically. Hentheden (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support There is a clear consensus on this in countries which have no direct interest in the issues involved. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The fact that the accusations are made is certainly well-cited and well-established; and the coverage of them is overwhelming and sustained enough to establish it as a major aspect of Israel as a topic. Most of the arguments above amount to editors disagreeing with the accusations themselves, stating that they feel that the people making the accusations are bad people, or general WP:ASPERSIONS about anyone who argues for inclusion. None of that matters; what matters, from a WP:DUE perspective, is the degree of coverage the accusations get from high-quality reliable sources, and to a certain extent the tone and perspective those sources take on the accusations. In that regard numerous people have demonstrated, above, that coverage is overwhelming and that the tone of coverage is at least not sufficiently dismissive to justify excluding it from the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Modern population shift in the lede

@Dovidroth: per this edit and edit comment, that Zionism sparked a huge population shift amongst world Jewry, fundamentally changing the population makeup of the area that is the subject of this article, is crucial for anyone trying to understand Israel. It needs to be included in some form in the lede (and historically has been). Please could you propose an alternative way of describing this pivotal element? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:You cherry-picked a specific data that might give the impression that the Jewish connection to Palestine was weak simply because at that time there were very few Jews living there, which is obviously absurd. I don't consider that specific information or the fact that today almost half of all world's Jews live in Israel to be lead-worthy. This is not an article about worldwide Jewish population. Historic demographic changes in Palestine are already covered in the body and other related articles. Read WP:LEAD. Dovidroth (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: If you want to claim data is cherrypicked, provide the contradictory sources that have been ignored. Otherwise don't make the accusation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: please keep comments focused on the content.

You are welcome to provide an alternative way to address this. The lede cannot stand without explaining the demographic shift that is the fundamental reason that the country exists. Look at Britannica’s lede for example:

Even before the mandate, the desire for a Jewish homeland prompted a small number of Jews to immigrate to Palestine, a migration that grew dramatically during the second quarter of the 20th century with the increased persecution of Jews worldwide and subsequent Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany. This vast influx of Jewish immigrants into the region, however, caused tension with the native Palestinian Arabs

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Dovidroth that this edit is not an improvement and is just another attempt to push a POV narrative in the lead. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Britannica is POV? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There was a gradual demographic shift over two centuries, including five aliyah waves before Israel became a state and many others afterwards. That's not what lead is for. The most significant demographic change (Palestinian exodus) plus Jewish exodus from Arab countries is already mentioned. Not clear why you would cherry-pick a factoid from the 19th century related to percentage of worldwide Jewry living in Palestine. Again, not lead-worthy. There is a demography section and a history section.Dovidroth (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

If the lead can find space for oodles of ancient history and population displacement in the Roman era, I think it can also mention the Jewish population of Palestine prior to the rising activity of the Zionist movement and the impact of the subsequent waves of inward migration. As it stands, the Yishuv just pops into existence deus ex machina. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of cherry-picking demographic changes at a specific point, the article could simply say: During the 19th century, the Zionist movement began promoting the creation of a Jewish homeland in Ottoman Palestine, "followed by waves of Jewish immigration". (with a link to the article on Aliyah). Simple, general and neutral.5.28.185.152 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Too simple, too general and not at all neutral. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Can you explain why you don't think it's neutral? Dovidroth (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Because anyone reading that would think that it has just been some sort of steady growth the whole time which isn't the case. There was a jump during the Mandate or, if we want to stick to the creation of Israel and beyond there was a jump immediately afterwards, for instance. They may also not know what aliyah means. Anyway, I don't personally see it as waves, we should find a scholarly rs that describes the growth and if it is a description that predates Israel then care needs to be taken about where exactly any % growth comes from. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I found jstor.org/stable/48599702 Population growth and demographic balance between Arabs and Jews in Israel and historic Palestine, seems to cover a lot of what we want on pp 72-74 sections Population growth until the British Mandate/Legalized expansion of the Jewish population during the British Mandate/Jewish population growth from 15 May 1948 to the end of 2007.

It's a 2010 source, interestingly his prediction "On the other hand, if the population of Arabs living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is added to the total, it can be seen that the ratio of Arabs to Jews in all of historic Palestine increased from 8:10 to 9:10 and can be reasonably expected to create a situation where the total number of Arabs will surpass the number of Jews in the next ten years." has turned out to be more or less accurate. Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's too vague. Just "waves of immigration" is more or less meaningless without time periods or some sort of sense of scale. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The lead does not to be so specific. And the body of the article could give more details. Dovidroth (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Brittanica is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. I believe we may be dealing with an issue of a peculiar, unfamiliarity with how Wikipedia works, and how leads work. Obviously random sources/tidbits can’t just be inserted into the lead. To me, it’s curious that the lead would be the first place this tidbit would be added, as again, that is not how leads work Drsmoo (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess it is true that Israel was founded on immigration, as was the USA as well as other places, during the mandate years primarily, when the percentage rose rapidly from a small number to around a third of local population. Pretty sure we don't need to source something of that sort to Britannica. Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

---

What about this "In the late 19th century, the Zionist movement began promoting the creation of a Jewish homeland in Ottoman Palestine which was followed by several waves of Jewsih migration to the region"? The italicised text is the proposed addition. Then we'll mention aliyot which are indeed foundational events for the modern Israel but would not clutter the lede with 19th century statistics. Alaexis_¿question? 07:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about Israel, see my reply to Dovidroth above. Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Options:

• Britannica's lede says "This vast influx of Jewish immigrants into the region, however, caused tension with the native Palestinian Arabs". It is their way of explaining this point.
• My proposal was to explain, less evocatively than Britannica, that in the late 19th century almost all Jews lived outside the region, now about half live there.
• Another way of doing it is to say that Jews formed a tiny minority (2-5%) of the population in the late 19th century.

All these options have one thing in common – they allow a reader to quickly understand the single most pivotal factor in the modern history of Israel/Palestine. It is a more relevant fact than any of the sentences in the prior paragraph, from Achaemenids, to Seleucids, to Mamluks.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I would have thought that Balfour/Mandate/Nazis were the most significant factors in the growth (as opposed to the starting point). Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Per Talk:Israel/Archive 73#British Palestine in the lede, there has been opposition to that level of detail in the past. It boggles the mind to see people suggesting that it would be negative to explain something as fundamental as this.

My preference is the third of the three options above.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Balfour Declaration has it like that because it's very relevant there. Might look a bit strange here, if its just on it's own. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a preferred way of encapsulating the modern demographic history in the lede? At the moment we tell the history of the land but not the people; of course a country is the combination of the two. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read all that source I showed above, let me see if there is a potted something that is usable. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The timeframe analyzed is from 1882 to 2007, split

1882-1919, "the numbers of Jewish immigrants to Palestine almost equalled those who left it"

1919-1948 (Balfour/Mandate), 56,000 (% of pop not mentioned) -> 649,600 (31.8% of local pop) (peaks 1932–1938, rise of Nazism and 1946–1948)

Post 48-2007, % of pop figures don't really work for obvious reasons, but Jewish pop numerically doubles in first couple of years and then analysis shows a lot of fluctuation in the increases thereafter (but averaging 3.8% pa).

Need another source for post 2007.

I would say a minimum content ought to mention the 1919-48 growth/%of pop in context of Balfour and Mandate, the doubling in the first couple years after 48 and the average thereafter (even if "average" is a bit misleading)? Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist, but the claim that in 1882-1919 "the numbers of Jewish immigrants to Palestine almost equalled those who left it" is hard to reconcile with the data in the table in Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region) which shows that the Jewish population increased more than two times between 1890 and 1914. Alaexis_¿question? 09:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The statement excludes natural growth as well as giving higher figures in general than the table does. Idk if you have the source so I will quote it here:

The numbers of Jews in Palestine began to increase during the late Ottoman period:increasing from 24,000 in 1882 to 50,000 in 1900 and then to 85,000 in 1914. In addition to the course of natural growth, this rising figure is attributed to the Jewish immigration to Palestine, which amounted to 55,000–70,000 Jewish immigrants during 1882–1914, who arrived in two waves: the first from 1882 to 1903, in which 20,000–30,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine; and the second from 1904 to 1914, with a figure ranging from 35,000 to 40,000 Jews. The number of Jews in Palestine retreated from 85,000 in 1914 to 56,000 in 1916–1919 (Central Bureau of Statistics 1984, pp. 23, 139, Abu el Naml 2004, pp. 87–88). When comparing the factual number of the population in 1919, i.e. 56,000, with the estimated figure, which is obtained from the actual figure combined with natural growth plus immigration, a huge deficit imparted by counter-immigration between 1882 and 1919 can be noticed. If one takes the natural growth in the indigenous population in 1882 and over 1882–1919 – which is fair enough to make this population increase twofold, it can be presumed that immigration and counter-immigration were equal to a degree that the number of Jews in 1919 did not exceed that of 1882 plus the natural growth that would have occurred during 1882–1919 (Central Bureau of Statistics 1984).

So the source figure at 1915 is 85,000 (cf table 38,754) and the post 1915 dip to 56,000 is not covered in table but still higher than the table. Selfstudier (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise and use first option from Britannica, which is more comprehensive and explains the origins of the conflict. The other two options are completely arbitrary, way too specific and not lead-worthy. Dovidroth (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought we are just looking at demographics, origin of the conflict is another thing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment re RFC above

(non qualified editor comment moved to here) Hi. Sorry for meddling in the discussion, but as far as I can see, the introduction of this article is already quite critical of Israel. It mentions the unrecognized annexations of the Golan and East Jerusalem, the illegality of Israeli settlements, the "longest occupation in modern history" (which is debatable, but whatever) and the displacement of Palestinian Arabs. The issue of occupation is what criticism of Israel is famous for, which is already mentioned. I've checked articles of countries with a human rights record much worse than Israel - such as Russia, China and Belarus - and they didn't contain more than one sentence of criticism. I think this article has already too much of it per WP:Due.5.28.178.2 (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The points you list are not 'criticism of Israel' but encyclopedic clarifications of boundaries and areas claimed by Israel. They have to be named as part of Israel's self-definition and, by the same token, their challenged status also. This is factual, not critical.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The establishment of occupied territories in Georgia and Ukraine definitely should be covered in Russia's lead, since it is part of what currently defines it. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

line on rights violations

i added a variation of the sentence i proposed up above, as it seems there is a solid consensus that there should be some coverage of the overall criticism of Israel's policies in its occupation. nableezy - 14:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems fairly uncontestable in its wording, and yes, the clear direction of the majoritarian undercurrent in the likely no-consensus-bound 'accusations' RfC. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I find your proposal reasonable. It's a fair compromise given the fact that most people in the RFC rejected the apartheid label but agreed on some sort of addition on HR violations. I would prefer to wait to see what the others think before adding it, but I won't object to that specific text. Dovidroth (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Dovidroth, and I was one who voted against the earlier proposal but in favor of adding a line about human rights violations to the lead. I generally find the addition, "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, and human rights organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity" to be reasonable, although I'd support shortening it to just the first clause ("Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians") because shorter is better, I'm not sure that "accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity" adds much to "drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians", and widely-accepted facts (human rights violations) > accusations (war crimes/crimes against humanity), particularly where the distinction between the two is really just a matter of degree and the definition of "war", which in my view are besides the point. The point is human rights violations. Another open question: are the human rights violations only "in its occupation of the Palestinian territories" or is the scope broader? Just the occupied territories or also in Israel? I am unsure about exactly what is widely condemned versus "merely" an accusation of human rights organizations. Levivich (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Israel discriminates against its Palestinian citizens (even if they enjoy de jure equality... and even that can be disputed) and rights groups are critical of its treatment of its Palestinian citizens, but the rights violations are much more severe in West Bank (and Gaza); numerous occupation policies violate the Geneva Convention etc. It makes more sense to me to focus on rights in the occupied territories in the lead, even though the reality is they are related. Jr8825 • Talk 02:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't like whole sentence, it's repetitive, takes up too much space and potentially gives too much emphasis considering it's still a very high-level lead. I agree with Levivich the first clause is enough, and I'd support that or similar text. Jr8825 • Talk 01:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that first of all there should be broad agreement before adding it. In any case, these are pretty serious accusations (I'm not saying they aren't true), but maybe we need to get more opinions from the people. In any case, at the moment non intentional body has yet declared Israel an "apartheid" state or "committing crimes against humanity." I know it is under investigation at the Hague International Tribunal. So in my opinion we should wait for the end of the investigation and then add the paragraph according to the opinion of the International Court of Justice. As long as the matter is under investigation, in my opinion, this should not be added. Qplb191 (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The sentence says that human rights organizations have accused Israel of that, and that is objective fact. nableezy - 22:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you have put this comment in the wrong place? This section is about hr violations, not apartheid or the request to the ICJ. Selfstudier (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I meant the last edit that was made. In my opinion, we should wait for the ICJ's decision before adding a paragraph that accuses Israel of "crimes against humanity." Israel has not yet been accused of this or defined as apartheid. This is under investigation and in my opinion, before adding such a paragraph, the general investigation of the International Court of Justice should be completed. What's more, the addition of a paragraph did not receive wide acceptance and in my opinion, more people's opinions should be heard before adding it. Qplb191 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

After all, this matter is under investigation by the ICJ, in my opinion we should wait for that decision and then add this paragraph Qplb191 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I know that the ICJ is investigating the issue of Israeli crimes and the issue is under investigation and they are about to submit their opinion soon if crimes have been committed. Let's wait for publication and then we can add the paragraph for sure. Qplb191 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The last edit refers to well documented and sourced human rights violations, there is a semi consensus in the ongoing RFC that it is in order to add something along these lines. The ICC investigation is about individual responsibility for potential war crimes and ICJ advisory is to do with the legality of the occupation, different issues. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

But it is still only human rights bodies, not yet an international body that approves it, in my opinion, the conclusions of the ICC and ICJ should be heard and the paragraph added. To add this only according to the opinion of human rights bodies is not so well founded. Qplb191 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

ICC and ICJ are about different issues. US Department of State is not a human rights body.Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

But still this paragraph is based only on a few human rights bodies, not an international body that confirms it, I'm not belittling it, but there can also be human rights organizations that say otherwise. The ICJ's investigation is about the Israeli occupation and its crimes, let's wait for its conclusions first. Qplb191 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The request for an ICJ advisory opinion (it's not an investigation) is about the status of the Israeli occupation, a different issue. If there are human rights orgs that say Israel does not/has not committed any hr violations, I would be most interested to see sources for those. If you want to object to the added material, that's OK, but the reasons need to be something relevant. The relevant sources in support of the edit are in the article body already. Selfstudier (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The ICJ has already said Israel has violated international law in its construction of a wall in the occupied territories. So throw that objection right out too. nableezy - 22:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's debatable, I'm not saying whether it's true or not. But I suggest that we wait for the response of an official international body such as the ICC or the ICJ, the international court investigating the matter and also the legitimacy of the occupation, and then before we add it based on some human rights organizations. I'm not disrespecting, but they are still not an official body that can be trusted for sure. It should be remembered that currently no official international body has declared Israel to be "apartheid" or to have committed "crimes against humanity" Qplb191 (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

hr violations are well documented for years, not being investigated at the ICC and nothing to with the current ICJ matter. Selfstudier (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Since an editor is unilaterally deciding that the sentence should not go in, it seems we need another RFC since the existing RFC is about something else. Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC re human rights violations in the lead

Should the article lead contain the following statement (or similar) " Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, and human rights organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Discussion

• Support The RFCbefore in the preceding section indicates consensus to add such a sentence. It summarizes well sourced material from the article body.Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion no. Already in the lead there is a well-founded explanation that the Palestinian territories are illegally occupied according to international law. As I said, it is subject to dispute. There is no official international body that confirms that Israel is an "apartheid state" or has "committed crimes against humanity." This is according to the opinion of some non-official human rights organizations. And there is no international body that approves it. Qplb191 (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What is a “non-official human rights organization” in your comment? Is there a threshold that we should be evaluating against to determine which organizations’ opinions are worth referencing? It appears the source we have is secondary, so presumably they have vetted commentary to some degree. — HTGS (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a controversial issue, some will say they agree and some will not. But this is not proven unequivocally, for example the current Minister of Foreign Affairs of the European Union claimed that it is impossible to use the word "apartheid" in the context of Israel. Qplb191 (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose full proposed sentence – per my explanation in the above section (repetitive, long and possibly undue). I'd support adding the first clause only ("Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians") as suggested by Levivich, or similarly brief wording. Jr8825 • Talk 09:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Edit: Support new text proposed below. Jr8825 • Talk 13:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Any discussion of human rights of Palestinians has to be coupled to Palestinian terrorism and to human rights of Israelis to not be victimized by Palestinian terrorism. The issues are inseparable, yet the proposal fails to do that as it mentions one side of it without the other. I'd oppose the above suggestion from User:Jr8825 for the same reason. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  The "bogus propaganda ploy" is the below assertion that terrorism is a response to Israeli actions. Gazans made that clear back in 2005, when they could have chosen to mind their own business, without a conflict with Israel. They didn't. By contrast, Israel has had no problem making peace with Arab neighbors who desire it. So if one wishes to go down the Hamas whataboutism, well, I actually don't object to whataboutisms. But one has to recognize that the situations are different. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't believe Israel is blockading any of its other Arab neighbors, tho, which probably made making peace with them easier. It's hard to mind your own business when you can't leave your country or import anything into it. That aside, I generally agree that violence by Palestinians against Israel should also be mentioned in the lead. The lead is a little flat here and doesn't really explain all that happened in the last 50 years. Put me down as oppose as written for now pending further discussion and also there's already an RfC open about this, we don't need a second. We ought to close that first one and have an RFCBEFORE to workshop the new proposal before confirming it with a second RfC. I just don't think we're there yet (but this new language is a better start than the last proposal). Levivich (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Im totally fine including Palestinian violence against Israel in the lead as well, it should note of course the more than 20:1 ratio in casualties though. nableezy - 17:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps a possible way to remain even-handed is to contextualise the first clause of the proposed sentence by placing it in direct proximity to a sentence which links the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? This would require some broader rejigging of the current text. I'm not sure explicit mention of Palestinian violence (e.g. intifadas) is suitable for the lead of Israel itself because of space constraints. Jr8825 • Talk 01:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOTFORUM, but here is a refutation of the propaganda you are pushing here. Kindly stop pushing personal viewpoints at odds with actual reliable sources. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 17:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Both the human rights violations and accusations of war crimes/crimes against humanity are highly notable aspects of Israel's military occupation. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - obviously. Israel being accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity is a prominent controversy that must, per WP:LEAD, be included in the lead. The lead of WP:LEAD says It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Later on it says It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Israel being accused of war crimes by the world's leading human rights organizations, and United Nations bodies and representatives is a prominent controversy, and this single sentence is not UNDUE by any stretch of the imagination. There are countless more sources dedicated to Israel's human rights record in the occupied territories than there are about its HDI ranking, or Tel Aviv being a technological center, or most of the other things discussed in the lead. The propaganda ploy on has to be coupled to Palestinian terrorism and to human rights of Israelis to not be victimized by Palestinian terrorism is just that, and not one reliable sources take seriously. It is a whataboutism, and Palestinian terror is included in the articles on the groups that commit it, including in their leads. Hamas includes who considers it a terrorist organization. It does not use bogus propaganda tactics to say well its just in response to Israeli war crimes, and any mention of terrorism must be tempered by inclusion of the rights of Palestinians to be free of Israeli state terror. nableezy - 15:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I'm less concerned about the specific language and more that the article's lede is already very long (longer than that of United States, for example), and that there's already language about illegal occupation and the Palestinian conflict. Comparing to the United States lede again, there's a similar amount of critical content, even though there's much more we could say about slavery, inequality, lack of health care, etc. If you want to add the proposed language, it would be good to trim some other parts out. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Tentative support for something along these lines. (Summoned by bot) Clearly there's no way this proposal was ever not going to be controversial, and obviously the exact wording will need to be carefully vetted, but having just read the lead through in its entirety, the lack of proper discussion of the controversies relating to Israel's domestic security policies is notable, and I do think there's a way to wedge in at least a part of the proposes statement into existing language in the penultimate paragraph.

As others have noted, the lead is already long-ish, but I believe arguably unavoidably so: a great deal of the lead is devoted to Israel's pre modern state history, which is important, given the modern Israel's origins as a polity are, needless to say, complex. But the counterbalance to this is that with most of the lead discussing the historical context in which Israel arose, I have a hard time accepting we can't spare the space for this salient detail about the nation as it exists and is perceived today. Again, with the sizeable caveat that specific, neutral wording will be needed here, potentially inclusive of a very brief summary statement of how Israeli leaders have contextualized these criticisms/accusations. Note also that if the source utilized in the OP's proposed wording was the only sourcing used to support such a statement, it is probably better (or necessary) to attribute directly to the UNCHR, since it is the only "human rights group" (probably not the most precise description for that body) cited in that source. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as other sources, Israel most condemned by UN in 2020 – three times other nations, [10], [11]. Israel being condemned by UN bodies and agents for some violation of Palestinian human rights is almost WP:BLUESKY level tbh. nableezy - 22:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of the wider world of citations (and controversy) surrounding this issue, particularly as regards UN censure, but my observation was that the proposed wording was not a great summary of the proffered source--and more generally that clear attribution may end up being critical here in arriving at acceptably neutral language for an addition along the lines being discussed here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Question to Selfstudier I might be missing something, but isn't there already an open RFC on this exact same topic? This is not a comment to oppose the suggestion, just a procedural question as to why we have RfC on the same topicJeppiz (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I dont really know why this was started as an RFC, there seemed to be a consensus in the RFC above for a line along these lines, but it was reverted. The RFC above was specifically about including apartheid in the lead, not a general statement on human rights. That said, I think a closer may well found consensus for such a thing in a close of that RFC anyway. But as far as I can tell, I made an edit, Tombah reverted it because of an unrelated RFC was not yet concluded, so Selfstudier opened a new RFC about this line specifically. I dont think we need RFCs for every single editing dispute, but alas I am not yet king of Wikipedia. nableezy - 23:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although I would support a sentence on human rights that is concise for the lede, perhaps along the lines of "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have draw condemnation." GreenCows (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Striking comment by blocked sock. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very wordy. The lead is already too long. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment As some have said, trimming the lead (para 2?) is a thought, else nothing can be added to the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Heavens knows I have been trying to rationalize the second paragraph down to something more approximating the bare encyclopedic essentials. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agree – cutting down the second paragraph would solve a lot of problems. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  +4, get rid of all the empire name-dropping and just write "ruled by a series of empires". That paragraph ought to just be a few sentences. Paradoxically, recent edits appear to be making it longer rather than shorter. Levivich (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. The second paragraph is actually the best part of lead, summarizing 2,500 years of history in a couple of short sentences. Naming major empires that ruled the land is pretty much the bare minimum standard for every other country in Wikipedia with a rich history. Look at the articles on Turkey, Iran or Lebanon for example. If any, we should trim the POV part which mentions the supposed "longest occupation in history" or avoid the selective information that Onceinawhile wants to introduce regarding specific waves of Jewish immigration. As it stands now, the lead is slighty smaller than France's, Spain, Italy or China, and should remain so.Dovidroth (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  It is a history unrelated to the modern state entirely. nableezy - 17:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Just dropping this here: The content of Lebanon's lead goes all out and starts 7000 years ago, before the start of recorded history. :D Synotia (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'll probably start a new thread about the second paragraph, but I'll just say this for now: that the lead contains Achaemenid, Macedonian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, which are going to be absolutely meaningless to the average reader ("series of empires" will tell them more than listing the names of the empires), when those empires are almost not at all related to modern Israel except for geographical overlap, yet the lead does not even mention the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which is a war fought by the modern state. Similarly, the lead spells out the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid caliphates, when it really ought to just link to Caliphate, because all of them held territory that included modern Israel, what's the point in naming them?, yet the lead does not link to Camp David Accords or Oslo Accords, which are major events in the history of the modern state. In my view, the lead is very obviously avoiding anything controversial and filling in the missing space with ancient history. I understand why that is, but it shouldn't be so. Let's fix it. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree.

  I can later help to draft a version focusing more on Israel's modern history (from the New Yishuv in the late 19th century till the present day.) Synotia (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Great, I was planning to take a crack at drafting a shorter version of the 2nd paragraph that will help make room for expanding modern history (3rd paragraph starting at 19th century and forward), which I'll post on talk hopefully sometime in the next 24 hours. Levivich (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Link it to History of Israel, apparently a "a historical overview of the Land of Israel, with a Jewish focus." which I had thought was actually the History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, either, since one seems to be a fork of the other. Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  One of those articles is too long and the other is longer; one is old and the other is older. One has a hatnote, This article is a historical overview of the Land of Israel, with a Jewish focus, and the other is called "History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel". What the hell, Wikipedia. Which one do we link in the lead of this article? Levivich (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds like a fitting candidate for a merge vote. Synotia (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'd vote for it but I wouldn't want to do the work of actually merging it :-D Levivich (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are human rights problems on both sides, although even adding both could be complicated like others have noted. ParadaJulio (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware that Israel was occupied by Palestine? It is the occupation that gives rise to the majority of the hr breaches, geneva 4, illegal annexation, arbitrary detention, child imprisonment, dual legal system, house demolitions, extrajudicial killings, none of these violations are being committed by Palestinians against Israelis. Are rockets shot at Israel? Yes they are, shall we include that in the lead along with the far longer list of hr abuses carried out by Israel? What are the occupied supposed to do, roll over? Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  The latest United Nations Security Council (the top body) resolution addressing this is Res 2334 of 2016 (US abstention, so passed 14-0)

  "Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions," (and there are other relevant clauses) &

  "Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction," (this bit is the bothsidesism)

  So why do we not get a source that summarizes this? Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the intro is already too long, already extensively describes the occupation, and is already trying to steer the reader into a particular direction by implying that only these 260,000 Jews moved to Israel as a result of the war, and that the rest moved there to chill, get a tan and eat better hummus or something. I get the feeling that the only reason this specific figure within this particular time window was mentioned, was to trivialize the plight of Mizrahi Jews by putting it aside a higher Palestinian figure. This article has issues with fake neutrality by disingenuously playing with numbers. At this tempo, before the end of next year the intro will mention Palestine as PALESTINE every time. ;) Synotia (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Where exactly is the occupation extensively describe[d]? nableezy - 17:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  There's an entire paragraph? I'll drag to you here, can you help me for a sec *hmph*

  Israel has since fought wars with several Arab countries, and since the 1967 Six-Day War has occupied the Syrian Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip—the longest military occupation in modern history—though whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement is disputed. Israel has effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community, and established settlements within the occupied territories, which are also considered illegal under international law. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and has normalized relations with a number of other Arab countries, it remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon, and efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have thus far stalled.

  Synotia (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  though whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement is disputed I would agree with getting rid of that. I would even agree with some shortening of all the above which is mostly not directly about the occupation but more about the results of it, provided that it is replaced with language that addresses the human rights aspects, eg settlements are illegal..because the settlers installed in them is a breach of Geneva 4 and unilateral annexation is illegal, period, etc.,per the res 2334 above. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  That has exactly two sentences about the occupation. The most extensive part is that settlements are illegal. It does not however discuss the occupation, extensively or otherwise, other than to say it exists. nableezy - 18:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're trying to play with words. If you wish it to be more extensive than that, just propose it clearly. But I personally think it's more than enough, it mentions all the territories. It's an article about Israel in the end, not a museum about the occupation. In contrast, articles about Russia, Turkey, Armenia etc. mention nothing in the lead about the territories they occupy, let alone their human rights violations. In the article about Morocco, a beacon of human rights, the occupation of Western Sahara is talked about in the lead more concisely. Synotia (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  If they are still occupiers 75 oops, 55 years from now, ignoring dozens of UN resolutions, I'm sure that will be reflected in their leads. This is bout Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Turkey has occupied Northern Cyprus for nearly half a century? So does Morocco with Western Sahara? And the Russian Federation has been involved in many more different conflicts than just one. Synotia (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Still about Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Um, I did propose that, I proposed adding the sustained international condemnation of Israel for its occupation. That is a defining characteristic of the modern state, and as such should be in the lead. Youre the one that disingenuously claimed that the occupation is extensively discussed already, and it is not. nableezy - 18:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's pushing it far. Russia for example does not have the term "crimes against humanity" in its lead, despite killing at least 5x more civilians in the city of Mariupol alone in under two months than Palestinian combatants+civilians combined have died since 2008. Neither do other fucked up places like Burma. This is disproportionate. Synotia (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  I dont edit the Russia article, but it should certainly include notable controversies, including its illegal annexations and allegations of war crimes. I dont know what crime against humanity Russia has been accused of, I feel like that phrase engenders an emotional response, but its just a set of crimes in international law. Apartheid being one of them. But we can condense war crimes and crimes against humanity in to and has been accused of committing violations of international humanitarian law? nableezy - 20:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  "crimes against humanity" Where does it say that in this article? Selfstudier (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Returning the focus to the lead, if we need to make space for additions by cutting, I think the following details from the third and fourth paragraphs (ignoring the 2nd para, as @Levivich has said he's going to have a stab at shortening it) aren't strictly necessary/of critical importance, even if they're nice to have:

• "During and immediately after the war, around 260,000 Jews emigrated or fled from the Arab world to Israel." In terms of the demographics of Israel, I don't think Jewish immigration from the Arab world was disproportionality greater than from other regions (e.g. Eastern Europe); it appears to be a counterpart/equation to the mention of the Nakba, but I don't think it's essential.
• "though whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement is disputed." as pointed out above.

In terms of additions, while I think a brief summary/mention of occupation policy and abuse of human rights is warranted, I'm against adding all three of the phrases "human rights [violations]", "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" to the lead. While each of the phrases is distinct and relevant, it comes across as pointy including all of them in the lead and is out of step with other country articles with very poor human rights records; one phrase is enough, ideally just "human rights violations" as it encapsulates the other two. @Selfstudier: I presume Synotia is referring to your proposed text in this RfC. Jr8825 • Talk 19:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"violations of international humanitarian law" (per 2334) is a customary formulation that avoids the word crime(s). War crimes is something else (individuals) and has not as yet risen above the level of accusation, ICC matter. Selfstudier (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct, I was referring to the RfC proposal. If this goes through unmodified, it would render Israel highly disproportionately and uniquely demonized compared to places with far worse human rights records. Synotia (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It might be helpful for editors complaining about bias (the picking on Israel meme) to test themselves with a method commonplace in cognitive psychology. I.e., one downloads the 278 Amnesty International document, and in a format allowing changes, substitute all words denoting Israeli/Jewish/settler with Palestinian, and vice-versa. So the document becomes an outline of a hypothetical situation where the abuses complained of come from the other boot, with Jews the harassed minority of a separatist Palestinian state. I find it unimaginable that, rereading this hypothetical text, we would not have immediate unanimity that such a Palestine was an antisemitic state. In the reverse version, the reality, we can't agree to call a spade even a foot-worked lever for moving earth.Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I did put "or similar", I am not personally hung up on this or that wording, I am more concerned with the principle of the thing ie there is no mention at all right now. Look at what Israel's best friend, the US, says in its report (ref 459 and 460 popups) Selfstudier (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My eyes didn't catch your comment on Mizrahim during their first flyover; as a matter of fact, contrary to what most people believe, the bulk of Israeli Jews do not have European roots. The bulk are Sephardim who trace their roots to places like Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, etc. And they largely left after the creation of Israel, when antisemitism rendered life in those places impossible for a Jew. Besides Morocco, there are no Jews anymore in those places. I believe in Yemen there's 1 who's in jail. Synotia (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm lost (again), afaics, you are the only one talking about Mizrahi Jews. Selfstudier (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It was a response to In terms of the demographics of Israel, I don't think Jewish immigration from the Arab world was disproportionality greater than from other regions (e.g. Eastern Europe) Synotia (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per AdoringNanny. Talking about human rights without any reference to the conflict and without mentioning the actions of the other would violate WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 08:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion Replace para 4 of lead with (wikilinked and reffed): "Israel subsequently fought wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalizing relations with several other Arab countries but remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan, illegally annexing the latter as well as East Jerusalem. Israel continues to commit multiple violations of international humanitarian law including the establishment of illegal settlements within the occupied territories." This is shorter even with the hr vios included. Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I like the first part of the current version more, but find the latter part of your version better. I propose specifying that the Gaza Strip is, since Hamas got into power, under a joint blockade by Israel and Egypt, with a link to the full article. --Synotia (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The 'joint blockade' is a result of an Israeli stipulation that embargoes the transit of goods through the Rafah border. Any imports or exports must enter or exit via Israel. It is an Israeli blockade. Each time one tweaks in further 'stuff' in this area one gets complications that only invite more tweaking balancing acts. The link is more than adequate.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Who floods smuggling tunnels? Israel or Egypt? Synotia (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the point is that Egypt only blockades under threat of Israeli intervention. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, even the PLO has shown support for this, as it weakens Hamas. Synotia (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

"continues to commit multiple violations of international humanitarian law" should be simplified to: "continues to violate international humanitarian law".

As I mentioned above, I'd like to workshop in the name-drop/wikilink to Israeli–Palestinian conflict into the surrounding context if possible, which in my view would address the concerns of editors who think that only mentioning Israel's human rights violations minimises violence by Palestinians. Jr8825 • Talk 12:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

How about:

"Israel subsequently fought wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalizing relations with several other Arab countries but remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon while attempts to negotiate a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan, illegally annexing the latter as well as East Jerusalem. Israel continues to violate international humanitarian law including the establishment of illegal settlements within the occupied territories."

Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Pretty good. But I believe that the term "Palestinian territories" includes East Jerusalem? I'd word it more like "which includes East Jerusalem".

And I'm still in favor of mentioning the joint blockade. Synotia (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't really want to mention East Jerusalem twice. Can you draft something? That includes Nishidani's point. Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Which point by Nishidani? To be sure we're talking about the same thing. Synotia (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest making use of Gaza Strip The Humanitarian Impact Of 15 Years of the Blockade Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I would just add something to the effect of "The Israeli military disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but has been blockading the area jointly with Egypt since Hamas took over control in 2007." Synotia (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

That's already quite long and would need to be even longer if it is to be NPOV, for a start there is no equality of blockade between Israel and Egypt (Nishidani/Iskandar point). Israel imposed restrictions prior to Hamas taking over, disengagement is misleading, etc etc. With just a link to Gaza, everything can be found. Instead of Palestinian territories, put West Bank and Gaza instead, solves it. We can easily expand the para with plenty of things as well as Gaza but the idea is to shorten it to the bare essentials. Selfstudier (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty close to what I'd envision, I support it. There a couple of missing commas, and I'm not set on the specific wording, but I think it's the right way forward. I'd be keen to hear others' thoughts on this wording and hope the RfC doesn't drown it out. Jr8825 • Talk 13:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest closing both these RFCs (removing the {{RFC}} tags) and moving this to a new thread about the 4th paragraph. It's a good start, worth continuing the workshopping. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The general direction of travel is not a bad idea. It certainly summarizes some parts better. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. This inclusion, in my humble view, would be totally unbalanced, however, I'm not shocked because it sounds like this article is heading in a way that would make some BDS supporters jump for joy. The West Bank and Gaza Strip's current situation is largely shaped by Palestinian terrorism directed at Israeli civilians over a long period of time, with the largest and most popular Palestinian faction to this day calling for the military destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in its place. Many of the restrictions imposed in the West Bank—perhaps most famously the barrier—were constructed to protect Israeli citizens from terrorists, Following a time in which many Israeli people lost their lives in suicide assaults on buses, restaurants, beaches, and nightclubs. Therefore, in my opinion, there are only two options: either we elaborate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the lede by providing more details about how each side perceives and experiences the conflict, or we leave that to the dedicated article we have on the conflict, to which a link already exists in the lede. I'd go with the second choice. Tombah (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many of Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as prior editors have noted, are in response to Palestinian terrorism, directed mostly against Israeli citizens, and the fact the most popular factions among Palestinians are terror organizations such as Hamas who call for the destruction of Israel; however, neither the current lede nor the suggested addition makes any mention of this. Discussing accusations against one side only would violate WP:NPOV.Eladkarmel (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm concerned about the phrase "accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity". This is an article about the country, not its government. Is the claim here that the entire population of Israel is accused of crimes against humanity? Presumably not. If we're going to mention this, we should specify who is accused of these things. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Coverage of this condemnation is overwhelming and high-quality, to the point where it is obviously a major aspect of the topic today. Most of the arguments against it above amount to people saying that they personally disagree with the condemnation Israel has received for such-and-such a reason, or that they believe Israel's actions are justified because of such-and-such; but our job is to reflect the sources, not to make arguments ourselves in the lead or to exclude what the sources say because of our personal opinions on the events they describe. An editor's personal belief that Israel shouldn't be receiving condemnation for this because of X or Y or Z is not an argument to exclude coverage of the fact that that condemnation exists; it clearly does, and clearly has sufficiently overwhelming coverage that it belongs in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as it would need extensive context of the long running Palestinian terrorist attacks against civilians. Adding it by itself would not be balanced. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 14:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Both sides commit terror. The counterbalance to occupation is a range of asymmetrical anti-occupation activities, incl. but not limited to terror (a typical anti-occupation activity, and one also used by Irgun/Lehi against the British). Iskandar323 (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Adoring nanny and Levivich, though I think we're getting closer. Context is critical in Israel–Palestine issues even more so than most, and the actions of one can't be accurately described without the other. I would propose incorporating this information into the lead's coverage of the conflict rather than tacking it on afterward. In my opinion, the whole history aspect of the lead just needs to be redone. Secondly, this seems to use the phrase "war crimes and crimes against humanity" very loosely. These are two related albeit distinct concepts, and you'd need sourcing that confirms both of them, presumably with actual convictions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Selfstudier's sentence is well-balanced and encyclopedic, and so many cases of human rights abuses over such a long time, and so widely covered in numerous WP:RS that an inclusion seems warranted. Jeppiz (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support adding the first clause, but oppose adding the last: accusations of crimes against humanity are controversial. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources

References

Examples of good country leads

FA country articles are: Australia, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Germany, India, Japan, Madagascar, Nauru, and Rwanda. (Please let us know if I missed any.) Does everyone agree that these leads are models to follow, or some of them? I'm not sure that I do, but I'm wondering if there is a generally-accepted model to follow. Also, do we have anything like MOS:LEAD specific to countries? I thought I remembered reading one once but now I can't find it. Levivich (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For the most part, no, I dont think these are great examples of models to follow here. India comes closest to having a sustained international conflict, but nothing like the occupation and the criticism it has engendered, even with Kashmir and the more recent developments there. The difference here is that present tense Israel's policies have attracted significant criticism, not just some past atrocity (Germany), or controversy over its treatment of its indigenous population in the past (Canada), or past ethnic conflict (Rwanda). I dont think the criticism should overwhelm the lead here, but as a notable controversy about present tense policies and actions of Israel it belongs with more weight given to it than the coverage of those past conflicts in those articles. nableezy - 20:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Australia. Wonderful the ability of that lead not to mention 200 years of ethnocide, or declaring terra nullius a land that had several hundred tribes, speaking some of the most complex languages on record, perhaps a half a million people my ancestors and their kind got to work to 'black' out (Stolen generation). If you did someone a favour, they'd often thank you saying:'Thanks mate. You're a real whiteman'.Mum (pronounced 'Numb')'s the word.Nishidani (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is increasingly dawning that most of the country leads are polished turds, though in Australia's case, the problem is a repetition of issues on the page, where little mention of the brutalization of aboriginal society is made. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't found a good one yet. I swear it's a global pandemic. Levivich (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

2nd lead paragraph

Modern Israel is located in the Southern Levant, which has been inhabited for over a million years. Ancient Israelites emerged from Canaan between the 13th and 10th centuries B.C.E., establishing the northern Kingdom of Israel and southern Kingdom of Judah. The region was ruled by a series of empires from the 8th century B.C.E. until the 2nd century B.C.E. Maccabean Revolt established the Hasmonean dynasty, which fell to the Roman Republic a century later. The subsequent Jewish–Roman wars resulted in widespread destruction and displacement across Judea. Under Byzantine rule (4th-7th c. C.E.), Christians replaced Jews as the majority. The area was ruled by Muslim caliphates from the 7th century until the 11th century when European Christians established the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the First Crusade. The Kingdom fell to the Ayyubid dynasty in the 12th century, who were overthrown by the Mamluk Sultanate in the 13th century, who in turn were conquered by the Ottoman Empire at the onset of the 16th century.

References

Sadly, it's not much shorter. I think I will try again tomorrow with a shorter version, but here is how far I got. I don't think any of this needs citation, but I included some cites; other cites could be used for the same content. Levivich (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I was attempting another re-draft in parallel, merging all classical empires and medieval caliphates into single sentences for each and dispensing with all events in favour of only the truly epochal changes for the region. Here's mine, with your intro, which I borrowed:

"Modern Israel is located in the Southern Levant, which has been inhabited for over a million years. In ancient history, it was where Canaanite and Israelite civilization emerged, and in the early first millennium BCE the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged, before Near Eastern empires annexed the region. In the 2nd century BCE, an independent Hasmonean kingdom emerged, before Rome conquered the area a century later. In the 7th century, the Muslim conquest of the Levant established caliphal rule. The 11th century brought the Crusades and the founding of Crusader States, the last ending in the 13th century at the hands of the Mamluks, who in the 16th century ceded the area to the Ottoman Empire.

That's less than two-thirds the length of the current text, and would largely (though not totally) resolve the overweighting of ancient-premodern history. (Ancient-premodern history currently makes up about an eight of the page. With this 117-word text, the lead would be about 650 words and this text would make it about 18% of the lead, but still less than before). Thoughts? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Not an improvement in either case (let alone the "who...,who...,who" version). Pre-modern history, as one of the four paragraphs in lead, shouldn't be any less than 25% per proper balance. Also ancient empires and caliphates that ruled the land need to be mentioned. I don't understand your obsession with trimming this non-controversial content. Again, take a look at articles of Lebanon, Turkey or Iran as reference. Dovidroth (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Why on earth shouldn't pre-modern history "be any less than 25% per proper balance"? Is that based on anything at all? This has been proposed based on discussions above, where there is broad consensus that the lead is A) problematically long and includes too little of the most relevant information, and that B) the 2nd para is a key source of irrelevance. Look at the discussion above which provides some actual featured article country pages, such as Germany, which has exactly 72 words of pre-modern history. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Both drafts look like improvements to me. I'll have to spend more time with them to form a preference. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Good but with three reservations: Undue emphasis on the Hasmonean kingdom. Near eastern empires without naming them is under emphasizing thousands of years of notable history by these empires. Also Crusader states were established through conquest, so not sure why Muslim rule is only labelled as conquest. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Also there should be some sort of consensus on this paragraph so that it doesn't keep changing every five seconds. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The Near Eastern Empires in question here only actually cover a span of 500-600 years. Yes, the Hasmonean part is over-emphasised, but certain editors here will definitely go spare and never accept a version that doesn't include it because the Hasmoneans are totemically symbolical to Israel. "Muslim conquest of the Levant" is simply the name of that article without any piping. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the following version is better redacted without grouping all these kingdoms into a single "Near Eastern empires", which is also false since some of them didn't originate there and weren't limited to that region. There isn't much change in size compared to Iskandar's version, though:

"Modern Israel is located in the Southern Levant, which has been inhabited for over a million years. In ancient history, it was where Canaanite and Israelite civilizations emerged, while in the early first millennium BCE the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged, before falling to the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian empires, respectively. During the classical era, the region was ruled by the Achaemenid, Macedonian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires. In the 2nd century BCE, an independent Hasmonean kingdom emerged, before Rome conquered the area a century later. In the 7th century, the Muslim conquest of the Levant established caliphal rule. The 11th century brought the Crusades and the founding of Crusader States, the last ending in the 13th century at the hands of the Mamluks, who lost the area to the Ottoman Empire at the onset of the 16th century.

Thoughts? Dovidroth (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Dovidroth (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Only minor changes: "and later Israelite", "Seleucid empires, and Hasmonean dynasty" (for brevity and to avoid undue weight). All of the empires mentioned were established through conquest and to only label the caliphates as coming through conquests is a severe form of bias, regardless of what the linked article is named. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Both Levivich and Iskandar323's proposals look like improvements on the current text to me. I prefer phrasing in different parts of each of them. I don't feel I have enough expertise in Palestine's pre-modern history to judge whether the emphasis/balance of certain parts are right. Jr8825 • Talk 12:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What Israel are we talking about? Personally, to avoid headaches, I would eliminate most history and focus strictly on the origins in terms of the modern movement to immigrate to Palestine from the early 1880s) and the rise of Zionism (1895 onwards). There is a very simple reason for this best grasped by recalling what Steven Runciman stated in the 1960s.

Much of the conflictual nature of this area arises from the fact that the UN Partition Plan gave a warrant to establish Israel in the biblical territory of the Philistines - the coastal Shephelah-, and Palestinians in the heartlands, Judea and Samaria, which form the core of Jewish symbolic attachment. When we say Israel here, and underwrite it by a history that goes back to 1100 BC, the hidden assumption is that this 'Israel' is not the modern state, but Eretz Israel as now used (rabbinic usage of this term denoted a more restricted, or expansive geographical area), the preferred term because it encompasses both the legitimate territorial area of the state of Israel and all of the Palestinian territories, as in the tacit and tenaciously pursued project of Zionism from its beginnings.

In going too far back, we are stating that the modern state within the Green Line has its antecedent in the brief Israelitic kingdoms of Samaria and Judea (now located in the West Bank, which is not part of Israel). Like everything one touches in this area, there is a highly charged discursive minefield, so difficult to negotiate without one's generalizations blowing up, that the temptation, as here, is to sweep the clarity of definitions that our choice of terms invariably demands, under the carpet with a 'Well, you know what we mean.' I, for one, don't.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Your point about the modern state's recent origins is valid, but if your suggestion is that the history section of this article should start in the 19th century, I don't agree. The early history of the Israelites is appropriate here as the article is about Israel as a country/state in the broadest sense, not just the modern political entity. The same goes for other country articles whose history at times lack a contiguous state entity. Jr8825 • Talk 13:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jr8825 but addressing othert remarks made below also.

The Israelites (qua ethnos) were not 'Jewish'. That is name confusion. Their descendants were Samaritans, with whom Judaism had a long and often hostile relationship , and were one of the major populations of the area until .the Byzantines all but wiped them out (we simplify all this by ignoring them as just thinking in terms of the 'big pictures' (Jews,Christians, Moslems). I can’t blame you for this misapprehension, because, if you set aside specialist scholarship, books on the history of this area tend to reflect a prejudice, one we dutifully follow. The bias is to sweep up Samaritans as part of Jewish heritage, absorbing them into it to the point of 0disappeaing’ the difference, whereas in the critical period of the 2nd century CE to the 6th., they may well have constituted anything from a third a half of the population. Crown indeed states that it is reasonable to conjecture for the 4th century CE a Samaritan population of 500,000 which is half the carrying weight in terms of food consumption of Palestine. The popular Jewish, Zionist or Israeli narrative which Tombah’s uninformed generalizations repeat several times below, highlight, for example the Jewish-Roman wars as a core feature, of seminal importance, and ignore the fact that a catastrophe of similar proportions befell the Samaritans some centuries later. (and Christians slaughtered by Jews around theMamilla Pool, now mainly a parking lot in Jerusalem erased from history – where perhaps 24,000 or upwards as far as 60,000 are said to have been murdered; and then the various Crusader, Fatimid and Mongol devastations). Carnage is the basso ostinato of history. The article on France has no mention of the perhaps 1,000,000 Gauls murdered in Caesar’s conquest (The lead glosses over that by writing;’ Rome annexed the area in 51 BC, leading to a distinct Gallo-Roman culture that laid the foundation of the French language.’). It is an abiding vice of this topic area to edit ethnically, erasing the impressive heterogeneity of this historical crossroad and boiling everything down to a simple narrative that ties up the threads of history into a nice just-so story of one people’s origin, expulsion and return. I would have the same objection were I to see editors writing the history of Italy as a story of Christian struggle.There is no doubt that in Jewish tradition, the I/P area has an overwhelming resonance (as it does for Christians). But history is far too complex for ethnic reductionism or narrative exclusivism. This protest will be futile. Numbers determine content.Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

So now only the Samaritans, not the Jews, are descendents of the Israelites? It appears that someone skipped history class or perhaps fell head over heels in love with a flimsy notion and declared it to be true. The Samaritans themselves reject that. Even if we completely reject the historical veracity of the biblical story, we cannot deny the existence of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which had nearly identical religious, cultural, linguistic, and lifestyle practices. The assumption that they all self-identified as Israelites makes perfect sense. Also, comparing Jewish history with Christian history is ridiculous. There's a difference between the history of a world religion and belief system practiced by one third of humanity, and the history of an ethnoreligious group, which has been regarded as an ethnos since the earliest times. Tombah (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The history class you skipped certainly was that one where facts like Judea being Assyria's ally when Samaria was invaded were taught. But then again, perhaps they don't go into the details in high school or bible class.Nishidani (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

South Korea and North Korea engaged in a violent conflict and remain enemies. Does anyone dispute that the two of them are Korean? 05:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sheesh. That's stepping into it. I actually edit articles on the early history of that peninsula. You are way out of your depth. The analogy does not hold unless you could show that it is normative in Korean scholarship to assert that the modern political division conserves a common nationality that echoes some ancient shared heritage underwriting a unified ethos of early northern groups like the Okjeo, Buyeo and Dongye and southern groups within states and confederations like the Mahan, Jinhan, Byeonhan and Gaya. History is not a comic book for kiddies. Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is not a history of the Jewish people. nableezy - 21:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the state of the Jewish people, which was established in their ancient homeland, exactly where much of their ancient history happened. Tombah (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

No, this article is about a country called Israel. And the history you speak of took place outside of that country. nableezy - 21:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I had the same thought. As the birthplace of the Jewish people, their ancestral homeland, and the location of multiple Jewish kingdoms in antiquity, this region's historical history has great significance for (understanding) the creation of the modern state of Israel. Moreover, the lede of practically every country article I looked at also mentions ancient history. Tombah (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not an advert for nationalism. The country is also the “birthplace” of the Palestinian people. Technically the birthplace of the Jewish people is Judea/Jerusalem, which according to international consensus are not part of Israel.

The history in the lede must be neutral. Please can we not waste time pushing things that favor one narrative over another. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this why the article on Palestinians claim that "Today, the Palestinian identity encompasses the heritage of all ages from biblical times up to the Ottoman period"? because I have never met a single Palestinian who identifies with the biblical period. It's really quite the opposite; in fact, a certain editor told me once that "Biblical stories obviously don't qualify for the lede's of a Palestinian city". By the way, remember that the Jerusalem Mountains, which are part of Israel's pre-1967 borders, were also part of ancient Judea, so it is inaccurate to say that Judea is not a part of Israel according to international consensus. In any case, bringing up important pivotal moments in Jewish history is not "not neutral". The Jewish-Roman Wars are a historical reality that does not favor one tale over another. This is historical truth. Removing important historical events for the sake of (false) balance is not acceptable. 15:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You should read the sources in that article. Or read public statements by Palestinian politicians.[12][13] It is no more speculative and unprovable than the claim that modern Jews descend from Biblical Israelites.

And no, the vast majority of the Jerusalem mountains are not in Israel pre-1967, they are in the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I think both Dovidroth's and Levivich's proposals are great! I would only mention the Jewish-Roman wars since they provide context for why Jewish sovereignty over the region was lost in the first place and had to be reestablished in the modern era. The Hasmonean period must be kept here as well, because it is significant for two reasons: first, it may have been the last time that a local native dynasty ruled the land before modern Israel was founded; and second, it is deeply symbolic period in Jewish history and, consequently, of how Israel views its own historical background because it represents the last instance in which Jews had independent control over the Land of Israel until the modern era. With that fixed, I think we can settle on this version for a much more concise lede. Tombah (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  The Jewish-Roman wars are hugely undue at the level of summary that is being performed here. When the relevance of the passage of entire empires is in question, a series of ineffectual local revolts is not really on the menu. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Empires come and go. Some of them, notably the Ptolmaics, Abbasids, Mongols and Ayubbids, hardly left any trace in the history of the country. On the other hand, the Jewish-Roman wars led to the displacement of a sizable portion of the indigenous population of the region, which ultimately culminated in their becoming the minority, what sets the background to the eventual restoration of Jewish independence over the land. And once again, this article is about a nation, and a nation's perception of its own history is a key component of what makes a nation. It must stay. Tombah (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    See my above comment re nationalism.

    Another problem with Dovidroth’s proposal is his first sentence (“Modern Israel is located in the Southern Levant, which has been inhabited for over a million years”). The term Southern Levant is a neologism to avoid saying the word Palestine - to avoid dispute we can just use neither. And the million years point is not lede worthy partly because homo sapiens have only been around 300,000 years and partly because more than half the world was also populated during the same period. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    Would you prefer if it said modern Israel is located on the Levantine corridor rather than the Southern Levant? The former is more specific, but I think the latter is more familiar to the reader. FWIW, the sources I used for this all said "Southern Levant", although some mention the corridor. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    I quite like Levantine corridor; it is descriptive and relevant to the prehistoric period. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    The term Southern Levant is the accurate and common geographical name for the region. Drsmoo (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    This is an article about a country in the sense of a state as defined in international law, one that includes people of various backgrounds, not a selectively edited ethnographic chronicle of any one 'nation' of people. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    It's the history of a Jewish country called Israel. While a history of the modern state of Israel is not the same thing as a history of Judaism of course, nevertheless, the history of the Israelites and the history of Judaism are going to be more relevant to the modern state of Israel than the non-Israeli, non-Jewish history of the region. I would feel the same way about the 2nd paragraph of State of Palestine--in that case, Muslim history would be more relevant than non-Muslim history (that article currently doesn't cover pre-modern history in its lead at all, unfortunately). Levivich (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    Neither Israel nor Palestine is even close to 100% any religion. A dichotomous approach is highly exclusionary to the region's not inconsiderable population of Samaritans, Druze, Christians, etc. - are their histories to simply be erased because they do not form a majoritarian population in a modern state? History is best identity-free. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    It doesn't have to be 100% Jewish, but I'm pretty sure all the RSes refer to Israel as a Jewish state. Levivich (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    But that particular part is already covered in the other paragraphs. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    Right, but I'm saying that because modern Israel is a Jewish state, a summary of relevant pre-history would focus on Jewish history over non-Jewish history. Levivich (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    Not really. Sweden is largely Christian and atheist today, but Swedish history doesn't fixate on everything from the coming of the Christianity through to the enlightenment; it covers everything, evenhandedly, beginning with the Vikings and paganism. History isn't meant to take sides. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    Seems like you have the whole idea of Jewish history incorrect. One third of the world's population practices Christianity, and ethnic groups and countries can choose whether or not to do so. However, Jews are a member of an ethnoreligious group that has been described as such since ancient times. Swedes consider the Vikings to be a part of their own history and heritage, similar to how Jews view the Jewish Roman wars and the destruction of the Temple. Tombah (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  This is not an article on the history of the Jewish people. nableezy - 23:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I think it is more accurate to say that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. Lots of states define themselves in a nationalistic way so that would be fine. Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think we're gelling towards consensus here. One question: does everybody agree about not mentioning Christians and the Byzantine Empire? My feeling is that the three words that must be in the 2nd paragraph (to understand the rest of the history) are "Jewish," "Christian," and "Muslim", and I feel that by mentioning the Crusades without mentioning the Byzantine era, we are giving the false impression that Christianity reached the region in the 11th century (rather than the 5th). Thoughts on this one part? Levivich (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Well there's a whole separate discussion going on on the Byzantine Empire page as to whether 'Byzantine' is even a valid term, due to its people self-identifying as Roman. I guess the super-short cut rolls with that and just treats the Byzantines as an extension of the Roman Empire. I worry that adding details like this (and religion) back in will only get the paragraph back to where it started. My feeling is, in a brief history of a country article, the core details are just the former states that existed. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thankfully, all the sources call it the "Byzantine Empire", so I don't think we have to worry about that :-)

  You don't think it's important to tell the reader, in the lead, that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all ruled the land that modern Israel is on at different times in history? Levivich (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it can be covered to a meaningful degree in the summary context. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  What do you think about going really high level and saying something almost literally like, the area has been under Jewish, Christian, and Muslim rule at various times in history? Levivich (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  What about the Babylonian or Greek pantheons, or Zoroastrianism, etc.? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Do you believe those cultures/religions are as relevant to modern Israel -- named after the grandson of Abraham -- as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- the so-called Abrahamic religions? Levivich (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ok then, a more complex one: Samaritans, who believe they follow the 'original' Israelite religion, versus the novel thinking of the exilic lot - the point being you can generalize, but it's not ideal, and honestly, in a region this religiously complex, it's a bit reductive and arguably does more harm than good. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  The area that is today modern Israel has never been under Samaritan rule, though, unless I'm mistaken. For that reason, I'm not sure it's worth mentioning them in the lead. (Though certainly in the body of this article.) Levivich (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Well that's Nableezy's logic below where he notes that most of Samaria and Judea aren't actually in Israel - not quite sure how to unpack that particular kettle of fish. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of the ancient history here is about an area not in Israel. It is a history of the Southern Levant, mostly the West Bank. You have users claiming the lead cannot include the human rights abuses in the West Bank because it isnt a part of Israel and then attempting to include the ancient history of the West Bank as though it is a part of Israel. Thats nonsensical. nableezy - 17:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

As I look at the three drafts in this section, every single sentence of each draft seems to me to be about the land modern Israel proper is situated on, excluding the West Bank, even if you exclude Jerusalem. Which sentences are about an area not in modern Israel? Levivich (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Jewish–Roman wars resulted in widespread destruction and displacement across Judea, Under Byzantine rule (4th-7th c. C.E.), Christians replaced Jews as the majority, most of this is about area outside of Israel, and it is all mashed together as though it is one place from the river to the sea. nableezy - 18:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

When you say "most of this is about area outside of Israel", you mean, for example, that most of the Byzantine Empire or most of the Christians were outside of the area that comprises modern Israel? But it is in fact true that in the area that is today modern Israel, Christians replaced Jews as the majority under Byzantine rule, is it not? And, furthermore, that this was a significant event in the "pre-history" of modern Israel?

As to the Jewish-Roman wars: well, what the fall of Rome is to modern Italy, what the fall of the Byzantine Empire is to modern Greece, is what the destruction of the Second Temple is to modern Israel. These national irredentist beliefs form a core part of the identity of the modern states. I don't think Wikipedia can introduce a reader to a modern state without mentioning, at least, where the modern state believes it comes from. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The population shift it is talking about is largely the West Bank. You cant talk about Judea without it mostly being centered on the West Bank, even more so when you discuss populations and not land. nableezy - 18:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, let's ignore the key events in the history of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, just because they happened a few kilometers east of the Green Line (which both of its sides are under Israeli control anyway, but forget that for a moment). Do me a favor, this is ridiculous. The legacy of the Jewish-Roman wars is instrumental for understanding modern-day Israel, and minor territorial technicalities won't change that. Tombah (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not Land of Israel. And you cant both say the human rights abuses in the West Bank are not relevant because they are outside of Israel and then say the history of the West Bank is relevant because Israel controls it. That is ridiculous. So is how editors are canvassed to this and every other discussion. Wonder why that IP thought youd be so reliable. nableezy - 18:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me catch up on my talk page. You almost made it sound as if I didn't write about Jewish and Israeli history here on Wikipedia every single day in the past year. Did I say such a thing about the West Bank? Cannot really remember. Maybe it's time to abandon the ideology and acknowledge the historical facts, the platform we all love could benefit greatly from it. Tombah (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I dont see how that is at all relevant to the discussion. Yes, lets abandon ideology and tired propaganda like The West Bank and Gaza Strip's current situation is largely shaped by Palestinian terrorism directed at Israeli civilians over a long period of time and Many of the restrictions imposed in the West Bank—perhaps most famously the barrier—were constructed to protect Israeli citizens from terrorists. That would be just great. This is not an article on the history of the Jewish people, which would have all this relevant to it, but on modern Israel, which does not include the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Most of the history you write about is about places outside of Israel. And it is not relevant here, certainly not without clarifying that this is talking about territory outside of the modern state. And that it forms part of the nationalist founding mythology of the modern state, but besides that it is not related to the topic of the modern state known as Israel. nableezy - 19:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm jumping into this burning discussion just to ask you a thing: You seem to have a problem with mentioning the history of Judea. What do you propose instead, so that we clearly know what you want? Synotia (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

To make clear that the populations being referred to and the land being referred to are largely the Palestinian territories and not Israel. You are placing this in a history of Israel. Not a history of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel or Palestine or Southern Levant, but in the article on the modern state of Israel. The paragraph is about the river to the sea. And not about Israel. nableezy - 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Compare for example State of Palestine. It does not go in to nationalist mythologies justifying the Palestinian people's ancient connection to their homeland. It talks about its founding, declaration. Its history begins in 1947. But here we are going back in to ancient people that largely resided outside of this territory but rather in the territory of Palestine! nableezy - 21:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a flaw not a feature of that article. In fact, if we can get this one improved, that's probably the next article I'll move on to. Levivich (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Depends, we have multiple articles on the history of the entire region. We have both Land of Israel and Palestine (region), and duplicating that history again here and again at State of Palestine seems over the top. The history of modern Israel begins around the time of Der Judenstaat. And that is what makes sense to begin with discussing the modern state, not with ancient kingdoms centered on territory outside of that state. nableezy - 22:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I just disagree with you about that. In order to introduce a modern state, you have to say something about where the state comes from or thinks it comes from--a state's founding story (or myth) is core, absolute core, to understanding the state, even on an introductory level. We would never omit Roman Empire from the lead of Italy, or Byzantine Empire from the lead of Greece, even though the territory of those empires extend far beyond the territory of the modern state, even if there was no continuity between the ancient and the modern, even if it's more myth than reality. Founding myths are important to understanding states. Levivich (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But it belongs as that national mythology, not as the supposed history of the state. Especially when it is largely made up of history outside of that state. nableezy - 22:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a founding story of Jewish people and of course its relevant as far as it goes, but there is a tension between that and the modern conception (European) of state. Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(question to both of you and everyone else) What if it had a construction that was more like: Modern Israel traces its roots to the ancient Israelites, who emerged from Canaan in the Southern Levant in the late 2nd millennium B.C.E. And a second sentence could be something like, After the fall of the divided kingdoms, the area was ruled by a series of empires, including Jews, Christians, and Muslims, until the 20th century. That would be like a two-sentence version (my terrible writing notwithstanding, but you understand what I mean about the level of detail). Levivich (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Modern Israel doesnt do anything of the sort, some politicians and other assorted figures do that. nableezy - 23:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Israel does not trace its roots to the Israelites? Levivich (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What does that even mean? When somebody says some country does something they typically mean that country's government or military. What does it mean to say Israel traces its roots to the Israelites? nableezy - 23:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's true that it's hard to say exactly what is meant when we say a country does something, but in this case, let's say that I think it borders on tautological that when the people who formed the country called "Israel" chose the name "Israel" it was because they were evoking the Land of Israel, the Israelites, and Jacob (aka "Israel"), i.e. the national irredentist founding myth of the modern state of Israel goes back to ("traces its roots to") Jacob and the Israelites. Levivich (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Certainly the choice of name is connected to that past. But its more to do with Eretz Yisrael (which is why there was an EY on the British Mandate's currency) than with anything else. nableezy - 23:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh really. Check the coinage of Israel. It is mainly based on coins of the Second Temple period. Check the Bible verses which appear virtually everywhere. The state of Israel, and not just assorted politicians, sees itself as rooted in ancient Israelite and Jewish culture and as a continuation of previous Jewish polities of the region. Tombah (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The key phrase being "sees itself" as a continuation. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it evokes that imagery now, but we should not be claiming a national mythology as fact. Which is what you are doing. Moreover, you are making the paragraph about the river to the sea, and not about Israel. nableezy - 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s a good direction of travel. We can address nableezy’s point with some wordsmithing.

If we are really to treat our readers as grownups, we should remove talk of “emerged from canaan” and “divided kingdoms”; archaeology is very weak on these topics. Simply explain that the roots are traced to Biblical history.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with dropping Canaan and the divided kingdoms and/or mentioning that the roots trace to Biblical history. One of the reasons I like the idea of condensing all the pre-19th c. history to like two sentences is that it would allow us to use the 2nd paragraph to cover all the pre-1948 history (which is all "background" or "prehistory" for the subject, modern Israel). Essentially we'd be shrinking the pre-19th c. history so we could expand the history for the period from rise of Zionism (19th c.) to establishment of modern Israel (1948) in the 2nd paragraph, and cover establishment to present in the third (and maybe fourth) paragraphs. I think 19th c.-1948 and 1948-present are both more relevant for the lead than pre-19th c. history, which should be mentioned, but could be summarized at a very high level. Not sure tho if anyone else thinks this would be a good organization. Levivich (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This would make a lot of sense if consensus could be arrived at for it. There is an entire encyclopedia of articles devoted to the expansive and not readily summarized ancient history of the area. And for those that want ethnically locked history, we have History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I can't imagine an intro to Italy without mentioning the Roman Empire, and an intro to Greece without mentioning both Classical Athens and Alexander the Great. Same about Israel: the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and Hasmonean Judea must be mentioned here. Israel is a Jewish country, so Jewish history should be prioritized. Tombah (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree but I think we could accomplish it in two sentences. For example, I think that, for the purposes of this lead, a link to Israelites is just as good, if not better, than linking any of Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), Kingdom of Judah, Neo-Assyrian Empire, or Neo-Babylonian Empire (I would link to all of those in the body, though). The Israelites article encompasses the others and places them into context with each other. If the reader had no knowledge about any of this history, the first place I'd send them is the Israelites article, and from there the reader can get to the other articles (or, from the body of this article). Levivich (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That is the point, and beauty, of linked encyclopedias. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Another option is to start with "Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel...", as that's an article that encompasses the others as well. Levivich (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It would certainly cut to the heart of the matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy is wrong here. We cannot ignore important events that help understand then origins of Israel just because they happened at the wrong side of a partially relevant border.

Archaeology is not weak on the existence of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, it is just their earliest origins that are contested.

I completely disagree with Nableezy and yourself here. And even if Nableezy was right, and we should not include events if they happened in the West Bank (nonsense, but let's say that for a moment) - sites such as Yodfat, Masada (two of the most famous sieges of the First Jewish-Roman war) Maresha, Ethri, Motza, Azeka, Lachish (Second largest city of biblical Judah after Jerusalem) and more, are located well inside Israel's pre-67 borders. Tombah (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The idea that borders of a country is partially relevant to the article about that country is so incredibly preposterous that it has to be noted here. And nothing about the Jewish Roman wars has anything whatsoever to do with the origins of the state of Israel. That is such unadulterated crap that it again needs to be noted here. nableezy - 21:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course we will absolutely mention ancient and pre-modern history in lead of this article, one way or another. That will remain. From Jordan to Italy, from Turkey to Iran, from Lebanon to Spain, from Russia to Ukraine ... almost every single country in Wikipedia with a rich history mentions ancient and medieval kingdoms or rulers connected to the modern state, even if tenuously. Israel will not be the exception. Arab Jordan for example mentions Ammon, Moab and Edom which have clearly no connection to the modern state, but it should, because history happened in that territory. There are plenty of editors who will not allow such a thing in this article to be erased. And the objection by Nableezy that some of that history should be left way because technically took place in what is today (Israeli-controlled) West Bank rather than Israel proper is beyond pedantic. And even this meaningless objection is false since both Israelite kingdoms in antiquity and the Hasmoneans ruled over what is today Israel west and north of the Green Line as well; the same applies to previous and later rulers. What we were discussing here, and should focus on instead of wasting our time, is whether those great empires that ruled the land deserve at least to be named so the reader can have a link available to them right from the start. I would say yes. Also just naming "empires" without specifying them seems strange and not the normal standard for articles in Wikipedia regarding countries with a rich history (every part of the globe was part of an "empire" at one point after all). I think we should definitely name the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians and Hellenistic kingdoms (mainly Macedonian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid). I also wanted those different Muslim caliphates to remain in the lead, but I am apparently the only one. In many articles, pre-modern history is one of the four or five paragraphs in lead, hence my reasoning that it should be no less than 20-25% of the introduction per balance and WP:Due. Regarding the Jewish-Roman wars and the Byzantines, I think they also deserve a mention, but I'm willing to compromise on that. As a matter of fact, I like the second paragraph as it stands now. Nobody had a problem with it until some people started talking about apartheid and human rights violations of today. What's the connection between them? I have no idea. Maybe implicit retaliation as "if you don't accept my POV addition, I will ruin your article"? Who knows? Dovidroth (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone except myself, but for me, the connection is seeing broad agreement that the lead needs to be improved, even if there isn't agreement about how exactly, as well as agreement that the lead is too long and yet is missing important events, even if there isn't agreement about what exactly to remove and what exactly to add. This is a useful starting point that makes it worthwhile to pursue consensus for a rewrite of the lead. I don't expect we will achieve consensus for a whole rewrite of the lead purely through talk page discussion, but I do expect we can agree on some things and identify and hone the areas of disagreement and resolve those through an RFC (or multiple if need be). It'd be great if we can get to one agreed proposed version and put that up for an RFC if need be. Or, if we agree that it can be improved but we don't agree on how, maybe two proposed versions that could be put up for RFC. Or maybe it'll just be a disagreement about a few sentences that will be put up for an RFC. If God loves us, there will be no need for an RFC, but I doubt that is the case. ;-) Levivich (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It is impossible to describe the State of Israel without the history of the Jewish people in its land. The Jewish-Roman wars are a very significant part of Jewish history, on the same scale as the Holocaust. It is very important to note this realting to the historical background of the State of Israel. it is mentioned at the beginning of the Israeli Declaration of Independence: "After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom."

The same goes for the Hasmonean kingdom, which was an exemplary model for the Zionist movement, which established Israel. But not only for them, but also for the Jews who fought in the Roman Empire. Battle of Beth Horon (66) was, for them, a reconstruction of the victory of Judas Maccabeus in Battle of Beth Horon (166 BC). The Zionists saw the Hasmonean state as a model that could be adopted for national freedom, military service and courage. References to this can be found in the writes of AD Gordon, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the Jewish Legion, Bilu and many more.ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The Palestine article is an exception. Germany for example mentions the larger region of Germania.

Israel was founded as a state for the Jewish people, it makes sense to illustrate the key points of the Jewish people's history in the lede, in my opinion. There is a reason why the state was established in Palestine and not in Uganda, Madagascar, or Argentina. It's because of the Jewish people's connection to it. The whole area is full of Jewish archeological sites and cities mentioned in the Bible. Even before Zionism there were Jews who moved to places like Tzfat or Tiberias from abroad. Synotia (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You are acting like it is objective fact that this is the Jewish people's land. Beyond that, the land you are referring to is not in Israel. Which is the topic of this article. As far as reasons for Palestine and not Argentina or whatever, that is covered in more detail in History of Zionism. And it is not because the "Jewish people's connection to it". You are attempting to establish myths as fact in an encyclopedia. That is not acceptable. nableezy - 16:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Huh?

What have I said that is a "myth"? I feel like you're confusing me with somebody else? Synotia (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

the history of the Jewish people in its land. This isnt an article on the Land of Israel, and the West Bank is not the Jewish people's land. That is the myth you are pushing, that all of this belongs to the Jews as a people, and all of its history is Israel's history. nableezy - 18:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't used the words the history of the Jewish people in its land. You seem to confuse me with someone else.

That is the myth you are pushing, that all of this belongs to the Jews as a people That's not what I have been meaning to say? Putting words in my mouth like that poisons the debate.

and all of its history is Israel's history Well, yes, just like the lede talking about Germania is fitting for the Germany article. Just like talking about Francia is fitting on the France article. And so on and so forth. Synotia (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It is impossible to describe the State of Israel without the history of the Jewish people in its land precedes your signature as best I can tell. Again, ancient Israelite kingdoms outside of Israel's borders have nothing to do with the history of Israel. nableezy - 21:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC) (edit: youre right, I cant tell, the cursive signature made it hard to miss nableezy - 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC))

Again, ancient Israelite kingdoms outside of Israel's borders have nothing to do with the history of Israel May we know which ones you are talking about more precisely? Synotia (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Basically everything prior to the Ottomans. nableezy - 01:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Imo, Levivich has the right idea with "Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel..." as to linkage between the modern state and (at least Israeli) Jewish thought, as I said, the Jewish polity emphasize this aspect but it has little to do with the modern functioning of a state which in the modern ideal is a state for all its citizens (everybody self determines) and this is the answer to Dovidroth question "What's the connection between them?" (the Jewish majority has reserved the right of self determination to itself). Had the partition plan succeeded, there would have been a 'Jewish state' in fact but it didn't and the state is not entirely Jewish. Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I've edited my comment while you were at it to clarify myself :) Synotia (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

An aside, but given the 2018 Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, if anything, I'd say the country is moving away from an ideal of being a state for all its citizens, not towards it. Levivich (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The incoming government guidelines include a statement "The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan and Judea and Samaria." Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The 21st-century global swing to the right has been terrifying. Levivich (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Too many of the comments above are advocating filling the lede with the country’s “national myth”. Imagine the United States article pushing the Manifest destiny theme in the lede, or the South Africa article pushing the Great Trek. These were national stories used to glorify colonialism in the 19th century. I emphathize with the desire to erase the colonial nature of modern Israel by making its history read like that of non-colonized countries, but doing so is misleading. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Too many of the comments above are advocating filling the lede with the country’s “national myth” Are you talking about me? Because that is not my intention. Synotia (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

'a state's founding story (or myth) is core, absolute core, to understanding the state, even on an introductory level.'

That is a very honest, indeed courageous, statement by Levivich, and in its succinctness worth more than the endless unfocused and partisan pseudo-historical blather that plagues us here. A comparativist would note that many modern nation states held to this notion tenaciously, and it proved functional to the development of each state until a tipping point arose, in each case, and the myth was dropped because of its collateral dysfunctional side-effects. In concrete terms, the myth has forged modern Israel, informed its Jewish majority, of disparate roots, with a cohesive identity, but is no longer taken seriously at TAU ormost other centres of advanced research. The emerging facts consistently undercut its assumptions. On wikipedia we use scholarship, not myths. No one would write the history of Utah by alluding to the Book of Mormons, despite that being fundamental to its formative community.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yet another time someone is addressing me in reply to somebody else in this fog of war :D Synotia (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'll note the lead of Utah does mention the Mormons, as it should. :-) Levivich (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see in what way this compares to the Israel article? Synotia (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That was in response to "No one would write the history of Utah by alluding to the Book of Mormons, despite that being fundamental to its formative community." Levivich (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course it mentions Mormons, it does not however say the state of Utah traces its lineage to the prophecy of Joseph Smith as told in the Book of Mormon as though that were factual. That is what is being done here. nableezy - 21:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Which, unusually, you failed to read correctly. The analogy is between referring to the Israelites of the Bible as background for fhe state of Israel and a hypothetical parallel allusion to the Book of Mormon's Lehi/Lamanite lineage in BCE America as a warrant for the establishment of Mormons in what later became the state of Utah. Sigh:))):( Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a good analogy. Israel was founded to be a "Jewish and democratic state". Utah was not founded to be a "Mormon and democratic state". It was in fact not allowed to be a state at all until it agreed to outlaw polygamy, which was practiced by some Mormon leaders in Utah at the time. Utah is not an independent country like Israel, rather it's a state in a country that separates church and state in its constitution, so it can't be a "Mormon state". Comparisons between Utah and Israel are thus strained...yet still, Utah mentions Mormonism and Mormon history in its lead, and similarly the lead of Israel will mention Judaism and Jewish history. Levivich (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, there is a vast difference between mentioning and asserting as fact what is myth, nationalist or religious or otherwise. And beyond that, the history of the West Bank, which is what most of that paragraph is about, is not the history Israel. nableezy - 21:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Read the above. You tried to make a smart crack after misreading my comment. Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Telling it as it is?

To try to cut through this, we can consider the lede of History of Jerusalem: Given the city's central position in both Israeli nationalism and Palestinian nationalism, the selectivity required to summarize more than 5,000 years of inhabited history is often[3] influenced by ideological bias or background (see Historiography and nationalism). For example, the Jewish periods of the city's history are important to Israeli nationalists, whose discourse states that modern Jews originate and descend from the Israelites,[Note 1][Note 2] while the Islamic periods of the city's history are important to Palestinian nationalists, whose discourse suggests that modern Palestinians descend from all the different peoples who have lived in the region.[Note 3][Note 4] As a result, both sides claim the history of the city has been politicized by the other in order to strengthen their relative claims to the city,[3][8][9] and that this is borne out by the different focuses the different writers place on the various events and eras in the city's history.

There must be a way of communicating the same here, albeit in a much shorter way. A version of Levivich's summarized pre-modern overview would be followed by a sentence explaining that the story of the pre-modern history can be told in different ways and linking to a sub-article with more detail on the history. That way we can forever stop arguing about whether this period or that period is given more emphasis.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That's more like the "truth" of it and then how to link that to the idea of a modern state. As for the Palestinians, I doubt that they look at their state in quite the same way that (the Jewish majority of) Israel do. Their conception is likely to be closer to the modern idea and less concerned with any "historical connection" per se. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

There is always the good old standby, how do sources do it? Present the history, that is. And I don't mean Bibleworld or some such, proper historians.

I picked one at random, A Brief History of Israel, Second Edition (2008) by Bernard Reich and of 12 chapters, the first is devoted to Biblical Times to the Ottoman Period (12 pages), the second to The Prehistory of the State of Israel (c. 1880–1948) (30 pages) and all the others to the modern state.(250 pages)

No idea if that's typical, but if so, then its about 4% Bible to Ottoman, 12% 1880-48 and 84% to the actual state. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, at the end of the day, reliable sources are the ultimate authority on what is due. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

2nd paragraph up to 1948

Modern Israel is the land promised by God to the Jews, God's chosen people...

Modern Israel has absolutely nothing to do with anything else called "Israel"...

OK, we can all agree we're not going to start with either of those. Here is what the 2nd paragraph might look like if it covered all the history leading up to independence (14 May 1948) in one paragraph (the 3rd paragraph would then begin with the war on 15 May 1948). What's in brackets is "placeholder" language for which there is no consensus at this time (and, again, forgive my crappy prose writing skills), with some editors above opining that even if we shortened the pre-19th century history, there are certain details that should be included. Everything that's not in brackets is taken verbatim from the current lead, and personally I would make some changes there, too, but that can be addressed later. I have omitted citations but included links.

[Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel. Located on the Levantine corridor, the area has been ruled and inhabited by a variety of cultures since antiquity, including Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others.] In the late 19th century, the Zionist movement began promoting the creation of a Jewish homeland in Ottoman Palestine. Following World War I, Britain was granted control of the region by the League of Nations mandate, in what became known as Mandatory Palestine. After World War II, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and an internationalized Jerusalem. Partition was accepted by the Jewish leadership, but rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders and the Arab states. Following a civil war within Mandatory Palestine between Yishuv and Palestinian Arab forces, Israel declared independence [on 14 May 1948] at the termination of the British Mandate.

If we agree on the idea of having the 2nd paragraph cover up to 1948, we can then discuss what to write exactly at the beginning in the part in brackets (we can discuss the rest of it, too). Or, if people think we should not have the 2nd paragraph go all the way up to 1948, we can go back to talking about a stand-alone 2nd paragraph that goes up to the Ottomans, which is the status quo. Your opinions, please. Levivich (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Not bad. And thank you for putting an end to these keyboard gymnastics. I'd mention the Balfour Declaration in some way perhaps. And regarding the Zionist movement began promoting the creation of a Jewish homeland in Ottoman Palestine. – It would be nice to make clear to an uninformed reader that Jews did not start coming in 1948; Cf Old Yishuv, "First" Aliyah, "Second" Aliyah etc. Synotia (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that sentence needs changing. Zionism did a lot more than merely "promote" the creation of a Jewish homeland, people actually moved there. And the sentence gives no indication of why Zionism flourished when it flourished -- not only what the Jews were running towards but also what that they were running away from (e.g., pogroms). I'm not sure how to rewrite that sentence to encapsulate all that, but maybe something like, "Fleeing persecution, diaspora Jews began moving to Israel in the late 19th century as part of the Zionism movement." I know that particular formulation won't get consensus but something like that. I could certainly see adding Balfour Declaration, and maybe also Sykes–Picot Agreement. Levivich (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Umm, I assume you're talking about your own previous proposal? :)

You can talk of a time of increasing anti-Jewish persecution in Europe, especially in the Russian Empire. I'll note that around that time, with the increasing secularization, it went from being less a religious thing and increasingly an ethnic thing though I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning in the lede.

Important to note also is that this is the Holy Land; many Jews (especially Mizrahim) moved there as they saw it as a religious duty of sorts to move there if the opportunity arises.

Following World War I, Britain was granted control of the region by the League of Nations mandate, in what became known as Mandatory Palestine as a consequence of the Sykes-Picot agreement – good like this? Synotia (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup that works for me. Levivich (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I would switch Levantine Corridor to the common name, Southern Levant. To put in context Onceinawhile's objection, that user has a peculiar obsession with removing "Southern Levant" from Wikipedia (he has also tried to get its article deleted from Wikipedia as well). (Full disclosure, we have "clashed" over this in the past). Aside from that user, I have never seen any controversy whatsoever attached to the name, and, it is the common name for the geographical area in academia. I have never seen the term "Levantine corridor" before. And I'm not aware of any logical reason why "Levantine Corridor" would be preferable to Southern Levant aside from Wikipedia:I just don't like it Drsmoo (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Personal Comments Struck Out: 21:47

Southern Levant includes Jordan. If we want to use the common name it would be Palestine. And all of us know that. nableezy - 21:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh please if you guys want to quarrel, do it about more useful stuff. Synotia (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "Southern Levant" instead of "Levantine corridor". I'd also be fine with omitting location, because it's given in the first paragraph. Levivich (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Several things, it didnt become known as Mandatory Palestine, thats just what its called now as a period marker. Theres too much fluff without including some major points, like the Balfour Declaration. But all in all an improvement. nableezy - 21:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Guess we can just remove the word "known" Synotia (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Just cut the whole clause. nableezy - 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Britain was granted control of the region in the Sykes–Picot Agreement following World War I.? Levivich (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thats not technically accurate, that agreement set the stage for the mandate assignments, but by itself was just the great powers saying we'll stay out of each others way. Dont think Sykes-Picot is really lead material for this article. What established actual legal authority for Britain was the actual Mandate for Palestine. nableezy - 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I realized I should have written "during" WWI, at least. :-)

Here's my history argument about that. Linking Mandate for Palestine suggests to the uneducated reader that Mandatory Palestine was put under British control because of an international vote in the League of Nations. But in reality, Britain got it because of a secret agreement of colonial powers, the Sykes–Picot Agreement, which the League of Nations merely rubber-stamped. So in my view, saying that Mandatory Palestine came about as a result of the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine is ... forgive the expression ... whitewashing colonialism. That said, meh, I'd support a version that linked Mandate for Palestine and/or didn't link Sykes-Picot, it's not that important in my view. Levivich (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thats why we have links. nableezy - 21:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Modern Israel is the land promised to the Jews by God the British in the Bible Balfour Declaration... :-)

After declaring support for creating "a national home for the Jewish people" in the 1916 Balfour Declaration, Britain was granted control of the region by the Mandate for Palestine following World War I.? Levivich (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In 1917, during World War I, Britain made a public declaration of support for the creation of "a national home for the Jewish people". After the war, the allied powers assigned Britain the Mandate for Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Self's is more correct. Lev is wrong that S-P was the reason Britain got the mandate. It was the 1918 Clemenceau–Lloyd George Agreement (Middle East) which amended S-P re Palestine, following the Balfour Declaration and subsequent further lobbying efforts. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A more correct version might be: In need of allies during World War I, Britain promised the region to both Arabs and Jews, but after the war, kept the territory for itself. Levivich (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I like its brevity, but it is not accurate. The introduction to the mandate states: "the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities…" In other words, the mandate was given by the Allied Powers, not by Britain alone, and the role Britain was given was only as a trustee. Britain’s job was to enforce the Balfour Declaration. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The British (apparently) did promise the region to the Arabs but no such promise was made to the Jews. "national home for the Jewish people" ("in" Palestine) was never defined and caused all sorts of problems. Palestine was not a colony, it was more like a guardianship under the supervision of the LoN and the Class A mandates specifically contemplated independence at the Mandate end. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't really want to argue the point too much, it's not germane to the lead, but... saying that Britain was a trustee or a guardian because that's what the text of the Mandate said is a little bit like saying that in the USA all people are treated equally because that's what the country's Declaration of Independence says. It's euphemism, or, to be more charitable, the texts are more aspirational than descriptive. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A fair point. Nevertheless the aspiration (independence) was achieved for 3 out of 4 class A mandates.Selfstudier (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, no colonial empire is perfect. ;-) Levivich (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Partition was accepted by the Jewish leadership, but rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders and the Arab states" cannot be part of the lede. It is a talking point, not a critical element of history. Israeli propaganda likes to push the implication that Palestinians are stupid, and "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" – that is why positioning the partition plan moment as if it was the crux of the conflict is taking sides. It is often used to imply the Palestinians' long-view judgement that the area should be one state, a view that many right-wing Israelis agree with today (and did in 1947). Opposition to partition during the mandate period never had a clear consensus, as it depended on the nature of the partition. A "fair" version of partition may ultimately have been accepted with time. All the previous partition plans were equally rejected by both the Jewish Agency and the Palestinian Arabs.

The die was cast when the Arab Higher Committee decided to boycott the UN Special Committee. Elad Ben-Dror writes: "The pro-Zionist results from UNSCOP confirmed the Arabs' basic suspicions towards the committee. Even before the onset of its inquiry in Palestine, argued the Arabs, most of its members took a pro-Zionist stand. In addition, according to the Arabs, the committee's final object - the partition - was pre-decided by the Americans. According to this opinion, the outcome of the UNSCOP inquiry was a foregone conclusion. This perception, which led the Palestinian Arabs to boycott the committee, is shared by some modern studies as well." The Palestinians believed it was simple, as the UN Charter required self-determination of the majority population in any country - so they and their allies asked for the ICJ to review the plan.

Their request to have the ICJ review the plan was ignored. Today it is Israel who ignores the United Nations when they think it is biased against them. Either way, as a result of that one - unfortunate - boycott decision, the UN Partition Proposal came out much more aggressively one-sided than it might otherwise have. And from then on it was a matter of the Palestinian leadership saving face.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That already is part of the lead. Only the first two sentences in brackets are new, the rest is the current lead. Whether it should be in the lead is another question. Levivich (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that pointed, gross oversimplification of events is a very tired piece of ideological cant. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It is historical fact that Arabs rejected the partition plan, while Jews celebrated their independence. The outbreak of war the following day was brought on by this. And we won't disregard the truth to make up for one side's errors and failures. Tombah (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorporating the feedback above and note I added "Holocaust":

Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel. Located on in the Southern Levant, the area has been ruled and inhabited by a variety of cultures since antiquity, including Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others. In the 19th century, Jews fleeing persecution began moving to the area as part of the Zionism movement. In 1917, during World War I, Britain made a declaration of support for the creation of "a national home for the Jewish people". After the war, the allied powers assigned Britain the Mandate for Palestine. After World War II and the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and an internationalized Jerusalem. Following a civil war within Mandatory Palestine between Yishuv and Palestinian Arab forces, Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 at the termination of the British Mandate.

Levivich (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

A few notes on the first part: I would say "influenced by" instead of "inhabited by" - since "cultures" don't really inhabit. Further to this part, "Jews, Christians, Muslims" are not cultures, so the sentence logic breaks down a bit there; I would suggest maybe wording it more like: "and come to hold great significance for Jews, Christians, Muslims, and other religious groups", or sth. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, historically people have identified themselves with their religion; through ethnicity/nationality is a recent phenomenon. (Just saying) Synotia (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Note it wasn’t just persecution that brought Jews to Palestine in the late 19th century. Notably the Yemeni Jewish community moved for economic reasons. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

... and it also had a religious aspect as I have mentioned previously. Synotia (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

And as I noted previously, as many left as came in that early period, what isn't known is whether those leaving were the same ones coming or those that were there before. Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t need “Located on in the Southern Levant”, as “Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel” communicates roughly the same information, as does the first paragraph.

If we really want readers to trust this article, we would have the courage to write “Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel, also known historically as the region of Palestine.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I can live without the last part, LoI defines it as that anyway along with Holy/promised/Canaan and it is more or less clear from the subsequent wording that the Mandate/Partition plan covered Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Or the courage to write "The West Bank is located in Palestine, also known historically as the Land of Israel" :-) Levivich (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Except it isnt historically known as the Land of Israel. nableezy - 13:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete this comment before Nableezy shoots you Synotia (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This isnt a forum, its an encyclopedia talk page, try to act like it. nableezy - 13:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't get it, what is special about this statement: "the area has been ruled and inhabited by a variety of cultures since antiquity, including Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others."? This can be applied to Yemen, Morocco, hell even Spain. I propose leaving this aside, as there are many nuances that should be added, but for brevity cannot be discussed in the lede. Also the new sentence about Zionism is less appropriate than the previous version. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the information has been so watered down that it has become almost meaningless. One particular user here gesticulates tirelessly whenever someone suggests to add anything about Israelite kingdoms – if I understand it properly, he claims to oppose it because their borders are not congruent with the pre-1967 borders of Israel. Synotia (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable argument. Let's say we added stuff about Israelite kingdoms, could we also add that the area (the whole area) was not "Israeli" for a couple millenia, until 1948, how about that? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'm in favor of mentioning the Land of Israel, the Israeli Kingdoms, and then mentioning "a series of empires" or something similar, until the Ottoman Empire. I've previously mentioned here that is just as appropriate as talking about Germania in Germany's lede, or Francia in France's lede, and so on. Synotia (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

So basically highlighting some >2,000 year old defunct kingdoms (many of whose details are vague and often even unconfirmed) and downplaying 2,000 years of modern (and more relevant and proven) history with a "series of empires" statement. No, thank you. I am not with omitting anything. I am with giving a summary that is non-biased, holds due weight, and as brief as possible but without compromising factuality. "Jews, Christians and Muslims" statement ignores demographic weight and changes and the Arab aspect, and is therefore better left aside. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it is possible to summarize 5,000 years of contested history in one paragraph whilst being “non-biased, hold[ing] due weight, and… without compromising factuality”. The average paragraph is 200 words, so that is four words per century. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well we don't have to dedicate an equal portion of attention to every century, if at all. It is already summarized in the paragraph, we're all here discussing the details and the weight that is given to some parts over other parts. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The concept of Arab identity is something relatively recent though. And I have no idea what you want, I heard you complain, but saw no proposal. Synotia (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how to word it, I think we need a sentence along the lines of "after the Babylonian exile the majority of Jews lived in the Diaspora." Still true, right? Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about Jews or Judeans? The exiled # is a mystery. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"After the fall of the Jewish kingdoms in the middle of the second millennium BCE, Jewish rule did not return until the establishment of modern Israel, with the exception of the short-lived Hasmonean dynasty." But that's going to draw objections for suggesting the irredentism as fact. I'm not quite sure how to thread the needle of conveying Jewish history but not conveying irredentism. Levivich (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This is Jewish rule, but not Jewish presence, n.b.

Honestly, these are just facts, whether it suggests irrendentism or not depends on whose brain is processing it ultimately. All of us here know deep down where Israel got its name from, and why it exists where it exists. And it is relevant to write that history in the lede, like my favorite example: Germania in the Germany article. Synotia (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"Presence" is sort of irrelevant, lots of people were present. What I am trying to find is a way to cover the belief (which we can attribute) and the facts of the exile/Diaspora until Israel proper. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean first millennium. And those kingdoms weren't Jewish. They were Israelite and Yahwist. Judaism developed in response to their destruction in C6th BCE. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Right on both points. "After the fall of the Israelite kingdoms in the middle of the first millennium BCE..."? (I'm not sure what exactly to say after the ellipses.) Levivich (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, leaving aside whether to call them Jews or Judeans or how many there were, the North went, then the South and after that, until 48 they were in the Diaspora with some "returning" in 48. Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

But in all honesty, although I have not shown opposition to your proposals, deep down I find the current paragraph good enough. :) I don't know if I am the only one... Synotia (moan) 14:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel, which has come to hold great significance for Jews, Christians, Muslims, Arabs, and other groups. After the fall of Israelite kingdoms in the middle of the 1st millenium BCE, most Jews lived in the diaspora until the 19th century C.E., when Jews began moving to the land as part of the Zionism movement. In 1917, during World War I, Britain made a declaration of support for the creation of "a national home for the Jewish people". After the war, the allied powers assigned Britain the Mandate for Palestine. After World War II and the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and an internationalized Jerusalem. Following a civil war within Mandatory Palestine between Yishuv and Palestinian Arab forces, Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 at the termination of the British Mandate.

I'm still not crazy about those first two sentences. I think, though, we are closer on agreement of the level of detail, and the remaining problems are driven by Levivich being a poor writer? Or do folks disagree with the level of detail as well? Among other things, I wonder (1) if the link to Israelites is duplicative of the link to Land of Israel, and (2) whether Hasmonean dynasty should be linked/mentioned. Levivich (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally think there is a good base there. If someone who knew nothing were to click on all the links would they get the story? Or enough to be going on with at any rate? Link to History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel somewhere? Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe link that under "fall of Israelite kingdoms" instead of Israelites? Or, under "Jews" instead of Jews? Levivich (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally OK with either of those. Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no agreement. This is not an improvement and there is no consensus. You basically removed the entire pre-modern history of that territory and replaced it for an ambiguous, meaningless general statement about "how important is that place for Jews, Christians and Muslims". If that's the case, leave the paragraph as it stands now, covering Jewish, Christian and Muslim periods alike. It's not big for a lead anyway. I've checked articles of other countries and most of them have two paragraphs covering history: one paragraph on ancient and medieval history, and another one for the modern period. Also it's covered extensively on article's body, so it should be summarized in the introduction as well per WP:LEAD. Just leave it alone. Dovidroth (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As Levivich said, absent agreement, the odds are on this turning into one or more RFCs and everybody will get to give their view should it come to that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Dovidroth. The best option for that section is what we have now, in my opinion as well. Some folks want to trim it for disingenuous motives. Synotia (moan) 19:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In my view, it doesn't matter what editors' motivations are; if the text is improved, the reader is served, and we've furthered our mission. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Improved by what metrics? Synotia (moan) 19:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That question can be reversed, how is it decided that the existing is better than something not yet worked out? A simple answer is if there is a consensus that it is improved. Selfstudier (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I love "(moan)" btw :-) The metric is consensus, of course: if consensus is that certain text is an improvement, in my view, it doesn't matter who wrote that text or why.

In this particular case, I'd measure "improvement" of the lead by whether it mentions and links the most relevant information (e.g. Balfour Declaration, Yom Kippur War, Oslo Accords, Camp David Accords) or less relevant information (e.g. Ptolemaic dynasty, Ayyubid dynasty). Levivich (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

one paragraph on ancient and medieval history, and another one for the modern period is what I'm trying to accomplish here as well. "The modern period" for Israel starts in 1948. The above is one paragraph pre-1948. Everything before the founding of a country in one paragraph.

What we have now, instead, is one paragraph that runs from hominins' emergence from Africa to 500 years before the country was founded, and then a second paragraph that starts ~70 years before the country was founded and runs to a year or so after independence, and then a third paragraph that starts in 1967 to present. It's an illogical presentation in my view.

I am, of course, very interested in everyone's thoughts about what a single pre-1948 paragraph should say (or, alternatively, how to reduce the length of the lead otherwise). Levivich (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The current paragraph ending at the onset of the Ottoman era, which fails to even tie that era in with the formation of the modern state that is the article's actual subject, is indeed not very purposeful or useful to readers. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead is supposed to briefly tell the story of the territory where the modern state is located, not just the story of the modern state itself. Again, check other articles as a reference. I'm not sure if there's much relation between Arab Jordan and the ancient kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and Edom, or the Nabateans of the classic era, but they are mentioned anyway, as they should. Dovidroth (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

At least Jordan's lead gets the reader from pre-history to present in 170 words. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Modern period doesn't start in 1948. Again, check how other articles on countries are structured. One paragraph for ancient and medieval, and one or two paragraphs for the modern period (in this case from the birth of Zionism in late 19th century onwards). If anything needs to be trimmed, it's the modern period, not the pre-modern. I agree with starting another RfC if necessary. Or you can leave the second paragraph alone. Dovidroth (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I have checked how other articles on countries are structured. I even started a thread about it, above, at #Examples of good country leads. The country articles that are WP:FAs do not have one paragraph up to the modern era and one paragraph for after the modern era. Breaking up all country article leads with one paragraph before 1500 AD and one paragraph after 1500 AD does not make sense to me, because some countries existed before that date and others did not, so some will have a lot to say about pre-1500 events, and others will not. I mean, how would we even do that for a country like the United States? (Whose second lead paragraph goes up to independence.) Levivich (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to compare this article to a country in the Americas, whose ancient history is not so documented. Why don't you compare Israel's lead to other countries of the region with an ancient history, such as Turkey, Lebanon, Iran or Saudi Arabia, to name a few? Dovidroth (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

As Nishidani said below, we cannot normalize by comparison. By the phrasing of your question the assumption is made that Israel has an ancient history and then by making use of the Land of Israel ideal, extended to areas outside the boundaries of modern Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel" on reflection, needs some work. Maybe "In Jewish thought, modern Israel is connected with ancient Israel" or something like that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Come on, Dovid. Turkey's 2nd lead paragraph goes up to independence (WWI). Lebanon's 2nd lead paragraph ends with ...the first Lebanese protostate took form in the 19th century.... Iran's 2nd lead paragraph ends at the 1979 revolution (!). Saudi Arabia's 2nd lead paragraph ends at Fatimid caliphate and the 3rd paragraph picks up in 1932. Literally every example you've given contradicts the claim your making (and supports my suggestion of having the 2nd lead paragraph cover pre-history of the modern state). Actually, I should say thank you, for convincing me I was right. :-) Levivich (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, Germany gets from ancient to 1815 in 72 words; then 1886 is unification. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be good to shorten the lead, but I have several objections to the proposed text.

"Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel, which has come to hold great significance for Jews, Christians, Muslims, Arabs, and other groups." – Listing it like this gives the impression of these groups being equally significant to the history of the land and to the subject of the article. Also, listing a non-religious designation (Arabs) among religions is clumsy.

"After the war, the allied powers assigned Britain the Mandate for Palestine." – this could be merged into the previous sentence to shorten the text.

"After World War II and the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and an internationalized Jerusalem." – The Holocaust was not a reason for creating the partition plan. Also, is "internationalized Jerusalem" a good wording? Google gives just 3,170 hits, and the text currently used as the reference in the lead doesn't mention the word "internationalized." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"internationalized probably came from Corpus separatum (Jerusalem), "internationalization proposal" in Line 1. 17,700 hits for Jerusalem + corpus separatum.Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Still looks like a made-up term from a Wikipedia editor. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll try "placing Jerusalem under UN control" in the next draft. Levivich (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

While I agree we don't want to suggest that the Holocaust was the primary reason for the establishment of the state of Israel, I think it's fair to say it was a reason. There's a lot of debate about how much the Holocaust influenced establishment, or how it influenced establishment (genuine or political expediency, refugee problem or actual moral outrage, etc.), but I've never seen a history of modern Israel that doesn't talk about the Holocaust. I wouldn't necessarily die on this hill -- a link to WWII will eventually get the reader there -- but to my eyes, linking WWII but not Holocaust is linking the wrong thing. Levivich (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"After the fall of Israelite kingdoms in the middle of the 1st millenium BCE, most Jews lived in the diaspora until the 19th century C.E., when Jews began moving to the land as part of the Zionism movement." – Is it an established fact that most Jews lived in the diaspora since the 1st millennium BCE? And why mention that and not the estimated period until which Jews formed the majority in Palestine (5th century CE)? The sentence also reads like most Jews stopped living in the diaspora since the 19th century, when in fact they still do. Also, the word "millennium" is misspelled.

"In 1917, during World War I, Britain made a declaration of support for the creation of "a national home for the Jewish people." " – The word used in the declaration is "establishment," not "creation."

I would rename "Modern Israel" to the "State of Israel" for clarity. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. Moreover it's kind of a tricky thing to mention, as there are historians (and now geneticists) who claim that modern Palestinians descend from Jews and Samaritans who converted to Christianity and Islam over time. Even early Zionists believed this back in their day. Synotia (moan) 21:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

2nd paragraph up to 1948 (continued)

The modern state of Israel is named after the Land of Israel, a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions. The fall of Israelite kingdoms in the middle of the 1st millennium BCE led to the Jewish diaspora. In the 19th century, Jewish migration to the area increased as part of the Zionism movement. Following World War I, the allied powers assigned the Mandate for Palestine to Britain, which had made a declaration of support for the establishment of "a national home for the Jewish people" a few years prior. After World War II and the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and placing Jerusalem under international control. Following a civil war within Mandatory Palestine between Yishuv and Palestinian Arab forces, Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 at the termination of the British Mandate.

Much could be added between "Jewish diaspora" and "In the 19th century", but I'm not sure what exactly to include/exclude there (Hasmonean/Herod/Romans, Christianity, Caliphates, Crusades, Ottoman? None of the above?) I do think though that it would be fine if the paragraph were longer than this. Levivich (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a good start, but I'd expand it a little bit (in tandem with the paragraphs of Turkey and Iran):

The modern state of Israel is named after the Land of Israel, a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions. In ancient history, it was where Canaanite and Israelite civilizations emerged, while in the early first millennium BCE the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged, before falling to the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian empires, respectively. During the classical era, the region was ruled by the Achaemenid, Macedonian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires. In the 2nd century BCE, an independent Hasmonean kingdom emerged, before Rome conquered the area a century later. In the 7th century, the Muslim conquest of the Levant established caliphal rule. The 11th century brought the Crusades and the founding of Crusader States, the last ending in the 13th century at the hands of the Mamluks, who lost the area to the Ottoman Empire at the onset of the 16th century. In late 19th century, Jews began moving to the area as part of the Zionism movement. Following World War I, the allied powers assigned the Mandate for Palestine to Britain, which had made a declaration of support for the establishment of "a national home for the Jewish people" a few years prior. After World War II and the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and placing Jerusalem under international control. Following a civil war within Mandatory Palestine between Yishuv and Palestinian Arab forces, Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 at the termination of the British Mandate.

Dovidroth (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I would support this as an improvement as compared to the current text on the article. I still think it has too much detail but I'd support this or any (neutral) version between this level of detail and the (much lower) level of detail in my latest draft, and I think there is a lot of room for compromise in between. Levivich (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This is para 2 + part of para 3, still seems overly detailed, @Levivich:, what was it you had in mind for the overall structure? Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me we can just make it listlike with links, foe example, Arab rule from 638, Crusaders 1099, Mamluk 1291, Ottoman 1517, "Prestate" or some such 1880. Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I think this is actually pretty good in terms of overall structure; at this point I'd prefer if it was shorter, even if it mentioned the same events. If there was one thing I would change, it's to say "series of empires" or something like that instead of naming/linking the four classical empires, but I don't want to beat that horse any more, it's not that important. I do like your idea of making it more list-like. I think linking both "Muslim conquest of the Levant" and "caliphal rule" is duplicative, as is linking both "Crusades" and "Crusader States". The links to "ancient history" and "classical era" could go; I think it's better to just give centuries or millennia rather than the names of eras. The 2nd sentence has five links to related topics (Canaanite, Israelite, History of I+J, Assyrian, and Babylonian): five links for pre-500 BC history topics seems excessive. I'd like to see Jewish diaspora mentioned and linked in there somewhere, as I think it's important for the understanding of Zionism, although that could be done just by saying "Jews began moving to the area from the diaspora" or something like that. With all that said, if someone made a bold edit implementing Dovid's draft, I wouldn't revert it, and if it were proposed as an RFC, I would support, even without any of the changes I just listed. If there's consensus for any of the above changes, even better. Levivich (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

My fault, I didn't mean the structure of this para2 + part para 3 which looks essentially OK, I meant the overall structure of the lead, 4 para, 5 para, whatever. Selfstudier (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh! I haven't really fully thought that through yet. If the current 2nd para and 1st half of current 3rd para are combined, we could combine the second half of the current 3rd para and the current 4th para, which would result in a 4-para lead: (1) opening para introduction, (2) para of pre-history, (3) para of history, (4) closing para with statistics. I think we should do that as a first step, and then start talking about the 'new 3rd para' (history), and in the course of the discussion, we would have the option of breaking up the 'new 3rd para' into two paragraphs and thus end up with a 5-para lead, with 1 para of pre-history and 2 paras of history. I think that would be fine. I have no idea where that break might occur (chronologically), and maybe we won't need to break it up at all. What are your thoughts? Levivich (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

In late 19th century, Jews began moving to the area => It might be just me, but this can imply that no Jews lived there before.

Earlier here I used the terms "First" and "Second" Aliyah between quotation marks because there were a fair bunch of movements of diaspora Jews moving to the Land of Israel before Zionism. (See Old Yishuv)Even in the 1900s, Yemeni Jews moved to Palestine for mainly economic motives rather than Zionist ones. Synotia (moan) 09:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The bit on the British commitment should include that it also promised to protect the religious and civil rights of the existing population, and it should also include that at the time of the increase in Jewish migration to Palestine that the overwhelming majority of the population were Arab Muslims and Christians. nableezy - 00:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

On Balfour, my first choice is what's in this draft, obv, but if I had to choose something else, I would prefer just saying "who had made the Balfour Declaration a few years prior" rather than getting into its specific terms. On population, I don't think we should get into who was the majority at what point in time, and in my view "Jewish migration to the area" communicates that Jews were not a majority in the area when they migrated there. I don't think it matters if they were or weren't a majority, and if anything, I think "led to the Jewish diaspora" communicates that they weren't a majority since the fall of the kingdoms. "declared independence" implies they were the majority at that time, but this draft implies that happened sometime after "Jewish migration to the area increased" in the 19th c., without saying when exactly. I don't think it matters when, exactly. Levivich (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You dont include anything about the existing population at all. And it isnt just that point in time. Jews had been a tiny minority in Palestine for quite some time. Of course it matters, that is the entire dispute over "the region". That the supposed universal right to self-determination was denied to this population, that they were ethnically cleansed from their territory, and that dispute is still one of the defining characteristics of the topic of this article. nableezy - 00:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Due to ethnic cleansing, Palestinian population has increased from 1 million in 1948 to 5 million today. {{eyeroll}} There's really no reason to use such language like "ethnically cleansed", or "genocide," or "apartheid," or "bantustan," or "crimes against humanity", etc. That words and phrases in wikivoice will not get consensus, and can't you see, e.g. by the dead RFCs above, that they distract from actually improving the article? What more will it take to prove that trying to stick to NPOV language is a good idea?

Anyway, 1948 Palestinian exodus is discussed in the next paragraph of the lead. Levivich (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This is not about 1948. It is about the native majority population at the time of the mass immigration of European Jews, and you write not one word about that. As far as there is no reason, the reason to use such language is because that is the language sources use. It isnt neutral to whitewash the sources to appease some Wikipedia editor's sensitivities. Oh, and stick your eyeroll where the sun dont shine, the ethnic cleansing is what reduced the Palestinian Arab population from over 950,000 to less than 200,000 in the territory that is now Israel. nableezy - 01:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I think there is room in this paragraph to mention demographic changes in the area between the fall of the kingdoms and Zionism.

I'm not going to stand for being accused of doing something wrong, or intentionally excluding something, because I've failed to anticipate some information you think should be included in a draft. If you think something is missing, suggest a sentence, don't give me shit. Levivich (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I think youve done wrong is eyerolled past the mass expulsion of a native population from some 400 villages and towns. I havent given you any shit about your proposal, Ive only said I felt was wrong about it. nableezy - 02:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

to less than 200,000 in the territory that is now Israel.

Genuinely asking out of ignorance: I had not heard such a low figure. Why are there 1.8 million Arabs in Israel now? The birth rate cannot be possibly that high? Synotia (moan) 09:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

According to Palestinian citizens of Israel "In the aftermath of the 1947–49 Palestine war, of the estimated 950,000 Arabs that lived in the territory that became Israel before the war, over 80% fled or were expelled and 20%, some 156,000, remained. so an even lower figure. Israel also includes 300k in East Jerusalem in its figures. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And why are you avoiding "Palestine" by using "the area"? nableezy - 00:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm avoiding "Palestine" by writing that word three times in the draft, but not writing it a fourth time in place of "the area", which is written once. :-P Levivich (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Although it could be "Jewish migration to the Southern Levant increased". "Area" is vague. Levivich (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Each of the places you write it is part of a name, eg the Mandate for Palestine, the Partition Plan for Palestine, and Mandatory Palestine. But it is the common name for "the area", especially so in that time period (see for eg, each of those names). nableezy - 00:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"Palestine" is a common name for the area, as is "Israel" or "Land of Israel". "Southern Levant" is the neutral common name for the area used by scholars specifically to avoid making a choice between "Israel" and "Palestine". It seems obvious to me that in articles about Israel we'd generally call it "Israel", and in articles about Palestine we'd call it "Palestine", and in articles about both or neither, we'd use the neutral "Southern Levant". I'm not going to sweat whether we use "Israel" in one instance here, or "Palestine" in another instance there, but one thing I am 100% sure of is that the community would view an RFC about "'Israel' or 'Palestine'?" as digging up a buried horse in order to beat it further. In this case, I think "Southern Levant" is better because it's more specific than "the area" and uses the neutral term. Levivich (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry but that is absolutely not true. Articles about the state of Israel should use Israel when discussing the state. Israel did not exist at the time that this paragraph is discussing. Land of Israel has never been the common English name for that territory. Southern Levant includes more than the territory being discussed. Im sorry, but you are just factually wrong here. nableezy - 00:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Um, both "Land of Israel" and "Palestine" includes more than the territory being discussed (the borders of the state of Israel). Levivich (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Um, the territory being discussed here is the entirety of Palestine, the territory that modern Israel and the oPt make up. What else are you talking with the mandate and partition? Again, Land of Israel is not, and has never been, a common English name for that territory or any other territory. See for example this if you oddly think otherwise. nableezy - 01:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

And lets throw Southern Levant into the mix. Tell me again how the prevalence among sources determines NPOV and not the personal viewpoints of Wikipedia editors please. nableezy - 01:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to launch an RFC about whether we should call the area "Palestine" in wikivoice in the lead of Israel, go ahead. Levivich (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

So when somebody demonstrates that one phrase is exponentially more common your response is start an rfc? Why, there is clearly a common name to be used when talking about the region especially in this timeframe. Why would that need an RFC? Or are we not operating on the same instruction manual? nableezy - 02:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what part of NPOV says to use the most common word for things. We represent all significant viewpoints in proportion, etc., but when there are multiple terms for something, I think NPOV is more nuanced than just going with the highest NGRAM. In this case, "Palestine" is a charged word to use in the lead of Israel, because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I don't think there is any chance it would get consensus for us to call the area using that word in the lead of the article about Israel. Changing "the area" to "Palestine" would be a poison pill amendment for an RFC for a proposed replacement paragraph, just as much as if we wrote, "Modern Israel is in the Land of Israel", I think calling that land by either of those names would tank the whole paragraph in any RFC.

Similarly, if we add that Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims or whatever formulation were the majority in the 19th century, editors will want to also say that they weren't the majority at other times in history, or mention the times when Jews were in the majority. And then what about the Christians, and the Samaritans, etc.? And next thing you know, we're listing out Ptolomaic and such, i.e., the status quo.

So as I said when I posted this, "Much could be added between "Jewish diaspora" and "In the 19th century", but I'm not sure what exactly to include/exclude there (Hasmonean/Herod/Romans, Christianity, Caliphates, Crusades, Ottoman? None of the above?)" If your answer is "add Palestinian", OK, do you have any suggestions for what exactly to write that you think will get consensus in an RFC? Which means probably not just "Palestinians", but also something else along with Palestinians. I really don't know what exactly, but I know I don't think we should get down to the level of detail where we're saying "Ptolomaic". What's elusive is a sentence or two that summarizes demographic changes for a 2300-year period. Levivich (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The part of NPOV that says to use the most common phrasing for something is WP:DUE; when it is a supermajority viewpoint that X is called blah then we dont use our a Wikipedia editor's personal preference on what is "charged" or whatever other unsourced personal view they have. Again, "Land of Israel" is not and has never been the, or even a, common name in English for the territory being discussed is. The Christians population is included in the Arab population, I did not say Muslim, and beyond that I didnt even call them Palestinians. The Jews of that time period in Palestine were likewise Palestinian, because, again, Palestine is the common English name for that place in that time. That is such a basic fact that if that isnt agreed upon then we are operating on completely different planes here. I didnt even say anything about the 19th century. What I am saying is when saying the British expressed support for a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine they also promised to uphold the rights of the existing population, and that this existing population, on an order of 9-1, was Arab. And that should be noted when introducing Balfour and partition. Because why else does a civil war break out? Because of the anodyne "Jewish migration to the area increased? nableezy - 04:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote from the Balfour Declaration could/should be extended to "a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine" (without the quotes) (especially since there was a lot of argument over what "in" meant). At the time (1872 to 1918), "Palestine" physically was 3 sanjaks in the Ottoman empire, see Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, "During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Akka (Acre), formed the region that was commonly referred to as Palestine.""Selfstudier (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree with "in Palestine", but I think it's better to keep the quotes. Although the quotes aren't necessary, having the quotes informs the reader that this is a direct quote from the document, and not a phrase created by Wikipedia editors. Because the reader may wonder "what does 'national home' mean, what does 'in Palestine' mean?" and by putting it in quotes, we're signaling that we didn't choose those phrases, it's in the declaration itself. The problem I forsee, if it's not in quotes, is someone later changing 'national home' to 'establishment of a state', or something like that, because it's 'clearer', not realizing it's language directly in the declaration. (That said, I'd support with or without the quotes.) Levivich (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind the quotes but then it needs to be the actual wording "...the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" I said without the quotes only because I rearranged it. Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even notice it was a rearrangement, lol. OK I do see the value in the shorter rearrangement without quotes, which might be more valuable than the things I raised. I'd be fine with it either way. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"The modern state of Israel is named after the Land of Israel" I think this is not actually the case? The etymology doesn't say that and nor does this article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"Named after Jacob"? Levivich (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave this bit for them that knows to sort out. Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It has been added anyway so I tagged it as dubious pending a resolution here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The story of the name choice: [14]. Our "named after" is probably correct but it was an indirect route and we would probably need to find a Ben-Gurion quote on the matter to make the statement.

The goal is to find a form of words that allows this after about “Israel proper” (within the green line) to tell the history of the Land of Israel / Palestine region.

As “named after” is ruled out, our options are narrower.

How about "The modern state of Israel, together with the adjacent Palestinian territories, is a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: your latest edit crossed 1RR. Please self-revert. More importantly, as I said in my edit comment, it is factually wrong to suggest that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah began in the area of modern green-line Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

it is factually wrong to suggest that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah began in the area of modern green-line Israel If you want to go that way, they are for a nice chunk in "Israel proper". If you are opposed to emphasis on Jewish history, say it out loud instead of filibustering. Synotia (moan) 09:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It omits the WB so I added that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

We are all aware of the amount of handwaving involved in tying together Jewish history of past millenia with modern day Israel but we are all I think doing our best not to make a big song and dance about it, there are limits however. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not a matter of 'wanting to go' one way or another, but simply eliciting the salient facts and stating them neutrally and succintly. We would all agree, I assume, that

Israel is a state founded in the Southern Levant in 1948 as the realization of a 19th century Zionist project to create a national haven for the Jewish people in Palestine. Though conceived as a secular refuge from antisemitism, the choice also reflected a deep historic attachment to the original heartlands of the Israelite and Judean people as recounted in the biblical narratives. At the same time, the establishment of Israel engendered a conflict, still unresolved, between a 'Jewish and democratic' Israel and the Palestinian people's national aspirations.

Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Where do you want to put that? At the beginning of para 2? Replacing what? Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to put it anywhere. I'm looking for common ground for editors who otherwise disagree on everything Would anyone doubt that Israel's foundation implemented an idea for a secular refuge, based on deep cultural attachments to biblical myths of origins? No. Would anyone deny that its positioning caused from the outset a structural conflict that endures to this day? No (well, flatearthers exist but...) Since these are fundamental facts. any proposed draft should balance them.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, its not an unreasonable statement, the thing is how to fit it into the lead. At the moment we are more or less agreed on Para 2 except perhaps for the first one or two sentences. Might be better at this point to try and edit para 2 directly. The last sentence of your para is probably better fitted into para 3. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

As you may know from my editing history, I have no particular attachment to this or any other country,- I stay clear of directly editing this article except to revert or correct extreme editing bias from time to time- as opposed to topics like ideologies of nationalism, and what they studiously endeavour to repress from the historical record, and ancient history. My piece was intended as a prompt, to be ignored, or used anywhere in the lead by anyone who might find something in it useful to overcome the inevitable impasse articles like this run into, with the emotive charge, almost religious or maternal in its protectiveness or intensity, they carry for so many.Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

K, I am reluctant to edit without more input, let's wait a bit. Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did you write this? This is an answer to what? Synotia (moan) 13:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the rudeness. It is a response to your careless dismissal of suggestions by others as either an expression of a desire to repress Jewish history or stonewalling. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that's really good, a succinct and neutral summary. I would support using the first two sentences in the 2nd paragraph, and the 3rd sentence in the 3rd paragraph, and I would strike the word "Though". Levivich (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick cut for start of para 3 2 (duh), @Nishidani and Levivich:, can you improve it?

The area of modern Israel and the West Bank is of great significance to the Abrahamic religions. The state was founded in the Southern Levant in 1948 as the realization of a 19th century Zionist project to create a national haven for the Jewish people in Palestine. Conceived as a secular refuge from antisemitism, the choice also reflected a deep historic attachment to the original heartlands of the Israelite and Judean people as recounted in the biblical narratives. In ancient history, it was where Canaanite and Israelite civilizations emerged. In the early first millennium BCE the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged, before falling to the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, respectively.[20][21] Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That looks good to me, my only question is whether it's just modern Israel and the West Bank or also other places (Gaza, Golan Heights)? This rearrangement of the beginning cuts "West Bank", but it might not be an improvement over what you've written if it is just ISrael+WB and not also those other places:

Modern Israel was founded in the Southern Levant in 1948 as the realization of a 19th century Zionist project to create a national haven for the Jewish people in Palestine, an area of great significance to the Abrahamic religions. Conceived as a secular refuge from antisemitism, the choice also reflected a deep historic attachment to the original heartlands of the Israelite and Judean people as recounted in the biblical narratives. In ancient history, it was where Canaanite and Israelite civilizations emerged. In the early first millennium BCE the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged, before falling to the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, respectively.

Levivich (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You guys have overlooked a simple solution: Write "the area in and around modern Israel" Synotia (moan) 21:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That would work for me too. Levivich (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

We don’t need that “area of modern Israel” first sentence any more as it is dealt with by the “deep historical attachment” bit later. We also don’t need “in the southern levant” as it is clear from the rest of the lede where it is. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Levivich is correct that 'though' could be removed to advantage. Dropping the reference to Palestinian aspiration and replacing it with a sudden jerk into Babylonian/Assyrian empires doesn't work. Perhaps, over the two days I thought about this - striving for absolute balance - I was thinking of it as a first para. In any case, after due care for defining Israel as the culmination of a Zionist project that bore also high symbolic value for Jews, to drop the round-off re 'competing Palestinian national aspirations',(the competitition between two national aspirations is one of the most basic points made in the literature) unhinges the balance, which is not only a matter of sticking in refs to Palestinians, but of underlining what has proved to be one of the major stress lines in Israel's history. Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Nishidani's latest addition looks like unnecessary commentary. The current version we worked out is much more encyclopedic, concise and neutral. I have the feeling this will open a pandora's vox regarding narratives with no end on sight. I'd suggest we stick to the historical facts, stop treading water and move on from the second paragraph. Dovidroth (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

C'mon, it's not so bad and there are 3/4 editors sort of in agreement with it. Probably it should be sourced though. Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It actually ties the historical rambling in with the subject, and explains the connection, which is surely a good thing. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani: there is a semi consensus for including your suggested material. Save hunting around, you have some sourcing handy for it? Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "the choice also reflected a deep historic attachment to the original heartlands of the Israelite and Judean people as a recounted in the biblical narratives" would be perfect if Jews were just a religious group, but no, they are also an ethnic group (that's how they see themselves). The problem is exactly in "as a recounted in the biblical narratives". This seems to sum up the Jewish attachment to the region of Palestine to a mere tale from a fictional religious book. In addition to the clear historicity of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the Greco-Jewish wars and the Jewish-Roman wars, which have a significant impact on Jewish nationalism, are reported in sources of no religious value to Jews (such as the book of Maccabees and the writings of Flavius Josephus). Jews also maintained their identity after the Diaspora, keeping your culture alive and being aware of their origins in Palestine. Mawer10 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Jews also maintained their identity after the Diaspora, keeping your culture alive and being aware of their origins in Palestine

You've completely missed the point in the way I phrased that. There is no subject (the Jews). The motivation behind that part is that various Jewish groups who were attracted to the Zionist proposal drew on strong feelings of attachment that arose from the deep formative role of biblical stories in Jewish (and, what is conspicuously not understood by many editors here, Christian) culture. You go on to elaborate about what Jews think or feel. I've never met a 'Jew' or a 'Chinese', an 'Italian', 'Frenchperson', 'Israeli', 'Russian' etc., who fits the collective stereotype of whom they are supposed to be, or how they are supposed to think. I've met any number of people, and read hundreds of books, where confident assertions are made about each of these collective identities. My fundamental antipathy to antisemitism is a reflex of a general sense that no one had a right to define other people. Determining who one is is a purely personal matter that should brook no meddling by ideological-fixated nosey-parkers eager to rope one into, or harass one out of, a given social group. In every case, casually or authoritatively, one of a designated group will trot out familiar clichés, acting as an unappointed spokesman for a theoretical collective ethnic ethos. Hogwash to my ears or eyes. This comes from growing up in a country where one could be, say, 'Jewish' (as well as Australian) without any inflection of this private fact on one's social or public life. I had no inkling for years (and couldn't have cared less) that the distinguioshed scholar who took me under his wing happened to be also Jewish. I was delighted to hear, in a letter he wrote to me, that on retirement, at 73, when he finally decided to have his bar mitzvah, he passed the Torah reading with flying colours. But I don't think he, or so many others I have known, had a deep attachment to Israel, past or present. If you read the oeuvre of Isaac Bashevis Singer, you will find that most of the Yiddishers of his world, if given a choice, were more attached to the idea of emigrating to the US than to Palestine. The 'deep attachment' is something constantly affirmed in the literature, and, from the mid-20th century has assumed a matter-of-factness status, hence my decision to include it- an act of empathy with contemporary sentiments shared by many editors here, even if, like so many sentiments or beliefs, it is a recent politico-cultural construction (as, with overwhelming unassailable detail, Antony Lerman shows in his recent book Whatever Happened to Antisemitism?: Redefinition and the Myth of the 'Collective Jew',(2022)

In short, what I wrote was an attempt to mediate neutrally between conflicting positions here, using facts each side might contest, but which, if a compromise is to be achieved, must be recognized for their basic reality and cogency. I had, and have, no expection that, in going even further than what I believe to be the case, more than halfway, to meet the stromng feelings of editors I often disagree with, that the formulation would prove acceptable. One cannot argue with ideas that have all of the strength of religious beliefs, strongly edged with political investments of a similar emotive order.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "deep historic attachment" carries both potential meanings without prejudice. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

He is totally right, and I could not say it better. I agree: the proposed phrasing gives the impression that the "deep historic attachment" of Jews to the region is only based on biblical narratives, as if it was a legendary tale and nothing more. What about the kingdoms of Israel and Judah? Semi-autonomous Judean governance under Persian and Hellenistic rule? The Hasmonean kingdom of Judea? The Jewish-Roman Wars? We don't have to recount the full history because we're aiming for more conciseness, but we do need to find a method to convey that the Jewish link is also rooted in real history, including ancient polities and kingdoms, etc. Maybe mention the most important episodes, such as the Iron Age kingdoms, the Hasmonean dynasty and the Jewish-Roman Wars, which, as Mawer10 mentioned above, have a significant impact on Jewish nationalism. Tombah (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, please do not rush anything right now. It is Sabbath. We must give the more observant the chance to voice their opinions as well. Tombah (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I prefer to go by sources rather than personal opinions. Do you have any? Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to resort to some source to build such a simple sentence. A little good sense seems more than enough. Mawer10 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree but since there are objections... Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If we are going to be precise, the sentence should include the term and link: national myth.

To address the above concerns, an accurate fix would be “as recounted primarily in the biblical narratives and the writings of Josephus”. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This suggestion, in my opinion, is not much of an improvement since it once again makes the impression that the Jewish connection is a national myth rather than a historical and archaeological fact. Every single Second Temple period historian and archeologist will tell you that the region had a Jewish majority during the period's latter stages (Hasmonean, Herodian, and Early Roman periods), evidenced by mikvehs, stone vessels, Jewish-style rock-cut caves, and Jewish inscriptions found all over Judaea, Galilee, etc and countless ancient sources (written by Jews, Greeks and Romans). Tombah (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: have a go at fixing up the "quick cut" I made above so we can make some progress on this, pretty please? Selfstudier (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

How about the below. The whole point of this text is to segue into telling the historical story of the Land of Israel, given that its area is different to modern Israel proper.

Israel was founded in 1948 as the realization of a 19th century Zionist project to create a national haven for the worldwide Jewish community in Palestine. Conceived as a secular refuge from antisemitism, the choice also reflected a nationalist attachment to the biblical Land of Israel. In ancient history, the Land of Israel was where Canaanite and Israelite civilizations emerged. In the early first millennium BCE the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged, before falling to the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, respectively.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

K, do without the national myth and Josephus, right? Selfstudier (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Just was (re)reading Shlomo Sand, seems like a reasonable explanation of the Land of Israel thing. Selfstudier (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend using Shlomo Sand as a source here. Many academics all across the world regard his publications about Jewish history to be either factually wrong (this was never his area of expertise) or politically driven (with him self-identifying as post-Zionist and radical leftist). IMO this is a really bad choice of sourcing. Tombah (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not interested in his political views only whether his description of how LoI entered the lexicon is accurate.

Idk where many academics comes from but taking a sample review by one academic, "Much of what Shlomo Sand reveals is known to specialists. His achievement consists in debunking a nationalist mythology which holds sway in large sections of popular opinion." Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine, except that when it switches back to 'ancient history', I would dispense with 'Land of Israel', which is a biblical term, not a well defined historical geography. A broad, generalizing term such as 'the region' would probably actually be fine since both Palestine and Land of Israel are mentioned by that point - at the very least it would be less clunky than defaulting back to 'Southern Levant' again. Finally, perhaps it should be 'where Canaanite and Israelite civilizations developed' ... it the moment we've got 'emerged' in two sentences in a row, and I think archaeologically-speaking the origins of Canaanite culture are not set in stone and not necessarily locked to the Southern Levant, since Canaanite culture extended across the whole Levant. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Canaanite civilization is not necessarily limited to the Southern Levant (also to the Phoenician coast in modern day Lebanon and Syria...), and even while the Israelites are likely descended from the Canaanites, it has minimal bearing on later Israelite/Judaean/Jewish history and identity. We can solve it by using Levivich's above proposal: "Ancient Israelites emerged from Canaan". And still, important later periods of Jewish history in the area are missing. Tombah (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't have to include the entirety of the article body in the lead, its supposed to be a summary of the principal things and an article about modern Israel is not supposed to be about all of Jewish history, except for the needed linking of that to the modern state. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

A biased attempt to downplay Israel's historical roots by putting antisemitism as the main foundation of the country and using the word "project," making the lead even longer, by the way. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd go further and specify that Zionism was seen as the only fitting answer to the emerging European nationalisms which systematically excluded Jews. Synotia (moan) 08:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not a very nuanced take on the subject. Here's some further reading: Zionism and diaspora nationalism and Zionism and European Nationalisms: Comparative Aspects. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I underlined it as how it was perceived by people at the time. Not whether or not with our present 21st century knowledge it can be considered as such or not by political scientists. Synotia (moan) 09:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Even at the time it was not so monolithic. There is of course Christian Zionism, which played a key role in the promulgation of the 'homeland in Palestine' aspiration. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Synotia is right.

Israel was created as a result of a Jewish nationalist movement, itself created as a result of the exclusionary nationalisms then prevailing in Europe.

For anyone wanting to understand the history of modern Israel, this sentence – or perhaps a better-worded version of it – is about as fundamental as it is possible to be.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph is still very long. What is the point of this lengthy sentence in the lead?
"After World War II and the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and placing Jerusalem under international control."
The plan wasn't implemented back then and is not relevant today. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

See here "Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,...", that's why it is important. It was based on this cable that the US gave de facto recognition to the new government. Without that, there was no basis for the creation of Israel at all. Perhaps the relevant history should be added.

I do agree that para 2 is still too long but that is not what I would be looking to trim myself. Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"basis for the creation of Israel" was the expiration of the mandate and the movement for Israeli independence. After the declaration of independence, war broke out and the plan soon became obsolete for Israel, not to mention the Arabs who rejected the plan since it was announced. This short-lived proposal was never materialized and is not lead-worthy. The lead is too long because of the trivia like this. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The plan became obsolete when the Haganah began taking control of large amounts of land that had been allocated to the Arab state, and expelling the Palestinian Arabs. This happened under the mandate and before the Israeli declaration of independence. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The mandate (Class A) contemplated independence of Palestine at mandate end (achieved in the case of the other three Class A's). The partition plan altered the premise according to its terms, it was an attempt at a fix (not the first attempt, Peel had earlier stated that the mandate was unworkable) for the fundamental contradiction in the mandate (independence of Palestine/creation of a national home) The UN would have been happy if the resolution had been implemented, which of course it wasn't. With hindsight, the Arab state should have been created as well and perhaps we would not be here now but I digress, the point is that the partition resolution is critical background to the creation of Israel, not "trivia". Look at any source discussing these events, odds are it will mention it and Peel eg Reich, Brief History of Israel- "In the light of experience and of the arguments adduced by the Commission...[the British government is] driven to the conclusions that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the aspirations of Arabs and Jews in Palestine, that these aspirations cannot be satisfied under the terms of the present Mandate, and that a scheme of partition on the general lines recommended by the Commission represents the best and most hopeful solution to the deadlock." Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

All these hypotheticals are just not what the lead section of a country is for. Look what any country's lead says about history. They don't go into such level of detail. The plan belongs to the body of the article, not the lead. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand your position but it is not really that helpful to revert just this part out when the whole thing is under discussion and is incorporated in various suggested drafts. I still don't agree with your position, all the encyclopedia links in the bottom section mention it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I humbly suggest to everyone the encyclopedia links in the bottom section are how we should resolve the remaining content disputes about the lead. Let's look at the WP:PROPORTION of coverage in those sources of various details, and summarize them accordingly? Levivich (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

What are we looking for?

Honestly I've lost touch with what these whole discussions are about. This thread's name is "human rights violations in the lead" and now I see flame wars about Israelite kingdoms. What's going on? What's the goal now? Sometimes one must take a few steps back and look again at the bigger picture. Synotia (moan) 14:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration, Yom Kippur War and other important stuff isn't talked about in the lead, but neo-Assyrian and Ptolemaic is. That's what needs fixing. Levivich (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The thread you were just commenting in is "2nd lead paragraph", there are different discussions going on. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The focus on the lede over the last week has highlighted a number of issues. There seems to be a general view that a reassessment is due.

The most pertinent point made above is that country articles should roughly have one paragraph on the history before the state was founded and one paragraph for after the modern state.

There is definitely room for improvement, and the conversation been editors with a wide range of perspective seems quite constructive so far.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Reflection on these impasses

Again commenting with reluctance, and only because Levivich has worked hard here and requested input. Two RfCs proposing something about Palestinian realities have been summarily quicksanded by disagreements, and, as they lie stuck, we've had a third negotiation on a whole paragraph, much more complex, that has thrown up several possible texts, each generating conflicting tweaks. The incipit of the last looks like a compromise, but is, in my view, perhaps the worst suggestion we have. Take the first sentence:-

The comma after ‘Land of Israel’ makes that phrase the subject of what follows, not modern Israel, and assumes the highly polyvalent concept of Land of Israel is identical with the far more neutral Israel, the accepted untroubled designation worldwide.

'Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel, which has come to hold great significance for Jews, Christians, Muslims, Arabs, and other groups.'

Note that, once more, the default geographical and unpolitical term for centuries, Palestine, is attentively elided. Intentionality or no, this sentence will read as a surreptitious and tendentious dodge to get round the objections above, while only making the rhetorical tenor about nationalist overtones objected to above even more cogent,

Land of Israel was for almost 2,000 years a primarily theological concept of indefinite geographical denotation (the linked article is pathetically messy so useless as a link). It has potent resonance, meaning anything from the squabbled halakhic boundaries of an area where the people of Israel can live purified of contamination from non-Jews, to some vast territory from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean. Exodus 23:31-32 formed one of the core bases for the idea that in the land of Israel God commanded that all the indigenous peoples be expelled. Israel was founded by virtue of nothing other than Zionist political genius, and the increasing determination to call the country ‘Land of Israel’ plays on all of these registers, satisfying every constituency.

These problems we are having are not reducible to warring editorial constituencies and their respective POVs. They arise from the inherent ambiguities intrinsic to the language Zionism has used to define itself –‘Jewish and democratic’ as Levivich rightly remind us, citing an egregious oxymoron, is a case in point.A state that defines itself as ‘democratic’ asserts an identity with the Western concept of a democracy but when in the same breath it asserts it will be an ethnocracy, privileging the 75% who are, or claim they are, Jewish (the recent Russian and Ethiopian aliyahs) and started by placing 20% of its citizens under military administration for almost two decades (1949-1966) the ‘democratic’ half of the phrase is compromised. A nation that after 75 years still cannot define its boundaries and that defines itself as inclusive of a large swathe of land international law will not recognize as Israel.

The constant recourse to how other wiki article leads function itself ignores the fact that few if any of these other examples bear analogies with the particular definitional problems the reality here throws in our way. We cannot ‘normalise’ by comparison.

Our differences are illuminated by rereading Ernest Renan’s still seminal What Is a Nation? Nations come to be defined by the selective use of the past. A community is engineered (and then endlessly tinkered with) by creating myth of common identity that highlights some history while repressing and forgetting other substantial bits. In Israel’s case, the core myth consists of the idea all Jews have ancestral roots in this patch of land, melded in with the memories of antisemitism and the Holocaust. In the discussion about whether we need to allude to all the empires or not, the underlying drift is between a desire to showcase and prioritize Jewish continuity and the countervailing desire to underline the immense diversity, ethnic and cultural, that is a hallmark of the region’s past. The one ‘legitimates’ Jewishness, the other leaves ample margins for recognizing Palestinian, Muslim, Samaritan, Christian traditions etc., heterogeneity as an equally valid element of what Israel is. What is repressed is that its establishment knowingly required the dispossession of the historic population and its continual treatment in ways that always, to me at least, come close to mirroring anti-Semitic hostilities . So the clash here is between partial national and total national history, selective memory endorsing a version versus comprehensive history that, as is normative for higher Israeli scholarship, sets misères side by side with the splendeurs of Israeli statehood. It is understandable that these vying differences in approach make working this article intractable. Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Going through the article milestones, it is notable that this article was once an FA and is now not even a GA. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I see all these diatribes as filibusters made to hinter any progress. Once again I don't believe changing the current second paragraph is that necessary as it leads to pointless moaning (see my signature) Synotia (moan) 10:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

These 'diatribes' are recent, the article was delisted as FA in 2010. Evidently something is wrong with the article and it has been so for long. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Why has it been delisted? Synotia (moan) 10:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a rhetorical question implying some unusual and unfair hostility, due to 'filiblustering' people like myself. Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I genuinely did not think of you in particular when using the term "filibusters". I guess you can ask yourself, why you feel targeted :) Synotia (moan) 12:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably because you replied to his comment saying I see all these diatribes as filibusters, which would mean that the comment you replied to is among these diatribes and that you see it as a one of the filibusters. nableezy - 13:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Read the review(s), up the top of the page, click on "show" where it says article milestones. Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I know how to find it :) I just ask in case someone who remembers it can summarize shortly, as I don't feel like reading all that jazz... Synotia (moan) 12:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The version that took it to featured article status is quite instructive. Its second paragraph reads: "The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel, a concept central to Judaism for over three thousand years. After World War I ..." So basically, it simply bypassed the historic imbroglio entirely, and did so in the space of just 23 words. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Iskandar323 for providing the previous featured version. In my reading, it is not a lede I would wish to implement as there is a rather strong pro-Israeli bias. There is nothing on the discrimination, only positive claims on Israel being much more liberal than its neighbors. Besides, since 2007, that comparison in itself looks less obvious, with Israel having becoming decidedly less liberal and democratic. So while useful for comparisons, it is not a lede I would recommend (and, of course, Iskandar323 never suggested that). Jeppiz (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't like it. It reduces the entire Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, including two Israelite kingdoms, where the central Jewish sources were written, centuries of autonomous Jewish polity under foreign empires, and the Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms into a purely religious idea. This is an injustice to the history of the region. Tombah (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I wrote earlier of your 'uninformed generalizations', though I shouldn't single you out here. One cannot progress here if silly remarks are dropped everywhere (especially if they smack of naive or semi-illiterate fundamentalism).

we won't disregard the truth to make up for one side's errors and failures.(Tombah above)

two Israelite kingdoms, where the central Jewish sources were written

Neither the Tanakh nor the Talmud were written before the 7th century BCE in Samaria and Judea, but as every neophyte should learn in the first week, were composed, written and rewritten, and redacted over the following millenium, Babylon playing a core role in the exile, all over the Middle East.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the Hebrew Bible, Mishna and Jerusalemite Talmud (and not the Babylonian Talmud, of course) were all edited and redacted later in Diaspora centers does not change the fact that in most part, they composed by Israelites and Jews in the Land of Israel, who were especially familiar with, for example, the geographical nuances of the region. Stop distorting history for promoting your own views, and stop attacking other editors that do not align to your beliefs. Tombah (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The most recent draft I posted is short enough that I think there is room to expand it and include mention of more of the pre-history., but I'm not sure which things to add. Levivich (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Why is "Jews" before Christians, Muslims, Arabs ?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  The broader question that that particular sequence of words raised for me was why three religious groups and a single ethnicity? People of all faiths can be 'Arab': there have been Arab Christians, Arab Jews and Arab Muslims. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's the chronology. Christianity started as a Jewish sect, and Islam emerged centuries later. Tombah (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I added Arabs because it was suggested, but I'm fine with naming just the Abrahamic religions, although I'd rather use something like "groups" than "religions" because "Jews" is an ethnoreligion, not just a religion. I think I used "cultures" in an earlier draft but as was pointed out, that's not the best word. We could just say "Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others." Levivich (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Or use Abrahamic religions somehow. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'll give that a shot in the next draft. Levivich (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Let's not extend the supposedly ethnoreligious nature of Jews (as seen and claimed by Zionism) to Muslims and Christians. There are major nuances to report on this, Jews having been converted to Christianity, Christians to Muslims; the majority status of each of these groups for different periods and lengths of time. Not to mention the Arabness of the most Muslims and Christians, and even of some Jews. I think this should be left out all together to avoid giving a misleading and overlysimplistic portrayal. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  What about leaving it as is, as you realize yourself that trimming it would mess it up? :) Synotia (moan) 11:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  The supposedly ethnoreligious nature of Jews as seen and claimed by Zionism??? I'm sorry, but it seems that you could learn more about Jewish identity and history. Despite the fact that Zionism emphasized the ethnic component of Jewish identity, it did not invent it. Quite the opposite. The ethnic element may have been partially diminished by years spent in diaspora, including a struggle for civil rights as equal citizens among European nations, but it has always existed since Jews first appeared on the world stage. I can provide a few classical sources that will demonstrate how Jews were regarded as an ethnic group with a unique religious tradition during the Hellenistic and Roman eras. If you don't believe the religious sources, you can read Josephus, for example, who frequently uses terms such as "ethnos" to describe Jews, including in the diaspora. Moreover, in contrast to the other religions you mentioned, Jews can also be genetically identified. I invite you to get yourself updated on the most recent genetic studies on Jews. You'll learn that the majority of Jewish ethnic groups are descended from the Levant and are notably similar to the Lebanese and Druze. We already have too many issues with articles about Jewish history, so please try to learn more. People with more in-depth understanding of Jewish history are needed for this platform. Tombah (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

'it seems that you could learn more about Jewish identity and history.'

That is a boomerang statement if ever there was one. There is no evidence, throughout your numerous 'uninformed generalizations', for the endless broadbrush claims you make which almost uniformly reflect a widespread desire to read the 3,000 year long Jewish past as a series of stepping stones towards the eschatology of national redemption of the modern state in its first 74 years. What you write above is, frankly, trash, and boasting you can quote a primary source like Josephus, without familiarizing yourself with the pertinent scholarship, just leads you into blustering blunders like asserting you can prove from him that:

Jews were regarded as an ethnic group with a unique religious tradition during the Hellenistic and Roman eras

Take some time off and do some reading. Of a score of sources, you might begin with:-

• Ross S. Kraemer, 'On the Meaning of the Term "Jew" in Greco-Roman Inscriptions,' The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 82, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 35-53
• Steve Mason 'Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,' Journal for the Study of Judaism, · September 2007 vol.38 pp.457-512

Anyone who wants to know about Jewish history should read the relevant articles in the second edition (2007) of the Encyclopedia Judaica and ignore wikipedia articles. Perhaps we need a warning template. The massive coverage there over 20 volumes is an ornament to scholarship, not the wreckage of mangled clichés and woefully selective tidbits that, disgracefully for a wonderful topic, mar our coverage here.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani, oh dear, always has a superior attitude toward others, which is motivated by a very obssessive dislike of those you consider to be too Zionist. As a result, you frequently forget to be constructive in your criticism of others. "The Ioudaioi were understood until late Antiquity as an ethnic group comparable to other ethnic groups, with their particular laws, traditions, customs, and God". Mmmm, I wonder what that means. Go ahead and set a challenge for yourself by attempting to clarify in a friendly and constructive way how the passage I brought from the second article you mentioned conflicts with what I said above.Tombah (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Mind taking this OT discussion elsewhere? Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no intention of engaging in a discussion with Tombah. He evidently can't grasp the texts I mentioned. Anyone, if unlike T., they actually read the two refs will see they make nonsense of the generalization I rebutted. Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Para 3

Since we have made a substantive start to implementing a better para 2, time to fix the resultant para 3. From my perspective, the missing is that which I suggested during RFC2 above, namely:

"Israel subsequently fought wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalizing relations with several other Arab countries but remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon while attempts to negotiate a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan, illegally annexing the latter as well as East Jerusalem. Israel continues to violate international humanitarian law including the establishment of illegal settlements within the occupied territories."

Can we get agreement on this? Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

For the details that they cover, those sentences are a very optimally succinct way of putting it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although I'd add the attribution "has been accused of violating" to avoid unnecessary POV. It would look like this (excluding links, please be careful with preserving all of them when you finally add text):

"Israel subsequently fought wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalizing relations with several other Arab countries. However, Israel remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon, while attempts to negotiate a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan, illegally annexing the latter as well as East Jerusalem. Israel has been accussed of violating international humanitarian law, including the establishment of illegal settlements within the occupied territories."

Dovidroth (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

For this to be neutral as required, I believe there are a few facts missing:

"Since its founding, Israel has had to deal with waves of Palestinian terrorism directed at its citizens. Today, the majority of Palestinians continue to support violence against Israeli citizens." + "Israel has fought several wars with Hamas, a militant Islamist group that demands for its destruction, and many in the West consider it to be a terrorist organization." And third, "Israel also has a longstanding conflict with Iran, an Islamic theocracy whose leaders have frequently voiced anti-Semitic sentiments and demanded the elimination of Israel from the map." That would contribute to making the third paragraph much more balanced. Tombah (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral? Only by repeating the claims of both sides that the other side is guilty of terror, + adding the flipside of the next part, i.e. a majority of Israelis support violence against Palestinians (just democratically, by supporting governments that maintain an intrinsically violent occupation and state of perpetual racialized inequality), would you be able to add all of that AND keep it balanced. And Israel doesn't have an open conflict with Iran, just a proxy one involving funding militant groups etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That is neutral in the same way that Since Israel's founding, it has oppressed the Palestinian people, denying them of their fundamental human rights in a system of apartheid that, according to Amnesty International, one of the world's leading human rights organizations, extends into Israel proper as well as in the occupied Palestinian territories. Israel has unlawfully repressed the Palestinian people's legitimate armed struggle against a racist and colonial regime with terror tactics such as indiscriminate bombings of civilian population centers, as well as with assassinations of medical workers and journalists. Palestinian resistance to these illegal actions have caused approximately 1-2% of the civilian casualties that Israeli forces have caused among Palestinian civilians. In case that is not clear, entirely non-neutral and the regurgitation of one sides propaganda as though it were fact, though this side has a bit more reliable sourcing for it. nableezy - 17:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this started. I also think for the details it covers it's succinct and good. I'm not sure what to do about "accused" v. stating it in wikivoice in light of the 2nd RfC above. I think I'm ok with stating it in wikivoice, if the overall paragraph also addressed Palestinian violence against Israelis. I don't think Tombah's language above is a neutral or succinct presentation of it, but I'd be interested in reading other formulations. Palestinians have committed terrorist attacked against Israel (and others), and Israel has violated human rights, both things have been happening for decades, and I think we could state both as facts in wikivoice. That said, "terrorism" is a loaded problematic word, and "violated human rights" can be similarly vague and problematic, so I'm all ears if anyone has any suggestions. But my take away from the 2nd RfC above is that we won't get consensus to add human rights violations by Israel without also talking about Palestinian violence against Israel. There is also the issue of Israeli history other than the occupation, which is missing from the lead. I'm not sure what historical details to include, but I'm sure there are significant events in the country's history other than the occupation. Plus I'd add Yom Kippur War, Camp David, and Oslo, and maybe the intifadas, Camp David 2, and withdrawal from Gaza. I recognize there probably isn't enough room for all of that and this isn't a history of the occupation, but I think at least the first three are important enough for the lead. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC

For the avoidance of doubt, the para I proposed is not intended as a replacement for the existing para 3, it simply encapsulates in a shorter form material already in para 3 and adds a bit that isn't.

In principle I have no objection to including Palestinian bad behavior as well as long as we avoid bothsidesism, the conflict is asymmetric between occupied and occupier not a contest of equals.

Oslo, Camp David(s) and so are all part of a so called peace process that has failed, it doesn't really matter why other than in a war of narratives. We can just link Israeli–Palestinian peace process for that, I think.

Yom Kippur is different, that's AI rather than IP, so I agree that should go in somewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This draft doesn't mention the asymmetry of the '67 war, tho. It doesn't say "Israel was invaded by all its neighbors immediately after declaring independence" (because the neighbors see Israel as the "invader" and Wikipedia doesn't take a side). When we mention the Yom Kippur War in the lead, I'm sure we won't say "surprise attack on Jewish holy day", even though that's why that war is called the Yom Kippur War. My point being, why is the asymmetry of IP necessary to mention in the lead but not other asymmetries? Isn't asserting asymmetry taking a side in the conflict? Anyway, any ideas for how to express it without false balance? My initial thought is two sentences. "Palestinians [something about violence]. Israel [something about human rights vios]." without stating a connection between them one way or the other (specifically, not saying that one is in response to the other). Although if we really wanted to be honest we'd talk about cyclical nature of it. "Since independence, both sides have engaged in escalations leading to a never ending cycle of violence" but editors will think that's false balance on both sides, with each side saying the other is more responsible for the escalations. I don't think the sources are clear enough to be able to take a side on that in wikivoice. Aside from that, '73 + Israeli–Palestinian peace process works for me. Levivich (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Isn't asserting asymmetry taking a side in the conflict? The 67 war is not the same as the IP conflict, that's AI. And no it isn't for the IP conflict, it is straightforward to source, especially more recently, because everyone knows it is asymmetric and increasingly, sources just say so, eg Lee Ross, Barriers to Agreement in the Asymmetric Israeli–Palestinian Conflict, 7 Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 120 (2014) Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that IP isn't asymmetrical, I'm saying that AI was also asymmetrical. I don't think it's neutral to mention only the asymmetry when Israel was the Goliath (IP: occupation, Gaza war), but not the asymmetry when Israel was the David, so to speak ('48, '67, and '73: each time Israel was the smaller army, facing multiple neighbors). Levivich (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The David(Israel) vs Goliath analogy was never valid, but part of a constructed Zionist myth, from 48 onwards. It drew a lot of mainstream traction but the analyses of of the forces at play now make the Yishuv/Israel victories in each case almost assured.In 1967 the CIA estimated that, if war broke out, Israel would win within 6-10 days. Materiel, preparedness, organization and technology determines the outcome of wars, not hot air and boots on the ground. Israel lost most of its 6000 casualtiresd fighting Jordanm's army, the Palestinians lost 13,000 resisting the Yishuv/IsraelNishidani (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again, you and your myths utterly forget yourself sometimes in your desire to dispel what you conceive as "Zionist myths". You completely miss the entire premise of David and Goliath. It's as if you're saying, "David won, so he can't be David," but in the biblical tale, this is exactly what happened. Israel, a small country with a demographic disadvantage had to face the larger Arab World, which was in fact demographically and geo-strategically a giant. Israel finally prevailed in most wars thanks to a clever policy that prioritized quality over quantity, the growth of an efficient military, investments in cutting-edge technology, the application of innovative tactics, and preventive operations. Being successful and smart does not diminish your status as David, as this is exactly what he did in the biblical story. Tombah (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This is simply nonsense. The writing of this paragraph shows that you have not read or understood the many high quality historical sources. Most fundamentally it shows that you have no meaningful understanding of what the Arab World, and its individual countries and governments, are or were.

If power in this world was about number of people, then geo-politics would look very different. Power is about money, specifically about money available for military, communications and intelligence. For the last century, the Israeli government and its predecessors have had available financial power many multiples ahead of the Arab World combined.

Please can we stop with propaganda and stick with facts.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure we can mention the AI asymmetry if it is readily sourceable, I have the impression that might prove more difficult than you think. Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There was a lot of 'Red Indian' terrorism during America's conquest of the West (one of Israel's models or widely perceived analogies, as when Israeli newspapers refer to their 'Wild West' on the West Bank.

An assumption of parity then as though NPOV consists in balancing the acts of an occupier armed to the teeth and those of an overwhelmingly disarmed occupied people, almost wholly occurring outside Israel's recognized boundaries. Take anyone of twenty possible points for comparison and the result is always glaringly disproportionate. Israeli terrorism has bulldozed the houses of 56,000 Palestinian families since 1967, rocketry from Gaza has damaged a handful of homes in Sderot and elsewhere over 20 years. What is meant by terrorism here? 31 Israelis and foreign residents died by actions undertaken by Palestinians last year, 231 Palestinians were killed by Israeli actions: Historically the gap is always 1:8/1:10; arrests abd detention since 1967? a handfu1 (Gilad Shalit) etc.vs 800,000 Palestinians, 50,000 of which underaged: IDF night raids on family homes after midnight since 1967? averaging 3 a night, 1,400 a year, in all 65,000. No statistics exist for similar forms of terrorism conducted by Palestinians. The next we'll have on this pattern is editing the page on China to tweak its mention of their Uyghur ethnocide as a response to, not an integral cause of Uyghur terrorism

More than one detached observer of the discursive codes of mainstream I/P reportage has noted that the laws of cause and effect are generally suspended in favour of parity in a tragic conflict between two parties. Well, yes, but we do accept that causes exist. That language prevails when Israel 'responds' (as one proposes here ìto terrorism, imminent or otherwise)

At most one could add, 'Israel defends many such practices as dictated by considerations of its national security' after mentioning the accusations. Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I take the point that it's not the size of your army, it's how you use it, and just because Israel had smaller numbers in a conflict doesn't mean it was necessarily at a disadvantage: technology and other factors also matter.

By similar logic, though, I am unpersuaded by comparisons of Israeli and Palestinian losses. I don't think there's any question that it's an asymmetrical conflict (IP is widely used in the literature as an example of asymmetrical warfare), but I also don't think that if more Israelis died, or fewer Palestinians, that would bring parity to the conflict. It's more than the number of boots on the ground, and it's more than the bodycount.

I don't think the lead needs to get into who caused the conflict, or who caused which escalation. We don't need to say who threw the first punch in every round of a boxing match.

I think that saying "occupied" and "annexed" sufficiently communicates asymmetrical, and I'm fine with just stating that the wars happened without getting into who started each one or who was David and who was Goliath.

I think the 3rd para should communicate that after '73, AI more or less becomes just IP (which the current lead kind of already does, except it doesn't mention the '73 war).

I'm not sure how to summarize anti-Israeli violence because it's varied: kidnappings, suicide bombings, checkpoint attacks, rocket attacks, attacks outside Israel like Munich massacre... it's hard to summarize all of that. And to me, summarizing PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, etc., all as "terrorists" or "militants" seems overly simplistic and not really neutral.

Idk, I'm going to think about it more. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The difference in casualties is a result of the asymmetry, in which one side has attack helicopters and planes and tanks and armored personnel carriers, and the other side has crude rockets and small arms and homemade bombs. In past conflicts, the difference was between much better American supplied equipment and Soviet supplied equipment. And prior to that, in the pre-state conflict in which the majority of the Palestinians in Israel-proper were driven out, the difference was between a largely unarmed population and one with several well-equipped militias. The death tolls are a result of the disparities and asymmetry. nableezy - 20:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a matter of body count, in my opinion, but rather of intentions. A prominent aspect of Palestinian violence has been the direct targeting of civilians for political gain, including mass shootings at nightclubs, suicide bombings in buses, hijackings, indiscriminate rocket attacks, etc, which is what constitutes terrorism according to common definition. Tombah (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What does that have to with the asymmetry? Popular resistance movements often use terror tactics against much stronger opponents, like states with an army and air force and navy. If anything, the use of terror is a further indicator of the asymmetrical nature of the conflict, where one side drops bombs from a plane leveling an entire block in Gaza, and another bombs a discotheque. But Palestinian resistance has been much wider than just terror, the First Intifida for example was largely non-violent. The Second Intifida, while yes definitely included acts of terror, was largely a stone-throwing uprising. The image of Faris Odeh remains iconic as a representation of that uprising for a reason. As far as indiscriminate, the article Hamas includes the following: Hamas's military wing has launched attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers, often describing them as retaliations, in particular for assassinations of the upper echelon of their leadership.[51] Tactics have included suicide bombings and, since 2001, rocket attacks.[52][53] Hamas's rocket arsenal, though mainly consisting of short-range homemade Qassam rockets with a range of 16 km (9.9 mi),[54][i] also includes Grad-type rockets (21 km (13 mi) by 2009) and longer-range (40 km (25 mi)) that have reached major Israeli towns such as Beer Sheva and Ashdod,[54] and some that have struck cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa.[56] Human Rights Watch has condemned as war crimes and crimes against humanity both Hamas and Israel for attacks on civilians during the conflict, stating that the rationale of reprisals is never valid when civilians are targeted.[j] There a reason why you refuse to allow the article on Israel to include the tactics it uses against the Palestinians, that HUman Rights Watch has condemned as war crimses and crimes against humanity? nableezy - 20:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The major unresolved issue in paragraph 3 is proper communication of the situation in the West Bank. “Occupation” and “settlements” are technical words which mean much less to the lay reader than they do to someone with deep knowledge of the history. We say they are illegal but it reads like a technicality – a reader doesn’t come away with an understanding of what is really unique about the situation.

There are various elegant ways this could be communicated, but it seems every attempt to explain is opposed. To avoid a never-ending cycle here, please could those opposing voices please propose how they would communicate the situation in the West Bank in the fairest and clearest possible way. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

No one actually objected to that, did they? Maybe they did but imo the clearest way is by reference to international humanitarian law, both of settlement and occupation have resulted in violations so if the only thing one wants to do is avoid the word illegal, that's the way to go. As for settlement, the explanation is Geneva 4, same again. Virtually every single wrong thing in WB/Gaza is some violation of humanitarian law, the only question being in what degree. Selfstudier (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s exactly the problem – just saying "it violated some technical law" doesn’t get readers very far. Per MOS:LEAD we are supposed to “summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies”, and we are supposed to avoid jargon. Too much of what we write on the “occupation” is technical jargon in the eyes of average readers.

Currently we write: …since the 1967 Six-Day War has occupied the Syrian Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip—the longest military occupation in modern history—though whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement is disputed. Israel has effectively annexed East Jerusalemand the Golan Heights, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community, and established settlements within the occupied territories, which are also considered illegal under international law.

It all sounds very historical and technical. The single most “prominent controversy” is that Israel continues to subjugate and oppress 5 million people in the Palestinian territories. There are many ways of explaining this, but we currently do not.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Self's initial proposal in this thread simplifies much of that part. As for 'occupation', I don't think that's particularly technical. 'Settlement' is a little more jargon-esque for those not familiar with the context, but that's largely because it's intrinsically a bit of a euphemism - but again, surely if it's a term linked to a page that explains it, it's not a major problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes settlement is a euphemism, and occupation is shorthand for military occupation. No layman reading it will understand “subjugation and oppression of 5 million people”. The topic has been watered down so much it is almost homeopathic. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, we would need some pretty strong sourcing for something like that, the apartheid (another violation of humanitarian law) proposal has no consensus afaics and we are still looking for a way forward on para 3, which I had initially thought would be easier to resolve than para 2. Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

All the same scholars and human rights organizations use the words oppression and subjugation - dozens of high quality sources are easily available.

Other words are fine too:

• Mentioning the enclavization of the West Bank communicates a reasonable amount of it
• Mentioning the 5m Palestinian population under long term Israeli control in addition to the 9m Israeli population would help

The status of these people can be addressed multiple ways, but all ledes must avoid obfuscation with technical language. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

So what is your suggested para 3? Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to build on yours above, and the existing version, moving things around to minimize duplication:

Israel subsequently fought wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalizing relations with several other Arab countries. Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and holds 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip—the world's 3rd most densely populated territory—under long-term blockade. The West Bank is held under the longest military occupation in modern world history, in which 700,000 Israeli citizens live in settlements on a majority of the land, confining a Palestinian population of 3.5 million to disconnected enclaves. All these actions, and the wider subjugation of the Palestinian people, have been rejected as illegal by the international community.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure removing "but remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon [while attempts to negotiate a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed.]" is an improvement (with an emphasis on the still-at-war part). In the first phrase, "several Arab countries" is also vague. I suggest: "Israel subsequently fought several wars with its Arab neighbours ..." The normalization part is also jargon-y, given that 'Normalization agreements' is an extraordinarily niche phrase that applies to relations with exactly four countries, and only ever appears to have been used elsewhere as a term in the context of Serbia-Kosovo. As a term, it is vapid. What are 'normal relations'? Do the US and China have normal relations, with the recent trade war and sanctions on Chinese companies? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Usually, normalization is understood to mean exchange of embassies/diplomatic relations which has not occurred with Morocco or Sudan but has with Bahrain and UAE, the original signatories of the Abraham Accords. US/Israel played fast and loose with the terminology for pr purposes.

I think it was also more or less agreed we were going to put Yom Kippur in somewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair points. My thinking is as follows:

• Being at war with Syria and Lebanon is a technical status and a barely relevant detail in practice, partly because those two countries’ governments have barely functioned for a long time. The relevant parts are the Golan occupation, which we deal with later, and the threat from Hezbollah’s militia which is not part of the Lebanese army and therefore isn’t currently covered by the text anyway.
• The failure to negotiate an end to I-P is clear from the rest of the paragraph – I don’t believe a reader benefits from spelling it out in long form
• I agree a better word than normalization could be found

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the Golan mention is enough. I'm not wedded to those bits. However, especially given the detail that Self has flagged about Morocco and Sudan not exchanging embassies, the 'normalization' phraseology becomes even more circumspect. Perhaps sth to the effect of 'relations with the wider Middle East remain mixed' and a link to this page would suffice. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I like that proposal; particularly as it also encapsulates the differing position between some Mid East governments and the views of their people (in both directions). Onceinawhile (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That cherry-picked "fact" is even worse than the RfC on apartheid. I hope you are kidding. Apparently stating the crude facts—namely that there are settlements in occupied territories which are considered illegal—is not enough POV for you. Obviously such an unencyclopedic, biased-driven language as the one you proposed will never get consensus. Not to mention you conveniently left out the part that clarified it's disputed whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement, but included the dubious claim that it is the "longest occupation in world history". I suggest you take a step back and read WP:Righting great wrongs. This is not a BDS blog for online activism. If you insist with that text, let's open another RfC to ask the opinion of neutral editors. I bet you it will receive less support than the apartheid thing. Also bare in mind the current text on settlements in the lead was the result of previous consensus by many editors, including some of whom are participating in this discussion right now. Dovidroth (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It says that Gaza is 'under blockade', so it is unclear what you are referring to here. What is the POV language used here, and can you back up that up with sources? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Re military occupation it says “in modern world history” not “in world history”, although the latter would be equally true, as military occupation as defined in international law began in the 20th century. The sources are crystal clear.

Anyway, given its notability this has clear consensus for inclusion over many years – see the talk page archives. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That's wrong on so many levels. It is completely one-sided ignoring the violence by the Palestinians against Israel. It's somehow worth mentioning that Gaza is the 2nd most dense territory but not that its government's founding charter calls for a genocide. There are some more minor things but they are not worth discussing. Alaexis_¿question? 06:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It mentions violence in neither direction, so it is unclear how it could be POV on that front, and it doesn't mention Hamas because that's no the subject of this page. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning the blockade while disregarding the primary justification for its imposition - terrorism - is pretty convenient. False balance is the term for it. The rise of Hamas, a violenct Islamist group in the Gaza Strip which continues to call for the annihilation of Israel, using rockets against civilian targets, and carrying out countless terror attacks of all kinds, is the cause of the blockade. Tombah (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, an interestingly anachronistic approach to the chicken and egg. Israel had occupied the Gaza Strip for two decades before Hamas even came into existence. It withdrew from Gaza, and began its blockade, in 2005, two years before Hamas came to power. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it a joke? Because if it wasn't so sad, I would now be laughing right now. Did we copy this from a BDS flyer that we picked up on the street? Or is it perhaps a passage from Al Jazeera? No, Wikipedia won't put this extremely biased essay in the lead; we can leave it to other websites like Electronic Intifada.

Although it is true that Israel has been imposing a blockade on Gaza for the past 15 years and that the Palestinians do not yet have their own independent state, Palestinian terrorism, public opinion, the activities of Hamas and other terror groups, and of course the Palestinians' inability to form a single government, are all significant contributors to the current situation, which the proposed passage attempts to blame on Israel. We have just seen that over the last weekend: many Palestinians concur that it is appropriate to celebrate with fireworks and treats on the streets whenever Jews are killed in acts of terrorism. Tombah (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

We must differentiate between facts and opinion. The blockade is a fact. The explanation for it is opinion (and there are multiple opinions). In the discussion re apartheid above, Triggerhippie4 wrote "The lead is for hard facts, not accusations." Let's stick to that please; explanations can be included only if they factually and clearly represent the firm view of an important constituency and can be appropriately balanced.

@Tombah: as to your comment on the recent tragic events. Can we please assume that all of us here are disgusted by what happened, including all the recent deaths in this conflict, and are equally disgusted by those extremists who celebrate them. Your loose language "many Palestinians concur" is unacceptable - it is dehumanizing and inflammatory. Writing "many Israelis concur" that Baruch Goldstein is a hero would be equally unacceptable, despite the extremist minority who continue to celebrate his actions. Rather than get drawn into media sensationalism over celebrations by extremists, we are better to assume that the vast vast majority of people on both sides are just human beings who care for each other and abhor senseless violence. Your loose language has no place in Wikipedia; please be more careful. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The popularity of Hamas among Palestinians is a hard fact. The directed violence put against Israeli citizens, with assailants aiming to blow up buses, restaurants, cafes and synagogues is a hard fact. The indiscriminate rocket attacks directed towards Israeli urban centers is a hard fact. The decline in suicide attacks that has occurred since the West Bank barrier was built is a hard fact. Surveys already have shown that a majority of Palestinians support those actions; we can debate the validity of those surveys, but anyway, it is clear we are not speaking of a small extremist minority. If we are to describe in greater detail the conflict in the lede (which I think should be left as is, maybe with a few corrections and additions) - we'll need to address the facts about both sides. Tombah (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Popularity as hard facts now is it? Back in 2006, Hamas secured exactly 44.45% of the vote, with a turnout of 70-75% (among the voting population) meaning even when there was the aspiration among Palestinians that Hamas bring about change relative to Fatah's stagnant governance, it was far from ever securing the support of most Palestinians. In 2021, a poll of unclear methodology said 53% believe Hamas is more deserving to lead than Fatah, which scored 14%. Is that testament to love of Hamas or widespread hatred of Fatah? It's not very clear. Where do your hard facts spring from? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Read again the article you have just shared. When 53% say that a political party is "most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people", it is clear that this group is quite popular. Do you also dispute the other facts I mentioned above? Tombah (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I obviously read the source, since I already quoted the figure. But no, that's not popularity, that's voting for who may safeguard your best interests (if not a protest vote). But support for one entity over the competition is certainly not a simply equate to popularity. E.g.: you can support a company that makes electric cars and gives the conventional automobile industry a run for its money, but still hold the opinion that the CEO is an arse. You're also missing the key point that you can't just take isolated surveys and hold them as fact. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Here it goes a reasonable compromise:

@Dovidroth and Alaexis: I wrote above: There are various elegant ways this could be communicated, but it seems every attempt to explain is opposed. To avoid a never-ending cycle here, please could those opposing voices please propose how they would communicate the situation in the West Bank in the fairest and clearest possible way. Could you please draft what you think is the clearest way of communicating the situation with the West Bank and Gaza, and we can then try to move towards consensus – just as we did with Levivich’s efforts on paragraph 2. We are unlikely to make progress if you are only criticizing the work of other editors. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Here it goes a reasonable compromise, in line with Selfstudier's proposal:

...Israel subsequently fought a number of wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalizing relations with other Arab nations. Nevertheless, it remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon, while attempts to negotiate a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan Heights, illegally annexing the latter as well as East Jerusalem. Israel has been accused of violating international humanitarian law, including the establishment of settlements within the occupied territories.

Dovidroth (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not neutral. The International Court of Justice has stated that Israel is in violation of international law, and the ICJ can't "accuse" anyone - if the ICJ says something is a violation of international law, then it simply *is* a violation of international law, as that is how the Court works. So if we want to be unbiased, we must go back to the original proposition: "Israel subsequently fought wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalizing relations with several other Arab countries but remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon while attempts to negotiate a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan, illegally annexing the latter as well as East Jerusalem. Israel continues to violate international humanitarian law including the establishment of illegal settlements within the occupied territories." Dan Palraz (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Human rights criticisms

So when are you guys gonna add the lede? ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If you want you can Ctrl+F around my name and you'll find my personal opinion on this. A possible keyword from a discussion: Mariupol. Synotia (moan) 08:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Brief summaries of Israel

I thought it might help if we look at how academic sources summarize Israel, like in encyclopedia entries. I found these four in the free collections at WP:The Wikipedia Library (TWL); hopefully the direct TWL links work for everyone.

• Riches, Christopher; Stalker, Peter (2016). "Israel". A Guide to Countries of the World (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780191803000.001.0001. ISBN 9780191803000. Retrieved 2023-02-01. (TWL link)
• Hill, Melissa Sue, ed. (2017). "Israel". Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations. Vol. 4: Asia & Oceania (14th ed.). Gale. pp. 317–342. ISBN 9781410338983. (TWL link)
• Ellicott, Karen, ed. (2020). "Israel". Countries of the World and Their Leaders Yearbook 2021. Vol. 1. Gale. pp. 1200–1222. ISBN 9780028671406. (TWL link)
• Dilworth, Jennifer, ed. (2022). "Israel". International Year Book and Statesmen's Who's Who 2023 (70th ed.). Brill Publishers. ISBN 9780995497269. ISSN 0074-9621. (TWL link)

Does anyone know of any others like these? Levivich (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I bet there are more available via TWL's Oxford Reference access. Here's the first one I found:

• "Israel". The World Encyclopedia. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. 2001. ISBN 9780199546091.(TWL link)

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you think that's too old to be included? (More than 20 years ~ one generation.) Levivich (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked at them all, for older facts, I don't think it's a problem, but for newer stuff, I think we need modern (post 2020) and even then, they are rapidly being overtaken by events.

The styles/layouts vary quite a lot so Idk how much guidance we will be able to get from that, tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hill 2017, Ellicott 2020, and Dilworth 2022 are the three highest-quality, non-book-length sources I've come across so far. They don't exactly have a lead like Wikipedia articles do, but they do cover the same events. I think when it comes to how to describe particular events/topics, we can look and see how they describe it. For example, compare their history sections to our 2nd lead paragraph. (Or our body history section; I also think, frankly, the entire body could be balanced with these sources.) Levivich (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm just noticing this is not 2001, online version per the TWL link is 2014. So yay. Levivich (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Britannica --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, also BBC. Levivich (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

To my greatest sorrow, they did not make one for Israel, but you can take a look at this. Here is an example of how they do it for controversial areas. Synotia (moan) 08:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked at some children's lit for ideas, too: National Geographic Kids [15]. Levivich (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Kumaraswamy, P. R., ed. (2021). The Palgrave International Handbook of Israel. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-2717-0. ISBN 978-981-16-2717-0. (TWL link) - Not a brief summary, but a useful source nonetheless. Levivich (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually I'm not sure how good it is, at least some of it (the chapters by Efraim Karsh and Sammy Smooha) strike me as rather biased. Levivich (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What now?

We have 2 RFC going nowhere and discussions longer than both RFCs added together re proposed paras 2 and 3, also going nowhere atm. What now? Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there any appetite to cut the body down to WP:SIZE, and then rewrite the lead as a proper summary of the body from there? Am I nuts to even suggest this? I would do it like this:

1. Identify a handful of brief recent RS summaries of Israel (like the ones posted at #Brief summaries of Israel)
2. Go section by section and see if the facts in the Wikipedia article are the same as in the RS summaries or if stuff needs to be added or moved to sub-articles
3. When the body is done, check the lead and see what needs to be added/removed to make the lead a summary of the body

I think we'll end up with an article half as long but twice as complete. It'd take months but provides a method for resolving WP:DUE disputes. Levivich (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

What is your obsession with deleting stuff? Yes, that is insane. This article is not long for a country, neither is the lead (as it stands now). Have you take a look at the articles on France, Poland, Iran or Turkey? They are all longer and nobody had a problem with them. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Dovidroth (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Categorizing a helpful suggestion as an obsession/insane won't help. The point is not whether (some other country article) is longer (some other are shorter and nobody had a problem with them either), the issue is whether the article here can be improved, even if that were to make it longer overall although I agree that becoming shorter is much more likely. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries, it's only a guide but suggests "An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X")" Now look at this article (coincidentally we are also working on the sub article which is also too long.) Selfstudier (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If length is such a big deal, you can start by removing this unnecessary long expose which is undue and repeated in the specific article of apartheid and Israel. I suggest you don't start something that we don't know how it will end. The whole mess started by Makeandtoss for a lead that was the result of wider consensus in late 2021 should serve as a warning for everybody. Look at the endless RfCs and edit-warring. Don't try to fix something that is not broken. Dovidroth (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a growing consensus that it is broken and WP:OCE is not an argument against that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, over 400kb and 700 footnotes is broken. An encyclopedia article with 700 footnotes is a joke. That's enough footnotes for a book. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be summaries, not book-length. Levivich (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this a bad joke? There aren't 400k of reading prose in this article. Not even close. This article is smaller than Poland's which doesn't have a third of that ammount. Actually, this article is quite modest for a country. And I never thought I'd read someone complaining an article is too sourced. But I wouldn't mind removing selfstudier's extra paragraph on apartheid (see my comment above), which was added without consensus or discussion to begin with, and it's repeated in a more specific article. Maybe you can start with that. Dovidroth (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE says this page should be split. It's 17k words of prose according to DYKcheck tool. WP:OVERCITE is the essay from 2009 about too many citations; I'm surprised you haven't heard about it before.

If you believe this article is not too long, does not have too many citations, or that it's not possible for an article to be too long or have too many citations, then you lack competence to write an encyclopedia article. Using an avg of 250 words/page, 17k words is 68 pages. Show me a 68-page encyclopedia article. Show me an encyclopedia article -- or any tertiary source -- that has 700 footnotes for one topic. This is so far outside what's normal it's ridiculous.

And please stop talking about other country articles; the others ones all suck, just like this one sucks, and we figured that out at #Examples of good country leads.

If you think the only thing that needs to be shortened in this article is the part about "apartheid", then you also have a WP:POVPUSH problem. Stop worrying about whether content is favorable or unfavorable to Israel, and instead worry about applying our global policies and guidelines (WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:SIZERULE) to this article. I mean, it's obvious to me that you haven't yet looked at the sources posted at #Brief summaries of Israel and asked yourself, "If we summarize these sources, what will happen to that apartheid content I think is UNDUE?" I, for whatever it's worth, have done that, and already thought about what it means for including the Yom Kippur war in the lead. Hint: it doesn't seem to make the cut in a lot of RS summaries, even though I thought it would. We all need to check our assumptions and biases against the sources, otherwise we're not writing an encyclopedia, we're just a bunch of people on the internet arguing about Israel.

I'm hoping we don't have to go through a step of filtering out editors who are following policy from editors who are just pushing a POV. I'm hoping everybody here is in the first category and this won't be necessary. But I am growing tired of the counterarguments here that are divorced from, or directly contradict, global consensus. Levivich (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

On the narrow question of the material added to the article re apartheid, that was because during the discussion in the first RFC, someone argued that material about apartheid couldn't be in the lead because it wasn't in the body, true technically, so I added some. Could it be shorter? Sure. Do I think it has to be in the lead, not atm, I would prefer something along the lines I already mentioned (apartheid is also a breach of humanitarian law so not strictly necessary to specifically identify it). The net effect is a shortening of the lead (the body could also be equivalently shortened in that case). I also agree that the way things ought to be is longest, longer, shorter as you progress from one sub article up to a lead. ie summarize as you go. Sometimes we are doing things backwards. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

So we go ahead and revert the whole thing because WP:IDONTLIKEIT? And call the wholesale revert a "trim"? Where is the consensus to revert? I have partially restored it and made it shorter as per discussion above. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• The only individual section which seems obviously disproportionate is History, that whole section should be the size of the current antiquity subsection. Its not like there aren't already pages broken off for that stuff either, none of it is unique to this page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, the other sections look to be about right for size more or less, history is way too big. Levivich (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO a good balance would be a subsection with one paragraph covering the current Prehistory, Antiquity, Classical period, and Medieval period sections... A subsection with two paragraphs for what's covered by the current Zionism and British Mandate and After World War II sections... And a final subsection with three paragraphs for what is currently covered by the Early years of the State of Israel and Further conflict and peace process sections. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The section sizes show in red the History at 125,298 and Israeli-occupied territories at 35179, the latter can be fixed after there is an agreement on para 3. Suggest that a target size be set and then editing to reach it. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Below 100kB is an obvious provisional target, i.e.: no longer than government and politics, given that History of Israel is already an entirely separate overlength article and this is just a summary of the child. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

In the intro, please add that Israel is part of the Levant. 2600:100C:A21C:E44E:9CFD:64F3:D2BB:A3AA (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Done, alongside a broader rearrangement of the info on the seas/borders. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Three areas of POV

The three sentences highlighted in this edit are POV.[16] They were all added by Tombah without consensus a week ago in this edit

• ...the region historically known as the Land of Israel, Palestine, Canaan, or the Holy Land, which is regarded as the birthplace of the Jewish people => This region is the birthplace of two "people"; mentioning only one is not balanced.
• The 1947 UN Palestine Partition Plan which proposed a two-state solution for this conflict was rejected by Arab leaders, sparking a civil war. => This attempts to "blame" one side for the war.
• On May 14, 1948, Israel declared independence, and immediately afterwards the surrounding Arab states invaded, sparking the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. => Again, this attempts to "blame" one side for the war

The drafting in each of these areas goes against years of consensus across this project. The editor concerned should not have added such material, and then reverted it back in when challenged, without first gaining consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not about assigning blame, but reporting well-known historic facts. The Arabs rejected the UN partition plan (regardless of borders): FACT. The Arab states started the 1948 war by attacking Israel when it declared independence: FACT. Neutrality doesn't imply obscuring important facts that make you uncomfortable. Dovidroth (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Palestinians don't need to be mentioned in the paragraph about ancient history in Israel's lead section. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not? It is their history and their country too. "the birthplace of the Jewish people" is a modern nationalist concept; there were no "Jewish people" in those early biblical times either. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Don't believe the propaganda. I don't know about the "Early biblical times", but during the Second Temple period, there definitely was a Jewish people, and it is referred to in many sources of the period, including various Greek and Roman authors, and Jewish writings such as the Books of Maccabees, other apocryphal books, Josephus, rabbinic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and other sources of the period. Try reading Jewish Identity#In ancient times, that would be a good start. Tombah (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, cliché-sowing. Read Steve Mason on the word Ioudaios 2007 as I have told editors here for the nth time. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.(Nishidani)

You are refuting something I didn't write. You (and your links) agree with my statement that "there were no "Jewish people" in those early biblical times" - you are writing about 1,000 years later in classical times. And no classical source used romantic nationalist terminology such as "the birthplace of the Jewish people". If you wish to include language about which nations were "born" in this land, it will need to mentioned both nations. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

What other nation are you referring to? Arabs originated in the Arabian peninsula, so Israel/Judea/Palestine certainly wasn't their homeland or birthplace. All other indigenous nations (e.g. Canaanites) are long gone.

If you are referring to the "Palestinian" people, it is a modern 20th century term with no historical basis. The Arabs who lived in the British mandate of Palestine did not refer to themselves as "Palestinian" until the 1960's, but rather as "Arabs", or "Syrians".

Therefore it's unclear why there is bias in @Tombah's statement. Tinelva (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Not all Palestinians are descended from Arabian Peninsula Arabs; in fact, there is ample evidence that some Palestinians, (particularly rural villagers in some parts of Judea and Samaria), are related to ancient populations such as Samaritans, Christians, and Jews who converted to Islam in the Middle Ages or Early Modern period. However, it is obvious that the ethnogenesis of the Palestinian people should not be discussed in the lede of this article for three main reasons: (1) it is a relative recent phenomenon, a product of the mid-to-late 20th century, and has no place when describing ancient history; (2) It was impacted by modern migrations to the area, starting in the early Islamic period and culminating in the late Ottoman and mandatory periods; (3) this article is about Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people, so the historic part of the lede should mainly focus on Jewish history in the Land of Israel, as prelude for the establishment of the modern-day state. The correct places to discuss Palestinian ethnogenesis would be the articles for Palestinians, History of Palestine. Tombah (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

20% of the nationstate of the Jewish people is demographically Palestinian, descending from people who lived there long before immigrating Jews became Israelis. The ethnogenesis of Israelis is far more complex in its diasporic aspects than the resident Palestinian population's historic past - in no continental nation on earth does anyone think that historic shifts in migration from contiguous areas substantially undercuts their contemporary identity as native to that nation. You cannot weed out the Palestinian element constitutive of modern Israelis without hammering at a nationalist POV that ethnocleans history, and sweeps such inconvenient realities under the carpet.(Nishidani)

To me, it's clear that Philo of Alexandria, a Jew who lived in Alexandria 2,000 years ago and referred to Jerusalem as the "mother-city" of all Jews, did think of the Land of Israel as the Jewish people's ancestral home. He might not had used those exact words, but it is obvious that this idea is based on historical truth and dates back at least to the Hellenistic period and is not a "modern nationalist concept" as Onceinawhile suggested above. Tombah (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

These are some of the sources discussed a few sections above; everybody should be able to access all of them via the WP:TWL links at the end of the citation:

1. Oxford 2014 "Israel". The World Encyclopedia. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. 2001. ISBN 9780199546091.(TWL link)
2. Riches 2016: Riches, Christopher; Stalker, Peter (2016). "Israel". A Guide to Countries of the World (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780191803000.001.0001. ISBN 9780191803000. Retrieved 2023-02-01. (TWL link)
3. Hill 2017: Hill, Melissa Sue, ed. (2017). "Israel". Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations. Vol. 4: Asia & Oceania (14th ed.). Gale. pp. 317–342. ISBN 9781410338983. (TWL link)
4. Ellicott 2020: Ellicott, Karen, ed. (2020). "Israel". Countries of the World and Their Leaders Yearbook 2021. Vol. 1. Gale. pp. 1200–1222. ISBN 9780028671406. (TWL link)
5. Dilworth 2022: Dilworth, Jennifer, ed. (2022). "Israel". International Year Book and Statesmen's Who's Who 2023 (70th ed.). Brill Publishers. ISBN 9780995497269. ISSN 0074-9621. (TWL link)

The content:

• Names/"birthplace": ...the region historically known as the Land of Israel, Palestine, Canaan, or the Holy Land, which is regarded as the birthplace of the Jewish people
  1. Oxford 2014: "Israel comprises most of the Biblical Holy Lands (for history pre-1947, see Palestine)."
  2. Riches 2016: Not mentioned
  3. Hill 2017: "The land that is now Israel (which the Romans called Judea and then Palestine) is the cradle of two of the world's major religions, Judaism and Christianity..." (The Religion and History sections have several paragraphs of ancient history that I won't reproduce here.)
  4. Ellicott 2020: Not mentioned
  5. Dilworth 2022: Not mentioned
• 1947: The 1947 UN Palestine Partition Plan which proposed a two-state solution for this conflict was rejected by Arab leaders, sparking a civil war.
  1. Oxford 2014: "In 1947, the United Nations (UN) agreed to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, but Arabs rejected the plan and fighting broke out."
  2. Riches 2016: Not mentioned
  3. Hill 2017: "On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted a plan to partition Palestine into two economically united but politically sovereign states, one Jewish and the other Arab, with Jerusalem as an international city. The Arabs of Palestine, aided by brethren across the frontiers, at once rose up in arms to thwart partition."
  4. Ellicott 2020: "In the years following World War I, Palestine became a British Mandate and Jewish immigration steadily increased, as did violence between Palestine's Jewish and Arab communities. Mounting British efforts to restrict this immigration were countered by international support for Jewish national aspirations following the near-extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis during World War II. This support led to the 1947 UN partition plan, which would have divided Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under UN administration." Also: "Arabs in the Mandatory and neighboring Arab states rejected a 1947 UN partition plan that would have divided the Mandatory into separate Jewish and Arab states, and the area has seen periods of invasions and armed conflict since 1948."
  5. Dilworth 2022: "The State of Israel's independence was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 with the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine. It followed a resolution agreed by the United Nation's General Assembly on 29 November 1947 recommending the partition of Mandatory Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab States."
• 1948: On May 14, 1948, Israel declared independence, and immediately afterwards the surrounding Arab states invaded, sparking the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
  1. Oxford 2014: "On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled. In the first Arab-Israeli War, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria invaded, but the Haganah successfully defended the state."
  2. Riches 2016: "The state of Israel was established in what was formerly Palestine in 1948 as a Jewish homeland and has since attracted immigrants from almost every country."
  3. Hill 2017: "The Jews of Palestine accepted the plan; on 14 May 1948, the last day of the mandate, they proclaimed the formation of the State of Israel. The next day, the Arab League states—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria—launched a concerted armed attack."
  4. Ellicott 2020: "On May 14, 1948, soon after the British quit Palestine, the State of Israel was proclaimed and was immediately invaded by armies from neighboring Arab states, which rejected the UN partition plan. This conflict, Israel's War of Independence, was concluded by armistice agreements between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria in 1949 and resulted in a 50% increase in Israeli territory."
  5. Dilworth 2022: "The State of Israel's independence was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 with the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine."

I'm not sure where that leaves us exactly, but whatever we do, we should be summarizing the above (and any other recent scholarly summaries of Israel that may not be on the list). Levivich (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, Tombah's material has not achieved consensus yet and needs to be reverted prior to discussion. I already did so and Tombah re-inserted it, so please could someone else return these paragraphs to how they stood beforehand. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be rather strong consensus in favor of the edits. Personally, I'm not sure about the "homeland" part. However, stating that the Arab side rejected the UN partition plan, and that the Arab states invaded, is just stating facts. It's hard to see what the problem is supposed to be. Jeppiz (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

There have been c.20 editors involved in a detailed discussion of the lede in the last few months. Which editors do you consider have stated themselves to be in favor of Tombah's proposed wording? My assessment is that the few editors who have given a clear view in the last 24 hours do not constitute a representative sample. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. "Rejected" and "invaded" seems to be how the RSes summarize it. Levivich (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The real problem is how Tombah's wording synthesizes these two factors. The previous wording was careful to avoid ascribing blame for "sparking" conflict. For contentious topics like outbreak of war, we should be looking to high quality secondary RSes - none of them blame only one side or the other for sparking the conflicts. We must do the same - either we avoid apportioning blame, or we give a balanced appraisal. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

First, you shouldn't have reverted, you're the only one who is voicing objection to the changes (so far). I'm counting 5 editors who disagree with you (me, Tombah, Tinelva, Jeppiz, Triggerhippie). That's consensus, at least for the moment. Second, I don't see "blame" as being a factor. It's what the sources say: the Arab states rejected the partition plan and invaded. I don't know if one can "blame" them, but the RSes say the Arab states started the war. I don't like "sparking" as a word, the sentences could be improved, but I agree fundamentally the the current version is better than the version you reverted to. Levivich (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus on the lede like this is not formed in 24 hours. The four qualifying editors you listed are not representative of the perspectives discussed above over many months, and Tinelva does not count towards consensus. Per WP:BRD we are expected to stop and discuss after reversion. It is not WP:BRRD for a good reason. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Tombah did an excellent job finally summarizing the lead to replace that monstrosity from before. Concerning the 1947-48 part - I've already changed the wording, look carefully. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The new wording still does not work. It suggests that the sole reason for 1948 was Arab rejection of the UN and Israel. Singling out a single aspect like that is highly POV.

There are many other problems in Tombah's drafting. Two more examples:

• The second paragraph is more a summary of History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, rather than a WP:WORLDVIEW summary of this land. Tombah has expressed a view that "this is the Jewish state, so the history should focus on Jews", but his view has not achieved consensus.
• Around that time, Israel absorbed waves of Jewish immigration, while a sizeable number of Palestinians were expelled or fled juxtaposes these two in what is a core Israeli government talking point. The Palestinian population change around the time of the war was 3x larger than the Jewish one, and happened first, so why is it second? Also they did not happen around the same time, making it sound like a population exchange. The Palestinians were kicked out, refused return, and only after the hostilities ended did mass Jewish immigration begin.
• The longstanding statement the longest military occupation in modern history was deleted, removing context of the uniqueness
• Mention of the annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights was deleted

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Tombah's edit indicates a desire to insert clichés rather than sum up scholarship.

Israel is located in the region historically known as the Land of Israel

• Eretz Israel is a religious, not an historical, term, whose usage down to modern times was mainly restricted to religious texts. It was not typically toponymic but that part of the area defined as coming under halakhic prescriptions.

which is regarded as the birthplace of the Jewish people

Google that and you get endless hits becausae it is the mindless cliché folk narratives adore. It is as meaningless as stating in the lead in other articles:

• Lebanon/Syria/Egypt/Jordan/Iraq/Iran/Turkey/Greece is the birthplace of Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Iraqi/Iranian/Greek people.

Israel is no more the birthplace of the Jewish people than Greece is of the Greek people, both being from earliest times strongly diasporic. If, as the best scholarship tells us, Judaic identity began to shape itself from late Achaemenid/Hellenistic times, it did so when the large majority of Jews were living beyond Palestine. One might say the 'birthplace of Jewish identity' or something like that and nudge off from crap towards some semblance of historicity. The general point is though that it is anomalous in country articles (China is the birthplace of the Chinese people/Japan is the birthplace of the Japanese people'). Its only reason to be inserted here is the usual POV of claiming ancestral rights.

• 'In antiquity, it was home to several independent Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, initially the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and again during the Hellenistic period under the Hasmonean dynasty.'

I.e. there was never any foreign kingdom (Philistia), or foreign sovereign authority for a thousand years.

' In later history, the Jewish population gradually decreased as many were expelled, displaced, or emigrated, resulting in a significant Jewish diaspora. '

This is a euphemistic rephrasing of the usual nonsense narrative about 70CE. The population from 800-400 BCE suffered substantial decrease. The 'Jewish population' here apparently means 'the Jewish population in Palestine' because there is no evidence of a decline - to the contrary. there is much evidence of Jewish communities flourishing- throughout the Mediterranean. 'Expelled' refers to 'Jewrusalem' not Judah/Galilee/Samaria. It is false to assert that the Jewish diaspora began later. Like the Greeks, the Judaic/Israelite people were always in diaspora. In short, Tombah's 'excellent' summary mugs the lead with simpleton just-so stories that camouflage the old political story.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Tombah's edit indicates a desire to insert clichés rather than sum up scholarship. or maybe Nishidani's remarks indicates a strong desire to underplay historical truths when it comes to certain aspects of history, obsession with debunking myths that frequently veers off course to support fringe viewpoints, or just outright dislike for editors who don't share his viewpoint.

The area in which modern Israel is situated has been referred to by the term "Land of Israel" for hundreds and thousands of years, and across many generations, much as the terms "Holy Land" and "Palestine" have done as well. Religious texts have of course used this term frequently, but not exclusively. Nonetheless, a name that has historically been exclusively employed in religious texts does not disqualify it as "not historical" - exactly the opposite. What exactly makes the term "Palestine", coined by Greek and Roman authors, and later used prominently by foreign individuals "more historical" (if that's even a thing)?

The importance of mentioning that the Land of Israel is where the Jewish people originated stems from the fact, that unlike the other ethnic groups you named, the Jewish people had a reputation as being a people without a land from late antiquity until the 20th century, especially when our readers are about to read more about modern period events that led up to the emergence of modern-day Israel, such as the rise of Zionism and the Aliyah.

Even though the history of Philistia may be fascinating, it has no bearing on the lead of this article, which acknowledges the existence of other ancient polities in the region but prefers to stay focused on the Israelite and Jewish polities because they were more notable historically and had a significant impact on culture, religion, literature, and most importantly for this article, the western perception of history, Jewish identity, and the emergence of Zionism.

"Euphemistic rephrasing of the usual nonsense narrative about 70CE" - did you actually read the piece? where exactly is the 70 CE events mentioned? My revision depicts a historical fact: Jews, who were the majority in the Land of Israel in antiquity, became a minority up until the present day following a process spanning several centuries. Yes, there were high points during the later Roman period, especially in the days of Judah the Prince, and indeed, there was already a sizable Jewish diaspora before the Second Temple was destroyed, but once more, I fail to see how this modification conflicts with that. The general trend, going from early Roman times to Ottoman times was of Jewish demographic decline, ending up with Jews being less than 10% of the population. This revision is exactly in line with the academic, historical analysis. Tombah (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I can see at least one 'historical fact' above that is entirely not demonstrable, and that is this concept of a historic 'Jewish' majority, in the modern sense of the word 'Jewish', when all that we actually know is that there was a 'Judaean' majority, for all the various meanings that that can carry. As with previous discussions, there is a strong element of synthesis in the assumption that sources talking about 'Judeans' means people from Judea that were also practicing Jews in the modern terminological sense. Back then there were no Pew surveys or the like, so this stuff is simply outright unknown - historical fact does not come into it in the slightest. It's exactly the same principle by virtue of which Palestinian Jews in Ottoman Palestine were 'Palestinians' - that of the prevailing demonyms being derived from the contemporary names of the geography, not based on anything related to religious affiliation. The assertion of fact above may or may not reflect the historical reality, but assuming that it does is methodologically deeply unsound. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we make it about sources? I've seen sources that present a different image, so. The majority of the population in the country, from the southern Hebron Hills (Idumaea, where converted Edomites lived), up to Wadi Qana in Samaria, as well as in much of the Galilee and Perea, was Jewish before the First Jewish-Roman war, as far as I am aware. "Jewishness" is archeologically determined by material culture indicating distinctive Jewish customs in those areas, where the majority of the local population typically used Jewish burial customs, built mikvehs, used Jewish names alongside specific Hellenized ones, preferred stone vessels to adhere to Jewish purity laws, and more. That was the situation in most of Judaea. Samaritans only resided in a very small Samaria (stretching from Wadi Qana to modern-day Jenin), whereas only the Decapolis (which except Scythopolis, was situated in the Transjordan) and Paralia (the coastal plain) had a pagan majority (Greek settlers or Hellenized semitic populations). I have seen several scholars and sources that mention the region's predominance of *Jews* during that period. Check for example Edward Kessler's "An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations": Jews probably remained in the majority in Palestine until some time after the conversion of Constantine.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombah (talk • contribs) 11:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

A single-statement 'probability' in an only marginally subject-specific work is hardly compelling. I imagine some rather more specific insight might be found in Judeans and Jews: Four Faces of Dichotomy in Ancient Jewish History. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Permanently tagged article, and WP:BRD?

Prior consensus version:[17]

Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories are located in the Holy Land, a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions. In ancient history, it was where Canaanite and Israelite civilizations developed, while in the early first millennium BCE the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged, before falling to the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, respectively. During the classical era, the region was ruled by the Achaemenid, Macedonian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires. In the 2nd century BCE, an independent Hasmonean kingdom emerged, before Rome conquered the area a century later. In the 7th century, the Muslim conquest of the Levant established caliphal rule. The First Crusade of the 11th century brought the founding of Crusader states, the last ending in the 13th century at the hands of the Mamluks, who lost the area to the Ottoman Empire at the onset of the 16th century. In late 19th century, Jews began immigrating to the area as part of the Zionist movement. After World War I, the allied powers assigned the Mandate for Palestine to Britain, which during the war made a declaration of support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Following World War II and the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and placing Jerusalem under international control.
After a civil war between Palestinian Arab forces and the Yishuv, Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 at the termination of the British Mandate. A day later, the surrounding Arab countries intervened, leading to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements that saw Israel in control of most of the former mandate territory, while the West Bank and Gaza were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled the territory Israel would come to control, with fewer than 150,000 Palestinian Arabs remaining within Israel. During and immediately after the war, around 260,000 Jews emigrated or fled from the Arab world to Israel. Israel has since fought wars with several Arab countries, and since the 1967 Six-Day War has occupied the Syrian Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip—the longest military occupation in modern history—though whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement is disputed. Israel has effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and established settlements within the occupied territories, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and has normalized relations with a number of other Arab countries, it remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon, and efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have thus far stalled.

Tombah edit:[18]

Israel is located in the region historically known as the Land of Israel, Palestine, Canaan, or the Holy Land, which is regarded as the birthplace of the Jewish people and significant to the Abrahamic religions. In antiquity, it was home to several independent Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, initially the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and again during the Hellenistic period under the Hasmonean dynasty. In later history, the Jewish population gradually decreased as many were expelled, displaced, or emigrated, resulting in a significant Jewish diaspora. Several empires came to control the region over the course of history, including the Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, and—after a brief Crusader period—the Ayubbid, Mamluk, and Ottoman empires.
With the emergence of Zionism in the late 19th century, Jews started emigrating to Ottoman Palestine. After World War I, Palestine was put under British Mandatory rule, and tensions between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population constantly grew. The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence were rejected by Arab leaders, leading to the 1948 war. Around that time, Israel absorbed waves of Jewish immigration, while a sizable number of Palestinians were expelled or fled. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied neighboring territories and established settlements there, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community. While the Arab–Israeli conflict has mostly faded out as Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have thus far stalled.

See above the version added unilaterally by Tombah on 26 Feb, without discussion. It is shorter than the prior version (good) but has a clear POV favouring one narrative in multiple areas (bad). I have been here long enough to be certain that such an approach to editing will not achieve consensus. We can and must achieve a form of words consistent with both Israeli and Palestinian narratives. We all want to remove the tag from the article; that needs broad acceptance that we have achieved NPOV. @Triggerhippie4: with your latest edit, reverting to Tombah's version while the discussion is ongoing, you are damaging the cordial atmosphere that built up over a long period here - please don't undermine it now. We need to respect WP:BRD, and let the discussion play out properly. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

First you need to stop calling it "Tombah's version" when in the week since Tombah's contribution, no one but you has objected to it in any way. On the contrary, several editors have either started to improve the new version, or have explicitly stated their support on this talk page, because it's an obvious improvement. If you have an objection to a part of it, and it's not supported by the community, you shouldn't try to reverse all the progress by restoring that largely inferior version. I don't see how the following sentence is not neutral, especially to the point that you need to restore everything else: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence were rejected by Arab leaders, leading to the 1948 war." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I have raised seven separate objections in the thread above, all of which have been discussed here recently and have an explicit lack of consensus:

1. Mentioning the land as the birthplace of "the Jewish people" but ignoring the Palestinian people
2. Blaming Arabs for sparking the 1948 civil war
3. Blaming Arabs for sparking the 1948 Arab-Israel war
4. Making the first history paragraph primarily about Jews
5. Writing about the Palestinian Nakba as if it was a population exchange
6. Deleting the "world's longest occupation"
7. Not mentioning annexation

Regarding your revision to that one sentence, I wrote above: The new wording still does not work. It suggests that the sole reason for 1948 was Arab rejection of the UN and Israel. Singling out a single aspect like that is highly POV. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the usual story here, been like this for years, and good faith talk page discussions intended to improve things (2 RFC pending) are ignored in favor of POV editing. The history section and the lead are still way too long. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Needless to say, there is no 7-day rule whereby POV edits becomes legit. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It's hardly news to any regular editor that I don't take neither a pro-Israeli nor pro-Palestinian view, and especially so in this case. Rather than saying one version is categorically better than the other, I see good and bad points in both. As already stated, I have a lot of sympathy for Onceinawhile's objection of singling out Israel as the birthplace of the Jewish people. On the other hand, I don't understand the complaint that the text puts the blame of the 1948 on the Arabs. Sorry, but that's a fact. There was a UN plan, one side accepted it and one rejected it. Trying to obscure that would fail NPOV. So again, I don't prefer one version over the other. Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The message that the rejection of the UN vote was the primary cause of the conflict is the problem.

The fighting pre-dated the vote, see for example Shubaki family assassination. The moment the British stated their intention to leave, it was clear a conflict between Jews and Arabs was on the cards.

Equally you could say that the actual problem was the UN voting on a plan that was clearly not acceptable to both sides. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I, like Once, object to it being oversimplified in this manner in the lead devoid of the huge amount of historical context at play. Without any of the context, including the multiple rounds of negotiations rejected by both sides and any mention of the highly inequitable division of land proposed in the iteration dismissed by the leaders of neighbouring countries, the oversimplified statement is not just POV, but a rather well-known and tired example of a constantly regurgitated POV talking point on the subject. To avoid this, any kind of assertion to this end is best avoided in the lead and instead left to the body where the detail and context can all be expounded in full. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It is impossible to cover the history of Israel, various claims, and all the events in the lead. And even in this version, the history paragraph is relatively long compared to the lead of other countries. In my opinion, this version is much better although it is not perfect for the reasons you mentioned. but it is much better than the previous one. Qplb191 (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like we need a para 1 RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you note that the article states the Arabs were to blame for 1948. This is a highly synthetic POV, and a very familiar one, that ignores any other way of reading the events by a principle of exclusion of other relevant facts.

• The Holocaust survivors in Europe were denied mass open entry into Great Britain and the United States, with Truman stating England should accept 100,000 and Bevin rejoining that the Yanks should try dumping that number of Jews in New York. This repeated the antisemitic restrictions on Jewish entry to those countries prior to the war. Worse still, GB then passed a law allowing 275,000 Polish troops to emigrate to England (March 1947), while with the US, organizing the Partition Plan's approval, which entailed heavy lobbying of Caribbean mini states among others, which had no historic connection to the area. The UN plan gave 32% of the immigrant Jewish population of Palestine 56% of the land, including its best agricultural resources, while the indigenous Palestinian 66% were assigned 44% of the land, in the rockier areas mainly. Of course this was absolutely unacceptable to Arabs, and they unanimously rejected a plan that would effectly place under the jurisdiction of an ethnically Jewish state the vast assets which were under Palestinian title. The acceptance by Ben-Gurion was premised on the upcoming war which would allow even more land than the Partrition Plan envisaged. The refusal by Arabs was grounded in the fact that outside powers were resolving 'their Jewish question' in Europe by thrusting the onus of relocation on Palestine, which entailed the destruction of the Arab majorities aspirations for the area. To blame the Arabs for assessing realistically that the proposal meant selling out their patrimony for chicken feed is a widespread viewpoint, the blame them-we are the victims strategy of victors in a cynical great power game of shuffling off their responsibilities to the victims of the Holocaust.Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

In short, if we reduce very complex historical contexts (the above is also a simplification) to a sentence of the type, 'the Yishuv accepted Partition, the Arabs rejected it', all the cogent whys of history disappear to favour one POV by a selective pointing of one result that feeds into the Abba Eban spin about Arabs never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. NPOV is quashed. Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

100%, not to mention that it was rightly pointed out that the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine violated the spirit of the organization proposing it, i.e. the principle of national self-determination in the UN's own charter. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural note I hope we all can agree that while this discussion is ongoing, the prior long-standing version should remain. That is the correct procedure regardless of personal preferences. (Onceinawhile already said that, so just adding my voice of support to that view). Jeppiz (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Triggerhippie4, @Dovidroth, @Eladkarmel: Suffice to say that edit warring to maintain edits that have been reverted and clearly challenged on talk is in violation of WP:BRD. That this is a contentious topic area only makes this more problematic, and the assertion that the 7-day life of the edits is an excuse simply goes directly against WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, i.e. policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the content, I think we all agree that the lead should be shorter. Each new version should be much shorter than the existing one and especially the history paragraph which is simply too long and even a bit confusing. Qplb191 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that a much shorter version should be made than the existing one ,that would also detail the Palestinian connection to the "Land of Israel" and would be neutral overall. Qplb191 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the same – what is the shortest possible for these two paragraphs on history? What is the minimum content required? There is a “magnification” problem of spelling out either side’s ancient connection to the land – both need to be contextualized / positioned in due weight in the context of the rest of the history of the land. So every 10 words removed on “historical connection” probably allows us to remove 40 words overall. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree it is a big problem to detail everything, especially because there are a lot of controversial things and the history of the place and the region is so ancient and long. It cannot be ignored that the history part is too long and even a bit confusing. In my opinion, it is unnecessary to mention every kingdom that ruled the region and specific years, etc... The first paragraph is very long and mostly unnecessary. Regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it is very difficult to explain the whole thing and give different arguments, you only need to refer and write neutrally, and also briefly explain that the Palestinians have a great affinity and connection to the place as well. We can shorten the lead by half and it will make it much more organized and less confusing. Qplb191 (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the lead should be short and to the point. and significantly shorten the part of the history that is too long and unnecessary, and also mention the perspective of the Palestinians. Qplb191 (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I made a new version, considering the suggestions above:

Israel is located in the region also known historically as Canaan, Judea, Palestine, or the Holy Land, which is significant to the Abrahamic religions. In antiquity, it was home to several independent Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and during the Hellenistic period under the Hasmonean dynasty. The Jewish population gradually decreased as many were expelled, displaced, or emigrated, resulting in a significant Jewish diaspora. Several empires came to control the region over the course of history, including the Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, and—after a brief Crusader period—the Ayubbid, Mamluk, and Ottoman empires.

The emergence of Zionism in the late 19th century was followed by the mass Jewish migration to Ottoman Palestine. After World War I, Palestine was put under British Mandatory rule, and tensions between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population constantly grew. The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence were rejected by Arab leaders. During the 1948 war, a sizable number of Palestinians were expelled or fled. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied neighboring territories in the longest military occupation in modern history, and established settlements there, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community. While the Arab–Israeli conflict has mostly faded out as Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have thus far stalled.

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent version, short and to the point, also gives the perspective of the Palestinians and is neutral overall. Qplb191 (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

While there are parts I could quibble with, overall it's a significant improvement over what is on the Israel page now, so I'm going to skip my quibbles and just say I support this. Levivich (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm ... I'm not sure I can skip my quibbles. The "also" in the first sentence is a grammatical anomaly absent from the previous version. It is either "in the region known as" or "also known as" - not both (should be the first I think). The above also skips the whole Babylonian, Achaemenid and Seleucid phase (maybe Macedonian and Ptolemaic can be dropped, but not the rest). I'm all for cutting, but here, too much also remains of the previous flawed version. The demographic stuff involves the conflation of various historical factoids. There were variously Samaritan, Judean and specifically Jewish expulsions, massacres, etc. at various points in time. The above is oversimplified and pointed. 'sizable number' of Palestinians remains a risible means dodging the annunciation of the very precise numbers of Palestinians that were forced to leave their homes. The detail on East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should probably not be skipped over - the Golan in particular forms the basis of a whole separate state of ongoing conflict with Syria, separate to Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree but it is definitely unnecessary to mention all the different empires that ruled the region. This version is much better and is a good basis for future improvements. Qplb191 (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: Why are your unilaterally inserting parts of the proposed wording while the discussion is ongoing? The 'sizable number' language is probably the worst part of the proposal. It is a clearly euphemistic vaguery. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Triggerhippie4: appreciate the good faith effort. I also have quibbles that I can skip for now, but unfortunately it has also crossed a few areas that are unacceptable and contravene the discussion of the last two months. For the sake of clarity I will ignore the quibbles on focus only on the structural points:

Para (1) First and last sentences are fine. The second and third, constituting 50% of the paragraph, are about Jewish history. That is simply not a reasonable reflection of the region's 3,000-4,000 years of recorded history, as can be seen graphically here.

Para (2) Is moving in the right direction, but (a) Annexation is missing; (b) the Arab rejection sentence jars with the high level of the rest of the paragraph, and would be better replaced with a broader description (e.g. after the "constantly grew" we explain the with the UN Partition plan and the announced British withdrawal these tensions grew into a civil and then regional war, resulting in the independence of Israel with borders covering most of the former mandate territory.)

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

In the end, it should be completely neutral, the affinity of the Palestinians to the place and the annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem should be added, but beyond that, in my opinion, it is an excellent lead and a very good basis for improvements in the future. It cannot be denied that the existing lead is too long and cumbersome. It should be short and simple. Of course, it is impossible to explain the long, complicated and controversial history of the region, so specific main points must be chosen that give perspective to the Palestinian side as well in brief. Qplb191 (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

To answer both Iskandar323 and Onceinawhile.

Regarding the word "also" in the first sentence - the region beyond the state borders is also known as Israel, see the Land of Israel.

I agree to add Egyptian, Babylonian and Achaemenid empires to the list.

I don't understand what is wrong with the population sentence. The Jewish population has indeed decreased throughout antiquity.

The lead is supposed to be a brief glance of the subject and shouldn't mention specifics such as demographic numbers, especially only for Palestinians who are not the focus of this article. (And the numbers are actually not "very precise.")

East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are part of the occupied territories, which is already mentioned and linked.

Onceinawhile, I didn't understand your last point (b). Could you suggest a text? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure. TH4 PROPOSAL: ...tensions between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population constantly grew. The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence were rejected by Arab leaders. During the 1948 war, a sizable number of Palestinians were expelled or fled. Since the 1967 Six-Day War... ONCE PROPOSAL: TH4 PROPOSAL: ...tensions between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population constantly grew. Following the UN Partition Plan and Britain's decision to withdraw from the territory, in 1948 these tensions grew into a civil and then regional war. The war resulted in the independence of Israel with borders covering most of the former mandate territory, within which the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled and were refused return. Since the 1967 Six-Day War... Onceinawhile (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The 700,000 Nakba figure is attested in a frankly ludicrous number of sources. When you are talking about 80% of the pre-existing population, that's not a 'sizeable number', that's the 'vast majority', plain and simple. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe change from "a sizable number of Palestinians" to "about half of Palestine's Arab population" Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not 80% relative to the whole of Palestine; it's 80% relative to the area from which Palestinians were driven out. As the page currently specifies, fewer than 150,000 remained in Israel. It's a statistical sleight-of-hand to defer to the population of the entire geography, when it is the area from which people were expelled that is the concern with these particular statements. Hence the current text contextualizes it as in "the territory Israel would come to control". Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's difficult and unnecessary. "About half of prewar Palestine's Arab population" will do. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I think you've hit the nail on the head of why we use the number. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be the only number in the text, and thus meaningless to readers. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Cannot agree more. There's no need for specific numbers here, that's clearly not an essay about the 1948 war, and this is definitely not the place to "right great wrongs", but briefly summarize the most significant moments in the history of the region, particularly those that are crucial for understanding modern-day Israel. That's what our readers are here for. "About half of prewar Palestine's Arab population" sounds like a reasonable compromise. Tombah (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You are missing Iskandar's point. It's not about the denominator, not the numerator. If there is an objection to using a percentage like 80% we can replace it with words like "vast majority", so the sentence would be "The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled the territory Israel would come to control, and were refused return after the war." Onceinawhile (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a valid suggestion, in the end this version is much better. Anyone have any other fixes to suggest? Qplb191 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be added that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are occupied territories and their annexation, in addition to the Palestinians' connection to the region beyond that, I think this is a good version. Qplb191 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's what The Levivich Five say about Nakba (none use the word "Nakba"):

1. Oxford 2014: "Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled."
2. Riches 2016: Not mentioned
3. Hill 2017: "During the 1948 war, there was a massive flight of an estimated 800,000 Palestinians.", "There followed a mass flight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs abroad, partly at the urging of foreign Arab leaders and partly owing to actions of Israeli forces."
4. Ellicott 2020: Not mentioned
5. Dilworth 2022: Not mentioned

Levivich (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Triggerhippie stated above that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are part of the occupied territories, which is already mentioned and linked in his proposal. Two problems here: (1) That statement is not true under Israeli law; (2) These annexations fundamentally changed the de facto borders of Israel and therefore are highly notable. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead section is for readers to have a cursory glance at the subject of the article, not for editors to insert as much POV as possible. It doesn't matter which parts of the occupied territories Israel annexed and which did not in two short paragraphs summarizing thousands years of history. All this information is easily accessible via the link or below on this page. That's not how a lead is written.

And it's the half of the Palestinians who fled in the war not the "vast majority." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Triggerhippie4,there may indeed be some controversial things to correct or add as you mentioned, but in the end it is clear that we all agree that the proposed lead is a significant improvement over the existing one. Qplb191 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

How are major annexations POV? Those are obvious, major, landmark alterations of the geography governed by the country according to its own laws. Hence, no shit, Russia's annexations are in its lead. This information is about 200x more important to the lead of this article about a modern country than literally any of the guff about iron age kingdoms and the Hasmonean dynasty etc. What is distinctly POV is this ongoing 'half fled' rhetoric. Once's suggestion above is ok, or we can stick with exact figures. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Here are your three options: the 700,000 Palestinian fled from the areas that Israel came to control option [19], the only 20% of Palestinian were left, a.k.a. the 80% fled option [20], or the "Almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area under Jewish control..." option [21]. What is not going to happen is the 'bury the Nakba' option. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

But none of those articles are articles about Israel. They're all about the exodus specifically. Find an article about Israel, the country, an article that is an overview of the country, and show us what it says about the Nakba. I mean, you can't seriously be suggesting that those three articles are the only three options? Given that I've posted five others above, that all say something different (three go with "bury the Nakba" option). Levivich (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the best option is “"Almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area..."( “Jewish control” it’s unnecessary ) Qplb191 (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh sure, yeah, great, let's just wipe the slate clean. And while we're at, let's head along to the Turkey page and quietly remove all that uncomfortable talk of Armenian and Assyrian genocides. Just details. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead should be neutral. In the end I am in favor of mentioning the sentence you suggested but "Jewish countol" is simply not a good term. Qplb191 (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that part is only really necessary if it is otherwise thought to be confusing as to which geographical area this refers to - although, judging by this thread, that confusion is very much alive. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should bury it. Based on the sources I've seen so far, I think we should update the article with Hill 2017 and say 800,000. Levivich (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

There's seems to be some pretty widespread opposition to exact numbers here, and 800,000 is different again from the prevailing 700,000, so presumably even more contentious still? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

And why three sources from the 1980s? Seems dated. Levivich (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No one is preventing anyone from finding their own sources. I just found three different wording options from some serious sources. This stuff is frankly such ludicrously common knowledge that even the doggedly factually non-committal Chat GPT is happy to provide a figure: "The exact number of Palestinians who were expelled from the area under Jewish control in 1948 is a matter of debate and controversy. The estimates of the number of Palestinian refugees range from 700,000 to over 1 million people, who were displaced as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the Nakba (Catastrophe in Arabic). The displacement of Palestinians occurred in various ways, including forced expulsion, intimidation, and massacres. Some Palestinians fled their homes in fear of the violence, while others were forcibly removed by Israeli forces. Many of them ended up in refugee camps in neighboring countries, where they and their descendants remain to this day. It's important to note that the exact number of displaced Palestinians is a contested issue, and different sources provide different estimates." Iskandar323 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

“Almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area”

I think it's a good compromise. Qplb191 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

TBH, I think that's almost too vague in the opposite direction (almost the whole, in my mind, means something more akin to 90+ or 95+ %), so 'vast majority' still works for me if numbers are an issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT is not a serious source, and really, for this topic, neither are journal articles from the 1980s about Palestine. Those aren't even close to "the best sources for the Wikipedia article 'Israel'". We should be using scholarship from the 21st century, it's not like there is any lack of it, there's probably three new books published since this discussion started. We really shouldn't be doing backwards editing ("The article should say X, here are sources that say X."), we should be doing it forwards ("Here are the best sources about this topic, they say X..."). Levivich (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. BUT, it is an excellent aggregator of information and its results reflect a sort of modal form of the information out there in the ether. I was using it as food for thought. On the three sources above, while I wouldn't particularly rate the other two, the Simha Flapan source is good. This isn't fast-paced stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This lead is a big improvement. 1. The fact that this is the longest military occupation in modern history is mentioned. 2. on the occupied territories (East Jerusalem, the annexed Golan Heights) and the West Bank. 3. It is mentioned that the construction of settlements, annexation and occupation are not acceptable according to international law and the international community does not accept them. 4. At the beginning of the lead it is written that the Palestinians and the Abrahamic religions have a high connection and importance to the place, as does the Jewish people. Regarding the 1947-1948 war, I think it's really not worth delving into it and writing about it so much because there are many controversial things and also because the lead should not be only in that.

Do you have any other suggestions for change? Qplb191 (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's agree that the proposed lead is an improved version (if anyone has more comments or changes to offer please say). It can't be 100% perfect or everyone will be satisfied, but it can be as good as possible (without a doubt this version is much better). Regarding the Nakba, first of all, there are no exact official numbers like @Levivich mentioned and this is very controversial. Secondly, demographic numbers are not mentioned in the lead. Qplb191 (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The emergence of Zionism in the late 19th century was followed by the mass Jewish migration to Ottoman Palestine. After World War I, Palestine was put under British Mandatory rule, and tensions between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population constantly grew. The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence were rejected by Arab leaders. During the 1948 war almost whole of the Arab population fled or expelled from the area under Jewish control. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied neighboring territories in the longest military occupation in modern history, and established settlements there, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community. While the Arab–Israeli conflict has mostly faded out as Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have thus far stalled.

Qplb191 (talk)

What do you think about this?Qplb191 (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The 'rejected by Arab leaders' bugbear is still there, and 'faded out' seems like an unnecessary colloquialism that could be phrased better. Maybe the annexation could specify "Palestinian and Syrian territories" - the whole Golan/state of war with Syria aspect shouldn't just be written out as if it is a footnote. Unfamiliar readers might think this only refers to Palestinian territories. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

A new version according to your suggestion, what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The emergence of Zionism in the late 19th century was followed by the mass Jewish migration to Ottoman Palestine. After World War I, Palestine was put under British Mandatory rule, and tensions between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population constantly grew. The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence were rejected. During the 1948 war almost whole of the Arab population fled or expelled from the area under Jewish control. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza strip and Golan heights in the longest military occupation in modern history, and established settlements there, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have thus far stalled.

Qplb191 (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely better, but regardless, it's time to let some other editors give their tuppence. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, does anyone have ideas/comments to improve the lead? Do you support the lead in this version? Qplb191 (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No, there are problems with false balance here. "were rejected", by whom? This language is weak. As we seen above, most sources outlining the history of Israel mention that those were rejected by Arab leaders/Arab League/Arab states, etc. It is missing. Additionally, the 1948 war resulted in two significant demographic changes: the mass aliyah and the Palestinian exodus, why did we remove the first one? Tombah (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor amendments to Qplb191's version:

The emergence of Zionism in the late 19th century was followed by the mass Jewish migration to Ottoman Palestine. After World War I, Palestine was put under British Mandatory rule, and tension grew between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population. Following the UN Partition Plan and Britain's decision to withdraw, these tensions grew into a civil and then regional war in 1948. The war resulted in the independence of Israel with borders covering most of the former mandate territory, and almost the whole of the Arab population were expelled or fled and refused return. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza strip and Golan heights in the longest military occupation in modern history, and established settlements there, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have thus far stalled.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE for the too detailed Palestinian experience of 1948. What about the Aliyah? the Jewish exodus from the Arab world?These are other significant events that are occurring at the same time for comparable causes. And again, this is not the article on the 1948 war, we don't need to get into too much detail in this lede.

The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence were rejected by Arab leaders, leading to the 1948 war. Around that time, Israel absorbed waves of Jewish immigration, while half of Palestine's pre-war Arab population were expelled or fled.

I thought we were reaching consensus for the above proposal. What are the arguments opposing it? Tombah (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You've already heard the arguments against both the rejected part and the statistical softening of the Nakba part. You can choose to ignore them and keep banging the same drum if you like, but don't pretend you haven't heard them. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

On the immigration, around what time exactly? The text above already mentions the immigration before 1948, so I presume you mean the later immigration post-1948 through to the early 1970s, so "over the next three decades"? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Just reflecting on the "tensions grew" point, we imply that the mandate catalyzed these tensions. Yet as early as 1891, thirty years before the mandate, Ahad Ha'am was able to write: The Arabs, especially the urban elite, see and understand what we are doing and what we wish to do on the land, but they keep quiet and pretend not to notice anything. For now, they do not consider our actions as presenting a future danger to them... But, if the time comes that our people's life in Eretz Yisrael will develop to a point where we are taking their place, either slightly or significantly, the natives are not going to just step aside so easily... [Describing the early Zionist settlers:] They deal with the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamefully for no sufficient reason, and even boast about their actions... But when these people feel that the law is on their rival's side and, even more so, if they are right to think their rival's actions are unjust and oppressive, then, even if they are silent and endlessly reserved, they keep their anger in their hearts. And these people will be revengeful like no other.

The tensions point would be better included with the prior sentence about Zionist immigration.Onceinawhile (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I had the same thought while writing this. Yes, I suppose you are right; if we're sticking with "tensions," we should move it to the first sentence. Another choice is to switch "tensions" to "clashes," which more closely describes the Mandatory period. I'd go with the first one. Tombah (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm kind of a 'hard no' on this draft. This is not how the sources present this history. "Tensions grew into a civil and then regional war"? I don't usually say these things, but that's whitewashing the history. It's also extremely vague. A civil and regional war between whom? This article about Israel; Israel never had a civil war. "The war resulted in the independence of Israel" is factually incorrect. Independence was declared on the day before the neighboring Arab states invaded in 1948. And it's not like the 1948 war ended with recognition by Arab states of Israel's independence. "almost the whole of the Arab population were expelled or fled and refused return" isn't how most sources describe it. In fact, in this discussion, I've only seen one source that says that, and it was a journal article from the 1980s. Not enough to establish this description as the mainstream view that we would say in Wikivoice. Levivich (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

With appropriate wikilinks:

Independence was declared at midnight on the territory assigned to the Jewish state by the UN partition and de facto recognition of the new state given by the US contemporaneously. Five Arab states invaded the next day and specify them.

See 1948 Palestinian exodus for a slew of refs describing that as fled and expelled including the UN mediator in September 1948, take your pick, the refused return bit is unclear. Selfstudier (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The emergence of Zionism in the late 19th century was followed by the mass Jewish migration to Ottoman Palestine. After World War I, Palestine was put under British Mandatory rule, and tension grew between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population. Following the UN Partition Plan and Britain's decision to withdraw, these tensions grew into a civil and then regional war in 1948. The war resulted in the independence of Israel with borders covering most of the former mandate territory, and almost the whole of the Arab population were expelled or fled and refused return. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza strip and Golan heights in the longest military occupation in modern history, and established settlements there, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have thus far stalled.

I think we can really argue forever. But in the end this is the best version, which includes all the changes/fixes you suggested. Do you agree that the proposed lead is a significant improvement over the existing one and can be added?Qplb191 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm still a no, for the same reasons I said above. Levivich (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Me too. Try again. these tensions grew into a civil and then regional war in 1948 is atrocious and The war resulted in the independence of Israel with borders covering most of the former mandate territory is worse. You can just ignore what is being said if you like, then we will definitely be arguing forever. Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you. What do you think should be written instead? Qplb191 (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

“After the UN declaration that was rejected the 1947-1948 war begin.”

“During the war Israel occupied the green line territory ,the Palestinian territories in the partition plan.” Qplb191 (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The fundamental issue we are stuck on here is the Israeli government narrative incorrectly asserts that the war between Jews and Arabs in 1948 resulted from Arab rejectionism.

Actually what happened is that a successful insurgency between Jews and the British turned into a conflict between Jews and Arabs after the British gave up. Then when the British disappeared altogether at the point that the Jewish forces were close to taking over the entire of Palestine, the neighboring states (all still financially controlled by either Britain or France) stepped in to fill the vacuum and attempt to restore balance to an unequal fight.

Any sentence that suggests that the fighting resulted from rejection of the advisory-only vote at the United Nations is creating a false picture. The issue was the British departure.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• What happened in 1947:
  1. Oxford 2014: "In 1947, the United Nations (UN) agreed to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, but Arabs rejected the plan and fighting broke out."
  2. Hill 2017: "On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted a plan to partition Palestine into two economically united but politically sovereign states, one Jewish and the other Arab, with Jerusalem as an international city. The Arabs of Palestine, aided by brethren across the frontiers, at once rose up in arms to thwart partition."
  3. Ellicott 2020: "In the years following World War I, Palestine became a British Mandate and Jewish immigration steadily increased, as did violence between Palestine's Jewish and Arab communities. Mounting British efforts to restrict this immigration were countered by international support for Jewish national aspirations following the near-extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis during World War II. This support led to the 1947 UN partition plan, which would have divided Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under UN administration." Also: "Arabs in the Mandatory and neighboring Arab states rejected a 1947 UN partition plan that would have divided the Mandatory into separate Jewish and Arab states, and the area has seen periods of invasions and armed conflict since 1948."
  4. Dilworth 2022: "The State of Israel's independence was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 with the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine. It followed a resolution agreed by the United Nation's General Assembly on 29 November 1947 recommending the partition of Mandatory Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab States."
• What happened in 1948:
  1. Oxford 2014: "On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled. In the first Arab-Israeli War, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria invaded, but the Haganah successfully defended the state."
  2. Riches 2016: "The state of Israel was established in what was formerly Palestine in 1948 as a Jewish homeland and has since attracted immigrants from almost every country."
  3. Hill 2017: "The Jews of Palestine accepted the plan; on 14 May 1948, the last day of the mandate, they proclaimed the formation of the State of Israel. The next day, the Arab League states—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria—launched a concerted armed attack."
  4. Ellicott 2020: "On May 14, 1948, soon after the British quit Palestine, the State of Israel was proclaimed and was immediately invaded by armies from neighboring Arab states, which rejected the UN partition plan. This conflict, Israel's War of Independence, was concluded by armistice agreements between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria in 1949 and resulted in a 50% increase in Israeli territory."
  5. Dilworth 2022: "The State of Israel's independence was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 with the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine."

Of course these are not the only sources like this, but these are Oxford, Gale, and Brill specialist encyclopedia entries (from encyclopedias of countries) about Israel published in the past 10 years. This is top shelf sourcing for this article. We can't just ignore it and write something different. I really think we need to start looking at top academic works about Israel from the past 10 years, and summarizing what they write, and not something different, even if we think what they write is wrong. Levivich (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

From The Statesman's Yearbook 2023's (Palgrave Macmillan) entry on Israel, which is available on WP:TWL (TWL Link): "In 1947 the United Nations intervened, recommending partition of Palestine and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency (not representative of all Jewish groups) but rejected by the Palestinian Arab leadership; inter-communal war followed. On 14 May 1948 the British Government terminated its mandate and the Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel. No independent Arab state was established in Palestine. Instead the neighbouring Arab states invaded Israel on 15 May 1948. The Jewish state defended itself successfully, and the ceasefire in Jan. 1949 left Israel with one-third more land than had been originally assigned by the UN." Levivich (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

+1, better. I would still specify which states attacked per several of the texts above. I guess the US recognition is to be found only in more legally oriented sourcing but since it is integral to the legitimacy question, it ought to go in somewhere methinks. Selfstudier (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree specifying the states is better than saying "Arab" because not all Arab states attacked. I don't agree about US recognition in the lead; I think it's Americentric, and rather insulting to any country to suggest that US recognition is a major part of that country's history (and I'm American). I also don't think the sources suggest US recognition is such an important part. Important enough for the body IMO but not the lead.

BTW, here is what Statesman's Yearbook 2023 says about Nakba (doesn't use that word though): "After Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948, Arab League troops invaded the former British Mandate for Palestine. The first Arab–Israeli War (known in Israel as the War of Independence) ended with an armistice in July 1949. Under its terms 77% of Palestine came under Israeli control (56% had been allocated by the UN Partition Plan of 1947). Around 700,000 Palestinians were displaced to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip or to neighbouring countries. Up to 150,000 Palestinians remained in Israel."

What I like about it is that it explains where they were "displaced" (I don't like that term btw) from, and where they were displaced to. IMO a better version would clarify that the Israel that was declared independent in 1948 didn't include WB/Gaza, and that Palestinians were fled/expelled/displaced/etc. from the declared borders of Israel, to WB/Gaza. This then puts into context why what happened in 1967 is "occupation". Levivich (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The emergence of Zionism in the late 19th century was followed by the mass Jewish migration to Ottoman Palestine. After World War I, Palestine was put under British Mandatory rule, and tension grew between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population. The day after the UN declaration the partition plan,on the 20th November the 1947-1948 war began.

The war resulted in the independence of Israel with the green line territory. Almost the whole of the Arab population were expelled or fled and refused return. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza strip and Golan heights in the longest military occupation in modern history, and established settlements there, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have thus far stalled.

I think it’s the most neutral understandable version so far , what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The Arab states invaded bit is propaganda, they invaded Palestine, not Israel. nableezy - 01:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Adding the fact that the longest occupation in modern history. 2. The refusal of the Arab leaders was removed. 3. Briefly adding about the Nakba what is not written in the existing lead. 4. All the corrections you suggested have been attached. I think you agree that the lead of such a controversial country cannot be perfect, but the proposed version is much better than the existing version that blames the Palestinians for the outbreak of the war and everything... It is possible to agree that the proposed lead (even though it is not perfect) is a substantial improvement with perspective as well of the Palestinians. Qplb191 (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"Almost the whole of the Arab population were expelled or fled and refused return." - This is false.

Nearly 1,400,000 Arabs lived in Palestine when the war broke out. The heavily sourced opening sentence in 1948 Palestinian exodus states that "more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of prewar Palestine's Arab population – were expelled or fled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you make another version? Qplb191 (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Israel not Palestine. The 1.4m is not relevant. The area that became Israel had 850,000 Palestinian Arabs. 700,000 / 850,000 = 82%. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ding ding ding. Its a game with numbers. The Arab population of the territory that became Israel was nearly entirely expelled or fled and denied their right to return to their homes. On the order of 9:1. nableezy - 15:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

We all agree that the current version of the lead is too long, not neutral and not clear enough. We can continue to argue, but can you offer a compromise that will bring to an objective, short lead that reflects both sides? Qplb191 (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Please, stop spamming the page with these repetitive messages. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The emergence of Zionism in the late 19th century was followed by the mass Jewish migration to Ottoman Palestine. During the British Mandatory rule, tensions grew between the Jewish and the Arab residents of Palestine. The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan was rejected by Arab leaders opposing an independent Jewish state. During the 1948 Palestine war, majority of the Arab population were expelled or fled from territories within the 1949 Armistice border. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied neighboring territories in the longest military occupation in modern history, and established settlements there, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have thus far stalled.

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That version doesn't say when Israel declared independence, which seems like such a key point I can't imagine we'd leave that date out of the lead of any country article. I'm also not sure about Arab leaders rejecting the plan because they opposed an independent Jewish state, as opposed to for other reasons (including but not limited to opposing the creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine [as opposed to elsewhere], or opposing the plan's treatment of Arabs), or (most likely) a combination of complicated reasons. It strikes me as weird to say during 1948, people fled from the territories within the 1949 borders. I mean, when they were fleeing, it's not like they were thinking "hey, we need to get out of the borders they're going to establish next year!" It doesn't say exactly who fled, where they fled from, and where they fled to (and/or expelled). Levivich (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Another thing: I fundamentally don't like having the paragraph start with Zionism and end with I-P stalling, with independence buried in the middle there. The single most important date in the history of pretty much any country is its date of founding or independence (if it has one, which I think most do). Pretty much every country lead should have a paragraph that starts with "[Country] declared independence on [date]". The paragraph that follows that sentence should be a summary of the history of the country. The paragraph that precedes it would be any relevant pre-history, e.g. events leading up to independence. This is how the lead is currently organized, and I like this organization. Levivich (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

Everyone is having a go, so I will as well:

(This bit with whatever history is eventually agreed): Late 19th century Zionism led to increased Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine. After World War I, the British Mandate for Palestine contained an ultimately unworkable dual obligation to establish both a home for the Jewish people and an independent Palestine. The British turned to the UN and in 1947 the United Nations recommended a partition of Palestine and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan was mostly accepted by Jews but rejected by Palestinians leading to inter-communal war.

(This bit with the hr criticism to be included): On 14 May 1948 Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel on the territory assigned in the partition plan for a Jewish state contemporaneously with the end of the British mandate. An independent Arab state was not established, instead the neighboring Arab states attacked the newly formed state on 15 May 1948. A January 1949 ceasefire left Israel with one-third more land than originally contemplated by the partition plan. During the war a majority of Palestinians were expelled or fled. The 1967 Six-Day War, led to Israeli occupation of and creation of settlements in the Palestinian territories, actions rejected as illegal by the international community.While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have met with no success. Selfstudier (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think best one I've seen yet. "Ultimately unworkable" strikes me as editorializing, and I think "the next day" reads better than giving the 15 May 1948 date. Levivich (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It is, "The "dual obligation" to the two communities quickly proved to be untenable; the British subsequently concluded that it was impossible for them to pacify the two communities in Palestine by using different messages for different audiences." See Balfour Declaration. Selfstudier (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A few things to say about that:

1. "unworkable" doesn't mean the same thing as "untenable"
2. The British concluded it was impossible to pacify two communities ... using different messages, which isn't the same thing as the dual obligation itself being unworkable (even if it was untenable, for the British)
3. All of that is "just" the opinion of James Renton in The Zionist Masquerade. That book has been positively reviewed [22] [23] [24] [25], but all reviewers agree that what his book does is put forth a novel interpretation, that Balfour was purely propaganda. I'm not sure that this is the mainstream view (although it is my view). But what Renton argues is quite the different from "ultimately unworkable", it's that Balfour was a lie: the dual obligations were obligations Britain never intended to keep. Which leads me to last point:
4. "ultimately unworkable" is euphemistic. Like, "an ultimately unworkable dual obligation to his wife and mistress".

But if we're citing Renton, we gotta say what Renton says: the Balfour Declaration was pure propaganda. Levivich (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Not just Renton "The Palestine Royal Commission – in making the first official proposal for partition of the region – referred to the requirements as "contradictory obligations",[349][350] and that the "disease is so deep-rooted that, in our firm conviction, the only hope of a cure lies in a surgical operation" Selfstudier (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC) There are other sources saying similar (about the Mandate, which contains the BD).Selfstudier (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"Contradictory dual obligations" is much better than "ultimately unworkable" IMO. Levivich (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

My preferred wording would be something more like: "In order to get their support in WWI, Britain made contradictory promises of an independent homeland in the Holy Land to both the Jews and the Arabs." Levivich (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, np. However it is phrased, it's the reason for the "tensions". Selfstudier (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I assume you would want HR criticism line to be at the end of the paragraph? Levivich (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably, still need to agree the sentence at some point.Selfstudier (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories are located in the Holy Land, a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions. In antiquity, it was home to several independent Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. In later history, Jews were expelled or fled the area, resulting in a significant diaspora. Several empires came to control the region over the course of history, including the Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, and—after a brief Crusader period—the Ayubbid, Mamluk, and Ottoman empires. Late 19th century Zionism led to increased Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine. Britain seized the land in World War I and promised both Jews and Arabs an independent homeland there in exchange for their support. Unable to deliver on this contradictory dual obligation, Britain turned to the United Nations after World War II, which in 1947 recommended a partition of Palestine and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan, which would have given a majority of the land to the minority Jewish population, was mostly accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Palestinian leaders, leading to inter-communal war.

On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution, and Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel on the territory assigned in the UN partition plan. An independent Arab state was not established. The following day, neighboring Arab states attacked the newly formed state. A January 1949 ceasefire left Israel with one-third more land than originally contemplated by the partition plan. During the war, a majority of Palestinians were expelled or fled from the land claimed by Israel to the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring countries. The 1967 Six-Day War led to Israeli occupation of and creation of settlements in the Palestinian territories, actions rejected as illegal by the international community. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have met with no success. [HR sentence goes here if consensus.]

Here's my go at it, without links, building on Self's and prior versions. Levivich (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The text refers to Israel as it is located in the Holy Land, but in the following paragraphs say Palestine instead of Holy Land. Isn't it better to call the region by the name Palestine from the beginning of the text? Perhaps next to the name Land of Israel.

There were not "several" independent Jewish kingdoms in the region, only four or three. The term "Palestinians" before 1948 also referred to Jews living in Palestine, could we replace "Palestinian leaders" with "Palestinian Arab leaders" and "majority of Palestinians" with "majority of Palestinian Arabs"? What do you think? I think it's important to say that the Palestinian territories of West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied by Egypt and Jordan after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Mawer10 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Mawer10. To your four points: (1) I copied the first sentence straight from the existing lead, but I'm also fine with the alternate that was proposed above: Israel is located in the region also known historically as Canaan, Judea, Palestine, or the Holy Land, which is significant to the Abrahamic religions. Is that an improvement? (2) How about multiple instead of "several"? (3) I'd be fine with Palestinian Arab leaders and majority of Palestinian Arabs. (4) How about ...to the West Bank (then occupied by Jordan), Gaza (then occupied by Egypt), and neighboring countries.? Is it historically accurate to say "occupied by Jordan/Egypt" or were these "part of Jordan/Egypt" at the time? Levivich (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to use "rule" rather than occupation, since in theory both territories were being held in trust for a Palestinian state in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Levivich (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Only Egypt attempted to create a Palestinian state, while Jordan annexed the West Bank and claimed it as its territory until 1988. In fact, there was no really serious attempt by either country to create a fully independent Palestinian state. I don't understand why not use the de jure term "occupied". Mawer10 (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank redirects to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank despite recent attempts to change it to occupation.

The Act of Union recognised the title of sovereignty that had been vested in the people of Palestine by Article 22 of the League Covenant, when the government required their consent to implement the union with Jordan. The Act of union declared "Its reaffirmation to preserve full Arab rights in Palestine, to defend those rights by all lawful means in exercise of its natural rights but without prejudicing final settlement of Palestine’s just case within the sphere of national aspirations, inter-Arab cooperation, and international justice." and

"On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a "trustee" pending a future settlement".

And that's what happened, 1988, Jordan gave its rights to the Palestinians.

This makes it clear that it is not an occupation (as in "belligerent"). the Egypt structure was different but with the same intent. Idk from where the idea that it was the responsibility of Egypt or Jordan to create a Palestinian state comes from. How would such a thing even work? Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Jordan did not want to anger the other members of the Arab League and therefore agreed that it was only holding the territory 'temporarily' pending the creation of a Palestinian state, but in reality Jordan made moves to make the West Bank an inseparable part of its territory. So these diplomatic statements do not match the actions on the ground. Using the term "held/rule or any other" instead of "occupied" seems like a play on words to assuage the 'sins' of Egypt and especially of Jordan. Also, Egypt's occupation of Gaza is described as an occupation in its respective article, Occupation of the Gaza Strip by the United Arab Republic. The statement "Jordan only ruled the West Bank temporarily because..." for me is not very different from "Israel holds the Golan Heights temporarily because of... Hum, Syrian Civil War". Mawer10 (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I can source what I said, which is quite clear. It can be called an annex if desired, that's fine, because it was, a kind of "friendly" annex that was not condemned by the UN. In the case of Egypt, there is "The Gaza Strip is an indivisible part of the land of Palestine and its people are part of the Arab Nation. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip shall form a National Union composed of all Palestinians wherever they may be - its aim being the joint work to recover the usurped lands of Palestine, and the participation in fulfilling the call of Arab Nationalism. The National Union shall be organized by a decree from the Governor-General." By all means call that an occupation, since it was military rule, Egypt claimed it did not annex because of the desire to keep the territory for Palestinians, while Jordan did annex and claimed the same. I don't really see either case as crucial for the lead as the article is supposed to be about Israel. If it is to be there then wikilinking the relevant articles is enough.Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Levivich: (1) Canaan is a very old name for the region before the existence of the Jews, I think it's better this way: "Israel is located in the Holy Land, historically known as Palestine or Eretz Israel." (2) Maybe it's because English is not my first language, I really don't see any difference between "multiple" and "several". "It was home to independent Israelite and Jewish kingdoms" is good.(3) Ok. (4) It's better, but we can improve it more. Yes, it's correct to say "occupied by Jordan/Egypt" just like Western Sahara. Mawer10 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Jordan and Egypt, as well as being different cases per what I wrote above are also completely distinct from the situation in the Western Sahara. I have no idea what "like Western Sahara" means. Do provide a source saying otherwise. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Israel is located in the Holy Land, historically known as Palestine or Eretz Israel, a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions. In antiquity, it was home to independent Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. In later history, Jews were expelled or fled the area, resulting in a significant diaspora. Several empires came to control the region over the course of history, including the Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, and—after a brief Crusader period—the Ayubbid, Mamluk, and Ottoman empires. Late 19th century Zionism led to increased Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine. Britain seized the land in World War I and promised both Jews and Arabs an independent homeland there in exchange for their support. Unable to deliver on this contradictory dual obligation, Britain turned to the United Nations after World War II, which in 1947 recommended a partition of Palestine and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan, which would have given a majority of the land to the minority Jewish population, was mostly accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders, leading to inter-communal war.

On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution, and Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel on the territory assigned in the UN partition plan while an independent Arab state was not established. The following day, neighboring Arab states attacked the newly formed state. A January 1949 ceasefire left Israel with one-third more land than originally contemplated by the partition plan, while the West Bank and Gaza, [seen as the territory of future Palestinian Arab state], were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. During the war, a majority of Palestinians were expelled or fled from the land claimed by Israel to neighboring countries, while Israel absorbed waves of Jewish immigration from the Arab world and elsewhere. Since the 1967 Six-Day War has occupied the Syrian Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip[—though whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement in 2005 is disputed]. Israel has established settlements within the occupied territories, and effectively annexed the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have met with no success.]

Is it good? Mawer10 (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s way to long. Qplb191 (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We can delete "a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions". We can change this "...Islamic, and—after a brief Crusader period—the Ayubbid, Mamluk" to "...Islamic, Crusader, the Ayubbid, Mamluk". Aren't Ayubbid and Mamluk Islamic?. This "which would have given a majority of the land to the minority Jewish population" we can change to some like "seen as unfair by Arabs Palestinians". And "Jewish immigration from the Arab world and elsewhere" to "Jewish immigration from around the world." Is "an international administration for Jerusalem" really necessary? This part "The following day, neighboring Arab states attacked the newly formed state. A January 1949 ceasefire left Israel with one-third more land than originally contemplated by the partition plan" can be improved/summarized too. Mawer10 (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the lead should be summarized, there are many sentences (as you mentioned) that are not necessary. Qplb191 (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The modern israeli history section should have some more information

The ongoing anti judicial reform protests and the rise of the israeli far right should be worth mentioning. The anti judicial reforms are one of the largests protests movement in israel's history. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead: 1947-1949

Current lead (1947-1949)

Following World War II and the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and placing Jerusalem under international control. After a civil war between Palestinian Arab forces and the Yishuv, Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 at the termination of the British Mandate. A day later, the surrounding Arab countries intervened, leading to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements that saw Israel in control of most of the former mandate territory, while the West Bank and Gaza were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively. Around that time, a sizable number of Palestinians fled or were expelled, while Israel absorbed waves of Jewish immigration from the Arab world and elsewhere.

Sources (1947-1949)

These six sources are the "Israel" entries in encyclopedias of countries by academic publishers in the past 10 years, all available on WP:TWL. The quoted portions are about events from 1947 to 1949:

1. Oxford 2014:

   In 1947, the United Nations (UN) agreed to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, but Arabs rejected the plan and fighting broke out. On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled. In the first Arab-Israeli War, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria invaded, but the Haganah successfully defended the state. An Israeli government was formed with Chaim Weizmann as president, and David Ben-Gurion as prime minister. In 1949, Israel joined the United Nations and the capital moved from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem.
   — "Israel". The World Encyclopedia. Oxford University Press. 2001. doi:10.1093/acref/9780199546091.001.0001. ISBN 9780199546091. (TWL link)

2. Riches 2016:

   The state of Israel was established in what was formerly Palestine in 1948 as a Jewish homeland and has since attracted immigrants from almost every country. Now the population is three-quarters Jewish, of whom around three-quarters are native-born and the remainder immigrants.
   — Riches, Christopher; Stalker, Peter (2016). "Israel". A Guide to Countries of the World (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780191803000.001.0001. ISBN 9780191803000. (TWL link)

3. Hill 2017:

   On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted a plan to partition Palestine into two economically united but politically sovereign states, one Jewish and the other Arab, with Jerusalem as an international city. The Arabs of Palestine, aided by brethren across the frontiers, at once rose up in arms to thwart partition. The Jews of Palestine accepted the plan; on 14 May 1948, the last day of the mandate, they proclaimed the formation of the State of Israel. The next day, the Arab League states—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria—launched a concerted armed attack. There followed a mass flight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs abroad, partly at the urging of foreign Arab leaders and partly owing to actions of Israeli forces. The war left Israel in possession of a much larger territory than that awarded the Jews under the UN partition plan. The planned Arab state failed to materialize, as Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Meanwhile, the Palestinian refugees were resettled in camps on both banks of the Jordan River, in the Gaza Strip (then under Egyptian administration), in southern Lebanon, and in Syria. Armistice agreements concluded in July 1949, which set a temporary “green line” border for Israel, failed to provide the hoped-for transition to peace.
   — Hill, Melissa Sue, ed. (2017). "Israel". Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations. Vol. 4: Asia & Oceania (14th ed.). Gale. pp. 317–342. ISBN 9781410338983. (TWL link)

4. Ellicott 2020:

   This support led to the 1947 UN partition plan, which would have divided Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under UN administration. On May 14, 1948, soon after the British quit Palestine, the State of Israel was proclaimed and was immediately invaded by armies from neighboring Arab states, which rejected the UN partition plan. This conflict, Israel's War of Independence, was concluded by armistice agreements between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria in 1949 and resulted in a 50% increase in Israeli territory.
   — Ellicott, Karen, ed. (2020). "Israel". Countries of the World and Their Leaders Yearbook 2021. Vol. 1. Gale. pp. 1200–1222. ISBN 9780028671406. (TWL link)

5. Dilworth 2022:

   The State of Israel's independence was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 with the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine. It followed a resolution agreed by the United Nation's General Assembly on 29 November 1947 recommending the partition of Mandatory Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab States.
   — Dilworth, Jennifer, ed. (2022). "Israel". International Year Book and Statesmen's Who's Who 2023 (70th ed.). Brill Publishers. ISBN 9780995497269. ISSN 0074-9621. (TWL link)

6. The Statesman's Yearbook 2023:

   In 1947 the United Nations intervened, recommending partition of Palestine and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency (not representative of all Jewish groups) but rejected by the Palestinian Arab leadership; inter-communal war followed. On 14 May 1948 the British Government terminated its mandate and the Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel. No independent Arab state was established in Palestine. Instead the neighbouring Arab states invaded Israel on 15 May 1948. The Jewish state defended itself successfully, and the ceasefire in Jan. 1949 left Israel with one-third more land than had been originally assigned by the UN.
   — "Israel". The Statesman’s Yearbook 2023: The Politics, Cultures and Economies of the World. Palgrave Macmillan. 2022. pp. 624–633. doi:10.1057/978-1-349-96056-9_92. ISBN 978-1-349-96056-9. (TWL Link)

Please feel free to add more sources below. Levivich (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (1947-1949)

I think it might be worth looking into just the 1947-49 portion of the lead and seeing if we can agree on language that's better than what's currently in the lead. I hope if there are other sources like the ones I've listed above (recent, academic, about the modern state of Israel) people will add them.

In the meantime, let's try this: Here's a list of what I think are key facts for 1947-1949. I've put in italics those facts that I think are "disputed", meaning other editors might think they're either not key facts, or they don't agree to my word choice/phrasing.

1. 1947 UN Partition Plan
2. Was accepted by the Jewish Agency
3. Was rejected by the Palestinian leadership
4. Led to (or "exacerbated"?) internecine fighting between Palestinians (or "civil war"?)
5. 1948 end of British Mandate
6. 1948 Israeli declaration of independence
7. 1948 Arab-Israeli War
8. Arab League attacked Israel
9. Caused Nakba
10. 1949 Armistice Agreements

So I think, per the six sources I quoted above, that list of 10 things are what we need to say in the lead about events in 1947-1949. Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Just want to note here what Selfstudier proposed above at #Arbitrary break for ease of editing, the portion dealing with 47-49: ... The British turned to the UN and in 1947 the United Nations recommended a partition of Palestine and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan was mostly accepted by Jews but rejected by Palestinians leading to inter-communal war. (paragraph break) On 14 May 1948 Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel on the territory assigned in the partition plan for a Jewish state contemporaneously with the end of the British mandate. An independent Arab state was not established, instead the neighboring Arab states attacked the newly formed state on 15 May 1948. A January 1949 ceasefire left Israel with one-third more land than originally contemplated by the partition plan. During the war a majority of Palestinians were expelled or fled. Levivich (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The key sticking point is the absence of a reason why one key event occurred:

The Yishuv accepted the Partition plan (per Ben Gurion provisorily) which allocated 56% of the land to the Jewish minority. The Palestinians rejected the proposal. It assigned to the Arab majority 44% of the land. Not stating that means the 'rejection' becomes slanted towards the Abba Ebanish viewpoint that the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This is particularly so since immediately afterwards one uses various terms to insinuate that the fabulous six, or five (actually four ) 'invaded' and Israel defended itself (as per a few of the sources, which even mention Saudi Arabia as an attacker!).Nishidani (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I revised my proposal above to "The plan, which would have given a majority of the land to the minority Jewish population, was mostly accepted by Jews but rejected by Palestinians, leading to inter-communal war." Levivich (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani, details like that (which are already in article's body) don't belong in lead, specially when the Arab side made clear that they would reject partition on ANY border. In order words, self-determination for me, but not for thee. And this is the root cause of the conflict: Arab's rejection to accept Israel's right to exist... on any border. Not to mention that most of that 56% of the proposed Jewish state was made of a desert (the Negev), and the UN not only had in mind the "irrelevant Jewish minority" living in Palestine at the time (one third!), but all the Jewish refugees (at least 100,000 Holocaust survivors) that were waiting to immigrate there as well (later joined by Jews from Arab lands), which is why they wanted to give the port of Haifa to the Jewish state to accommodate for the inevitable immigration, despite the city at the time had a significant Arab population. But it's not reasonable to include all these details in lead, isn't it? Also, please stop swearing in your edit summaries. It's not nice. Dovidroth (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a little bit of a conceptual clash there between the notion of the UN making plans based on non-resident populations and it being about self-determination. That's not really how self-determination has ever worked. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

In order words, self-determination for me, but not for thee. And this is the root cause of the conflict: Arab's rejection to accept Israel's right to exist...

David, please don't throw clichés my way. Levivich and I would disagree on fundamentals, and we have frequently crossed swords (Levivich would smile at that, and say all he's doing is trying to avoid my invitation that he oblige me by falling on my aggressively proffered sword:)), but, he has a notable functional realism when negotiating, as is obligatory, a compromise text, and he showed that above in responding to my comment. What you wrote is a standard meme skewing the complexity of facts (for both sides) in favour of an unfactual spin. (a)the Arabs (not 'Arab's, and 'in order words' must be 'in other words', otherwise deaf cranks like myself will hear that as meaning 'in ordure words' ) did not reject Israel's right to exist in November 47 - Israel at the time didn't exist - they rejected a plan that foresaw a state for the Jews in one part of Palestine, and one for themselves in another part. They rejected the two-state solution (as did Ben-Gurion privately, and has Israel consistently over the last five decades). Self-determination for the Arabs consisted in a unified state composed of both Jews and Palestinians, which actually is the only realistic outcome if Israel, ever faithful to the original and never renounced Zionist project's intent) desires to remain a democracy exercising de facto sovreignty over all of historic Palestine). I and Levivich refrained from the obvious temptation to challenge the facts, and we agreed on a way to phrase the given fact with another set of facts (minority/majority) which defuses the POV slant in the earlier formulation. So let's stick to what facts are core, and avoid arguing about 'root causes', which leads nowhere.Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"The Jews accepted partition, it was the Arabs who rejected it!"

"Because the partition would have given most of the land to the minority!"

"But most of that land was desert!"

I've heard this exact argument a million times in my life, I bet y'all have, too.

Philosophically speaking, it's better to say why when you can. I think it's better to say why Palestinians rejected partition than to merely say that Palestinians rejected partition.

However, the "why" is complicated. Maybe my addition, "would have given a majority of the land to the minority Jewish population", is overly-specific or overly-simplistic. It's possible to write something else, like, The plan was mostly accepted by Jews but was viewed as unfair by Palestinians, who rejected it, leading to inter-communal war.

We're all flexible on some aspects and inflexible on others, myself included. FWIW, this is an aspect I'm flexible on :-) Levivich (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That wording seems like a fairly reasonable summation, although it is best to reiterate "by X leaders", rather than saying "by Jews", "by Palestinians", which is vaguely generalizing, i.e.: naturally begs Qs like: who? which ones? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I updated my draft above to specify "Jewish Agency" and "Palestinian leadership", based on language from Statesman's Yearbook 2023, which writes "The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency (not representative of all Jewish groups) but rejected by the Palestinian Arab leadership" (full quote/cite above). Does that work? Levivich (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, Levivich's proposal is misleading and not an improvement. First of all, the "majority" of the land proposed for the Jewish state (56% is hardly a majority anyway) included the Negev desert, second the UN proposal was not made thinking only of the Jewish population already living there but on all the Jewish refugees in displaced persons camps that were waiting to emigrate to the Jewish state, so the "majority/minority" concept is irrelevant. Last but not least, Arab leaders were very clear that they would reject partition and a Jewish state on ANY border, so the amount of land offered to the sides wasn't the main cause of rejection. The best way to handle this is to put a link to the UN partition plan and let the reader reach their own conclusions. Dovidroth (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: Do you mean the whole proposal (in another section above), or just the 47-49 part, or just the part would have given a majority of the land to the minority Jewish population? If it's just the last part, what do you think about was viewed as unfair by Palestinians instead? Another formulation, which I think is what you would prefer (sorry for putting words in your mouth if I'm wrong), would be something like The plan was mostly accepted by the Jewish Agency but was rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders, who opposed any partition, leading to inter-communal war. Levivich (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The last one seems the best: "The plan was mostly accepted by the Jewish Agency but was rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders, who opposed any partition, leading to inter-communal war." Dovidroth (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure if we're going to achieve talk page consensus about the two variations, "would have given a majority of the land to the minority Jewish population" v. "who opposed any partition", that may need to be put in the "RFC pile" of decisions. Levivich (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

During the period of the British Mandate on Palestine, tensions began between the Yishuv and the Palestinians, following the White Paper which was modified several times according to the interests of the British Empire, in 1947 the UN proposed the partition plan which was rejected by the Arab leaders who were the majority in the region but were accepted by the Jewish leaders, On the day the British Mandate left Palestine, the Jewish leaders announced the establishment of the state, which led to an all-out war with Arab countries, during the war most of the Palestinian population was expelled or fled, in 1949 a ceasefire was reached and Israel's borders were significantly expanded in what is known as the Green Line.

Qplb191 (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor clarity edit to last line of lede

"With a population of over nine million people, it has the world's 28th-largest economy by nominal GDP."

This line is a little oddly phrased; it seems to imply the GDP is caused by the population, which is not true. Suggested rephrase;

"It has a population of over nine million people, and is the world's 28th-largest economy by nominal GDP." 158.180.192.10 (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done I agree that the sentence, as written before, could imply that GDP is a function of population. I have rewritten the sentence based on the IP's suggestion, since it is really just a matter of grammar and presentation, not of content. —C.Fred (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is this page Extended-Protected?

Is it because of vandalism, the conflict, or what else? Either way, an anonymous (like me) has to be able to edit this page once. Not for vandalism, but rather improvement. Can you unprotect this page temporary, and shortly after my contribution, extend-protect the page? Thanks. 2601:280:4F81:4490:D9E8:37CF:D62:BC68 (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)