Talk:Israel

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"?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RFC, though originally an A/B binary, clearly expanded to address a broader issue than this specific sentence in the lead. Throughout the discussion there was a common thread in a few of the opposition responses, and many of the supporting responses that the sentence about apartheid was not the best summation of the article itself. Reading through the arguments I see that there is a clear consensus to include broader wording about the human rights situation in the lead.

Numerically, those supporting some sort of inclusion have a strong majority, and the weaker arguments were found in the opposition. One of the arguments that I assigned less weight to were responses claiming the sourcing was poor as many high quality sources were provided in the discussion and Amnesty International enjoys consensus as a generally reliable, if biased source. I also found the argument that "hard facts, not accusations" belong in the lead to be weak, and it was strongly rebutted by referring to MOS:LEAD, " the article's intro should include mention of significant criticism or controversies."

Looking at the support, and taking into account some of the opposition that was specifically due to the apartheid wording, it becomes clear that broader wording regarding human rights issues around Israel and Palestine in the lead has a strong consensus, much stronger than using the proposed prose dealing with accusations of the crime of apartheid. There was also some support for Nishidani's proposed langauge, though support for coverage of the wider situation still has significantly more support. Arguments for coverage of the human rights issues around Israel and Palestine also have the strongest argument in any RFC dealing with a lead, it's covered at length in the article, and as was brought up in the discussion it is a significant criticism found in reliable sources. At this point there is no consensus for any specific wording, so that will need to be hashed out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

---

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 [1], [2] and Jewish Chronicle [3]. 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)
• 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) 09:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Re-adding previously stricken response as I am now XC and my opinion has not changed. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:00, 30 March 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)
• Support. Per MOS:LEAD, the article's intro should include "mention of significant criticism or controversies", and this is one such piece of criticism. There are some reasonable arguments in opposition to this proposal (e.g. we should summarize the human rights criticism in some other way), but I hope the closer will see the "poor sources" argument as incompatible with any reasonable interpretation of policy/guideline. The allegations, espoused by (among others) two of the most influential human rights organizations, have been covered by almost every kind of reputable source you could think of:
  • News in Israel: The Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Haaretz
  • International news: Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian
  • Peer-reviewed scholarship and books from academic publishers (Wikipedia Library links): paper in Health and Human Rights Journal, paper in World Affairs, The One State Reality, p. 299–300 (Cornell University Press)
  And that's just sources that cover the recent HRW report. Many other NGOs, academics, and at least one UN Special Rapporteur are separately making the same point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Stories like the Associated Press's "Amnesty joins rights groups in accusing Israel of apartheid" are news precisely because calling Israel an apartheid state is not a standard consensus position. 05:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Jahaza (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: I've requested closure from an uninvolved editor at WP:ANRFC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd even support stronger language on critique of Israel's human and civil rights record in the lead paragraphs than the article contains, but using the word apartheid is undue emphasis in the lead paragraphs on the conclusions of the harshest critics of Israeli policy.--Jahaza (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Yes, we absolutely need to mention human rights issues in Palestine in the lead. We should not do so in a provocative, non-NPOV, ideologically charged manner. There are plenty of more descriptive and less ideological ways of describing Israeli human rights abuses in the lead. Out of all the ways we could describe Israeli actions, we should not choose the one that arguably fits with the International Holocaust Alliance's definition of anti-semitism. An article linked above claimed 60% of scholars viewed Israeli conduct as akin to apartheid. That means 40% didn't. Inserting this word is a conscious choice to include a more controversial, less neutral statement in place of more widely agreed-upon, neutral, descriptions of Israeli human rights abuses. I see no reason to include a controversial, non-neutral descriptor when I'm sure we can come up with perfectly good, less controversial alternatives. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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 [4]. 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)

Three areas of POV

The three sentences highlighted in this edit are POV.[5] 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:[6]

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:[7]

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 [8], the only 20% of Palestinian were left, a.k.a. the 80% fled option [9], or the "Almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area under Jewish control..." option [10]. 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 [11] [12] [13] [14], 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)

Might as well drop this here. The 2022 US State Department report on human rights is out and confirms that this continues to be a problem for Israel and "significant human rights issues," including "credible" reports of "unlawful or arbitrary killings," "arbitrary or unjust detention, including of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories" and "punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative." Selfstudier (talk) 19:55, 20 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)

Maybe it's an English thing, but "multiple" and "several" do mean the same thing. The reason we should specify that is because just saying "home to Israelite and Jewish kingdoms" implies there was one Israelite kingdom, and one Jewish kingdom. In fact, there were several, or multiple, of each type. See List of Jewish states and dynasties. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 25 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)

We previously established a consensus for the conflict paragraph, and it included the numbers being removed with specious reasons. The idea that the ethnic cleansing of native population should be papered over with such a euphemism like a sizable number of Palestinians is absurd. Beyond that, we already established a consensus for that, and changes to it require a new one, not a set of users attempting to edit-war their whitewashed version in to the article. That material was stable in this article since July 2022, and we had wide agreement on including both the Palestinian expulsion and flight and the incoming Jewish immigrants resulting from the flight from Arab states. See versions from July 2022 until this attempt at whitewashing this history began in February of this year. That edit has never had consensus, and editors have been edit-warring to impose it since. nableezy - 19:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Pg 6475 please see the above and please self-revert. nableezy - 05:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss here with Dovidroth and reach a consensus so that no more reverts happen on the Article page. Thanks Pg 6475 ^TM 06:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Pg 6475 Thats all well and good, but the version you reverted to is the one being edit-warred in to the article. Please return the last consensus version, based on the discussion linked to above, and stable in this article for some 6+ months. nableezy - 06:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy agreed but kindly reach a consensus with Dovidroth so that further reverts do not happen. Pg 6475 ^TM 06:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That makes no sense Pg 6475, kindly restore the prior consensus version instead of edit-warring it in to the article. nableezy - 06:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy: I understand there is consensus to name both Palestinian Arab refugees and Jewish immigrants from Arab countries in lead, but is it really necessary to give specific cherry-picked details regarding numbers, despite the fact that that's not lead-material? It's not enough to have links to more specialized articles? After all, there were other and bigger waves of Jewish immigration that aren't mentioned. Moreover, saying that 260,000 Jews immigrated from the Arab world is misleading, since the actual number is closer to 650,000 in a longer process that lasted until the 1970s. I tried a compromise before by writing that 'most' Palestinians fled or were expelled from Jewish controlled areas during the war. Dovidroth (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Cherry-picked? Are you kidding me? That number appears in countless sources, among them Benny Morris's Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. It isnt cherry-picked, that is a widely cited and agreed upon number. And it represents considerably more than the verging on inflammatory a sizable number of Palestinians. As far as the number of Jews coming from Arab countries, that paragraph is about 1948, not about immigration over decades from not just the surrounding Arab states but from all Muslim majority countries. You would realize that this number was cited in sources as the number that occurred from the Arab states in that time period if you read the prior discussion that established the consensus that you keep edit-warring to ignore. As far as your supposed compromise, most is considerably less accurate than nearly 90% of the Palestinian Arab population in the territory Israel would come to control being expelled or fleeing and disallowed the right to return to their homes. You are simply eliding past what could easily be cited as ethnic cleansing as a significant number fled or were expelled. nableezy - 06:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you want to have a good faith discussion the basis would be not edit-warring the change in to the article. The numbers have been stable for over 6 months and were only recently edit-warred out. Kindly self-revert. I did not attempt to edit-war in to the article the change that included material on Israel's human rights record (a change I could have swore you agreed to actually), when it was challenged I left it for discussion. That is how things are supposed to go here. We had a discussion that settled including those numbers and it had been stable. Somebody changed it, it was challenged, it should remain until there is consensus to change it. nableezy - 07:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, 700,000 out of 850,000 is closer to 80%, not 90, which is 'most' (aka the majority). Second, the number 150,000 (for those remaining) was your unilateral addition, not part of the consensus. Third, there is no reason to have those specific numbers in lead of Israel when they can clearly be covered elsewhere, that's what links are for. Dovidroth (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Youre counting the 46k present absentees. Feel free to restore it absent the 150k remaining if you insist, but either way restore the prior consensus please. The reason to have those numbers in the lead is that both set of numbers is foundational to both Israel's founding and current existence. It both set the stage for the Jewish majority and the enduring conflict. That is why to include both sets of numbers, which is certainly more relevant to the modern state of Israel than the Crusades. nableezy - 07:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the consensus version back in but editor Tombah has reverted it back out as per the whitewashing of this history that began with the same editor in February. Selfstudier (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. We have an established consensus for one version. That is being challenged. Cool. Establish a new consensus for your change. Edit-warring to try to push it in is a violation of our policies on WP:DE and WP:EW. And most of yall aint even discussing this in the talk page. If it continues Id expect more than 1 AE report in the near future. nableezy - 04:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the consensus version covers it best, at the cost of a dozen or so additional words. We could shave a bit more off with

"Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled the territory Israel would come to controleventually controlled, 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."

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess the problem I have with eventually is that eventually includes the entire West Bank. Idk, thinking of a pithier way of saying Israel proper at the end of 1948 for that line. But agreed that this is much better than the bordering on purposely outrageous significant number of Palestinians fled nableezy - 15:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I see the issue. It's also present in "would come to control". How about "... the territory that Israel controlled by 1948"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think would come to control has a more limited range to the present paragraph, whereas eventually is just whenever after. I think we can just say in Israel tbh. nableezy - 18:18, 21 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)

RFC: Israel's status as a liberal democracy

Is it WP: Due for the article to describe Israel as a liberal democracy? The term has been repeatedly added in and removed without a RFC - but discussion over it dates back to the 2000s.

Thanks, KlayCax (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment It's not in the article atm, it says parliamentary democracy. repeatedly added in and removed without a RFC Save looking, are there diffs for the most recent time it was added and removed? Was there any discussion then? Because a discussion back many years is not really an adequate RFCBefore. Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, @Selfstudier:. There's been repeated edits attempting to add/remove the wording in the article and lead dating back years. The phrase "liberal democracy" is used in other articles about Israel and was in the lead until mid-to-late 2022. There's been sporadic attempts to add it back in since then. (The term "liberal democracy" is still used in several articles about Israel: on English and other language versions.) I'm going straight to RFC because it's clear there's going to be no clear consensus among editors otherwise.

I'm personally against inclusion since there isn't a consensus in the academic literature and major democracy indices. KlayCax (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• No - My sense of history is probably reflected in this Haaretz op-ed or this JP op-ed. If Israel could have ever been called a liberal democracy, the past decade or two have seen it move away from that position. Sadly, so many countries seem to be teetering on the edge of that abyss at the moment. From a broader perspective, the term "liberal democracy" is obviously going to be pretty subjective. We should probably only apply it in cases where it's obviously true. NickCT (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No: As noted above, 'liberal democracies' are generally in increasingly short supply these days, but if we look at the opening sentence of our page here on liberal democracy, Israel falls down at the first hurdles: "the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society ... and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people". Israel maintains a multi-tiered system of rights, strike one, and allows a large number of settlements on Palestinian land that are even illegal by its own very enabling system of laws in the occupied territories, strike two. More generally, like many countries, it is, of late, increasingly illiberal and oligarchic. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussing Israel's treatment of areas that are not part of Israel would then mean that almost zero countries in the world are liberal democracies, because the vast majority of them have commit human rights abuses in other parts of the world. Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the State of Palestine is not relevant to whether or not Israel itself is a democracy. The U.S. and other nations commit various human rights abuses across the Middle East over the past two decades even while they maintained free and fair elections, being a liberal democracy and having proper treatment of people outside of your country may be similar in a moral analysis of whether or not a country is a good country, but the term liberal democracy refers specifically to whether or not the people within that country are entitled to free and fair voting in the election of its leaders, which Israel's people, including any Palestinian citizen, have the right to. Bill Williams 01:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide any reputable definitions of "liberal democracy" that include having proper treatment of people in territory outside of the country itself? The entire article on "liberal democracy" says nothing about whether or not a country must treat people properly if they live outside of that country. As I stated previously, numerous liberal democracies across the world have commit human rights abuses against people in foreign countries, even while their own civilians were entitled to certain rights, many liberal democracies propped up regimes across the world that suppressed people's basic liberties. Bill Williams 01:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No, not anymore after recent political changes. Ortizesp (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's sad, but it doesn't seem like a liberal democracy anymore. --Pfarla (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No. Is that term functional anymore? I'm old enough to remember several species of polities of this kind, but most of them are dying on their feet, as the word 'liberal' was gradually redefined to mean 'free market' (economy), exclusive of any foundational concern for the traditional 'liberal' values. In the USA it appears to mean 'socialist'. The world has changed and Israel is no different.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Per the V-Dem Democracy indices and Freedom in the World. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The V-Dem index doesn't specifically categorize countries as liberal democracies or not, it just uses 'liberal democracy' as a loose header for one of its five indices, and Freedom in the World measures 'Electoral democracy'. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. For the reasoning Triggerhippie4 uses above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that must be written from WP:NPOV. In addition, the judicial reform bill has not yet been passed by the Israeli government, so it should not factor into our decision (WP:CRYSTAL). V-Dem is an independent (though of course, imperfect) source and per its article, "the most important provider of quantitative democracy data for scholarly research." It lists Israel as a liberal democracy at this time. When that changes, we can revisit. Longhornsg (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Prefer parliamentary democracy. Not even sure what "liberal democracy" means. Parliamentary democracy is indisputably true. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree...It is simply a generic term for a western style democracy. We could serve our readers better by saying what type of western style democracy it is. Moxy- 12:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• No. The term’s useful life is coming to an end due to the wide divergence of what people think “liberal” means. As per Adoring nanny, parliamentary democracy is better and is supported by the CIA World Factbook: [15]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

* Yes and No. Given that some sources claim that Israel is a liberal democracy and others claim that it is not the neutral thing to do in, my opinion, is to call it's status as a liberal democracy "disputed", "subject of discussion", or something in that general direction. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes and any other reason requires substantial justification. Discussing Israel's human rights abuses against Palestinians living under what they claim is an independent state has absolutely nothing to do with the state of Israel being a liberal democracy, it could be a liberal democracy and nuke entire cities in the Middle East for no reason but to kill civilians, because having free and fair elections is separate from harming innocent civilians. Numerous democracies have commit human rights abuses in other countries even while maintaining free and fair elections within their own countries. Gaza and the West Bank are not part of Israel, but Palestinians living within Israel are given the same rights as other Israelis, and there is zero evidence whatsoever that they are restricted from free and fair voting in elections. [16] As shown by Freedom in the World, a reasonable analysis of each aspect of Israel's democracy, and "the numerical scores and status listed above do not reflect conditions in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, which are examined in separate reports" which is the same thing that applies to countries like India, Pakistan, China, Russia etc. in areas where they claim territory that is not recognized as part of their countries under international law, therefore separate rankings are given. Bill Williams 01:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• No—We go to vote but get nothing in result. Israel's government/cabinet and the prime minister are subordinate to the Attorney General, and the High Court for Justice (which is composed of jud ges that weren't elected by the electorate by a committee in which they have veto power) have unlimited control over the government's decision and parliament's legislature (including Basic Laws) with ability to decide arbitrarily on grounds of "exceeding of reasonableness", and with the left-wing having totalitarian control over all civil institutions despite being the minority. Scr-ew sanc-shenz, this input on this topic is valid. If a rule prevents from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. 46.19.86.212 (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)>500 edits required to participate in RFC for contentious topic.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• No Per Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2022 Democracy Index Israel has slipped 6 places even before the current hoopla with a particularly poor showing in civil liberties like equality, human rights, religious tolerance, racial discrimination and personal freedoms. Still comes in ahead of the US (also a "flawed democracy") so yes a democracy, but the somewhat unclear adjective "liberal" seems inappropriate.Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary RFC - the issue can be handled through the normal process of editing. BogLogs (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Wrong question; the more pertinent question is what type of democracy is it? To quote: "That the protesters are chanting “democracy” reflects both their blindness and the shred of opening that they represent: blindness, because they misrecognize Israel as democracy when it is, in fact, a liberal ethnocracy that has maintained a military dictatorship in the West Bank for more than half a century. But also opening, because beginning to speak about democracy and ask about its meaning is the only way Israeli society will come to reckon with how the absence of real democracy continues to undermine the country’s political stability." Israel hasn’t been a democracy for a long time. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per Triggerhippie4 who gives V-Dem Democracy indices and Freedom in the World. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and trying to guess which way legislation and protests will go now is way too premature. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Also prefer 'parliamentary democracy' per Adoring nanny. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The page already uses "parliamentary democracy" at the top of the government section. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

rankings in the lead

We've dealt with this previously, the lead is not the place for such puffery. Im going back to the version discussed here. Im going back to the version from the conclusion of that discussion in which minor and irrelevant rankings like Visual Capitalist's innovation ranking is not included. Nor are more pertinent ones like Israel's press freedom ranking. nableezy - 18:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not ranking , literally describing modern Israel . if you want you can put that sentence “Israel ranks very bad in press of freedom” . You can not delete it just all paragraph like that…. Qplb191 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No, we had this discussion and we had a stable version without the bloat that was since re-added. The idea we should be including random websites rankings in the lead of an encyclopedia article is absurd. But we already discussed this and we already trimmed down the bloat to what is pertinent and encyclopedic. You have since re-introduced that same bloat without discussion or consensus. nableezy - 19:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You can not delete all paragraph without reaching agreement on the talk page which you didn’t receive . If you want add the sentence about the bad freedom of speech but you can’t delete all paragraph just because you fell like. Qplb191 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

But I do think we should add “ the country has bad freedom of press” Qplb191 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There was already agreement on not stuffing the lead with irrelevant stats, and you cant add it without that same discussion. Please review WP:ONUS, the onus for consensus is for inclusion. nableezy - 20:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph has been like this for months and is widely accepted. The "discussion" you present (which is not related to the specific topic) was from a year ago. Before you delete a paragraph you must get broad agreement! Qplb191 (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That isnt true, from May 2022 until you started re-stuffing irrelevant things in without discussion in Dec of 2022 the lead was stable with respect to rankings. Youve since rebloated it without discussion, and through edit-warring. We had this discussion already, here. It concluded with general agreement on what not to include. Until that agreement changes here on the talk page please do not re-add useless and unimportant rankings by non-authoritative sources. nableezy - 20:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You can not delete all paragraph that was there for a months without open a *new* discussion in the talk page (not from year ago) and without you got a widely agreement … and also there is literally not even one ranking… Qplb191 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, you need consensus for additions. I removed things that were redundant or unimportant. Life expectancy and per capita gdp is already in the HDI, which we include, the innovation list is some random website without any weight given to it in other sources, and the world happiness report is likewise of little importance, certainly not lead of top level country article importance. But no, you need to establish consensus for inclusion, you have the onus the other way around here. nableezy - 21:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

First as I said you can not erase all paragraph without starting a new discussion.

second look at other countries leads : Netherlands Norway and etc has the Happiness report mentioned on any country there is a little bit of information about there’s GDP per capita human development as I said you cannot erase paragraph the was there for months based on what you think . Self revert and open a NEW discussion and get agreement . That all. Qplb191 (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Once again, we already had consensus on not including such nonsense as CEO World Magazine ranking the worlds best education systems in what they say is a perception-based global survey of university students, industrialists, academic educational professionals, school teachers, assistant professors, associate professors, adjunct professors, university professors, visiting professors, global business executives, and education policy experts. No, a perception based survey in some crap source is not lead of Wikipedia article on a country worthy. And we already had this conversation, and we already had a consensus on what to include. If you want to change that it is on you to garner consensus to include it, not the other way around. nableezy - 15:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you agree we should add “Israel ranked 4th on the Happiness report this year” (2023) it’s need to be mentioned as it mentioned in every country that ranked very high on the Happiness report like: Norway, Netherlands and Finland Or countries that ranked very low (like Burundi ) …. Qplb191 (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead doesn't need any more trivial information, and even if it did, this wouldn't qualify, since there's not even a mention of it in the body, and putting things the lead first and the body second is the wrong way to go about things, per MOS:LEAD. So, first things first, you will need to incorporate this material into the actual page body in a way that satisfies other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the rank is very high (4th place) it has to be mentioned as it mentioned in all the countries with very high rank , Norway, Iceland , Finland etc… Qplb191 (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In other countries it is mentioned and it has to be if the rank is very high; see Finland for example,(The rank of the happiness report is not also in the body). Qplb191 (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If Israel ranked 20th place in the happiness report I would agree with you but it’s literally ranked 4th place it has to be mentioned if Norway that ranks lower than Israel it is mentioned in their lead. Qplb191 (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section "Overly detailed information such as listing examples, statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the body of the article".Moxy- 11:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand lead: “ A developed country, New Zealand ranks highly in international comparisons of national performance, such as quality of life, education, protection of civil liberties, government transparency, and economic freedom. The country was the first to introduce a minimum wage, and the first to give women the right to vote. New Zealand underwent major economic changes during the 1980s, which transformed it from a protectionist to a liberalised free-tradeeconomy. The service sector dominates the national economy, followed by the industrial sector, and agriculture; international tourism is also a significant source of revenue.” Israel lead: “ Israel is a developed country and an OECD member,It has the world's 28th-largest economy by nominal GDP, and ranks twenty-second in the Human Development Index.” clearly for some reason there is no information about modern Israel in the lead. Although it’s ranked very high (such as 4th place on the happiness report for example)Qplb191 (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

What's your point? Thanks for verifying there is no nonsense about happiness in other leads? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

My point is that there is almost no information about modern Israel, unlike other countries as I mentioned. So it is impossible to say that this is an "excess of information״ when there is almost no information about modern Israel. It is absurd that the happiness report ranking appears at the lead of Norway when it is ranked lower than Israel,in every country lead there is information about their performance in aspects of income per person, life expectancy, health care , etc... So why is it Israel that ranks highly (4th place in the world) you refuse to mention when there is almost no information ? All the 5th first countries in the happiness report have their rank/mentioned on their lead. Qplb191 (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

And it's not "nonsense" it's a UN report based on surveys and indicators of life expectancy, income per capita, health and level of satisfaction with the country... It also appears in the lead of highly ranked countries such as Iceland, Norway and Finland (1st in the world) Qplb191 (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

To illustrate what complete guff the happiness report is, I would draw attention to the List of countries by suicide rate, which famously shows that Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland have the highest rates of suicide in Europe due to the well-known effect of winter depression. By relying on dubious survey data, I guess the report manages to overlook the blindingly obvious. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

this is about level of satisfaction with the country and indicators of life expectancy, income per capita, health . And it’s is important report.

why all the countries have their performance in per capita income healthcare quality of life etc… and Israel don’t? Although Israel is highly developed country . Qplb191 (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Iceland , Norway , Finland have their Happiness index in their lead and so Israel, if not at least include Israel high performance in per capita index wealth per adult and etc… why isn’t it mentioned when in all the countries lead it is? Look at italy for example . Qplb191 (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

None of these country pages are good articles, let alone featured articles, so there's no reason to use their leads as models. This is badly irrelevant whataboutism. Wikipedia is generally not a reliable sources, and anything below a good article is obviously not thoroughly reviewed. But, in any case, Iceland doesn't and never did have the index in the lead, Norway doesn't now because it wasn't in the body and so I've removed it, and on the Finland page I've started a discussion to either remove it or balance it with the country's glaring suicide statistics. Perhaps that will alleviate your concerns. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

But why ALL the countries lead have the information about their per capita income, happiness , health care, quality of life, wealth per adult life expectancy and other indicators when Israel doesn’t and ranks very highly in this indicators? Qplb191 (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A big problem with Israel and statistics is the vaguery surrounding which populations are covered. Does any given index cover Israeli settlers, for instance, or does it include non-citizen residents in East Jerusalem? Since Israel has both fuzzy, disputed borders and a fuzzy, disputed population, it's unwise to make sweeping statements based on random indexes - which Israel's rather unique setup will have just been shoe-horned into somehow. It is only really wise to use the very broadest and least complex/nuanced indicators, e.g. OECD, GDP, HDI, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

First, it is mentioned millions of times that Israel's data is covered in the occupied Golan Heights in East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Life expectancy, wealth per adult GDP per capita, quality of life healthcare and etc... they are literally by official bodies like the UN or official banks report like Credit Swiss . If Italy, Poland or Spain, which are less developed than Israel according to all the indicators, this is mentioned in their leads also in Israel's lead it should be mentioned. Qplb191 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd bring up Credit Swiss as this particular junction. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Random stats should be linked to an article like International rankings of Canada that links from the lead at Canada (that keeps random stats to a minimum in the lead... best fallow FA examples). Moxy- 17:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Loving that solution for clearing clutter, and International rankings of Israel already exists! Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If Israel has the heights wealth per adult in the Middle East ,one of the heights life expectancy in the world (8th place) ranks very high in health care and has very high Per capita income one of the countries with the highest average of assets and capital per capita it is need to be mentioned as it mentioned in all of other countries lead. Qplb191 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It's also got the biggest apartheid problem in the world, but we haven't even agreed to put that in the lead yet, so I would really just hold onto your horses regarding this granular stuff. OECD and HDI status cover most of the bases anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no connection. Literally no connection between Israel's economic success and the high standard of living, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If every country has its ranks (however they are democratic or not) Israel should also have it as well, either everyone has it or no one. Qplb191 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Per above, follow FA country article examples and go to International rankings of Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No stats in leads....move to the body and say somthing in the lead like " It is very highly ranked in international measurements of life expectancy, health care, per capita income, innovation, and education." Moxy- 17:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

And better still if there was a reliable source saying that or something similar. And per Iskandar, linked to International rankings of Israel, problem solved. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"Israel". theOECD. Retrieved 2023-03-21. Moxy- 17:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

but in all the countries it’s in the lead there is no other place in the body to put it. See spain italy and they are less developed than Israel . Why there is not information about modern Israel in the lead? It’s unfair because all the countries does and Israel ranks very highly in all the quality of life/standard of living indicators. Qplb191 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It has very high per capita income , one of the heights life expectancy in the world ranked 4th in the Happiness index (which includes in other indicators) has the heights average wealth per adult in the Middle East and etc… it should be mentioned like all the other countries. It’s unfair that Italy lead includes that and not in Israel’s lead. Qplb191 (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Both of those articles are C-class; they are useless as examples. No one is stopping you from going and challenging the presence of unnecessary international rankings on other country pages. Have at it! Have fun! Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

See new Zealand, France United Kingdom, Iceland literally all the developed’s country leads. Qplb191 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

As long it is mentioned in all other countries leads it should be in Israel lead as well. Qplb191 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean...lets look at FA articles like Japan or Canada ...or even low level articles like the USA or Russia that says the facts without too many rankings or citing one matrix over another.....both link to a main article in the lead and cover random stats in the body. Moxy- 18:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

But in most of the countries it is mentioned view Iceland Austria I’m not asking to put all these ranking in the lead. I am only asking to put sentence like:

” Israel is a developed country with a high standard of living

performing high in per capita income ,life expectancy…” Qplb191 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be in a minority of one atm. Time to drop it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Developed country

Do you agree we should add : “Israel is a developed country with a high standard of living?”

Facts: Israel ranked first in the Middle East by HDI, Israel's GDP per capita which is close to 60,000 dollars (in 2023) is much higher than the average in the region. Life expectancy in Israel is one of the highest in the world (ranked 8th) I think there should be a place for it and that it should be mentioned. Modern Israel is hardly mentioned. I agree that the ratings are unnecessary. But I think it should be added, do you agree? Qplb191 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

HDI includes all that, and we include the HDI ranking. And we already include it is a developed country next to it being a member of the OECD. nableezy - 15:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

“Israel is a developed country with a high standard of living” I think it should be added we can instead delete the HDI if it’s too long. Qplb191 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

We say Israel is a developed country and a member of the OECD and later give the HDI ranking. I think that is considerably more informative than your suggestion. nableezy - 16:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

An OECD member it is developed country it has a high standards of living .It has the world's 28th-largest economy by nominal GDP, and ranks twenty-second in the Human Development Index. Qplb191 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I get that you want to add "has a high standard of living", but thats already included with the HDI ranking. Anyway, we know what you think, we know what I think, we can let others give their position now. nableezy - 19:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy is correct. That addition makes the sentence reduplicative, with 'a high standard of living' a pleonastic gloss on 'developed country'. DCs are by definition countries with a high standard of living comparatively (though poverty rates even in these range from 12 to 20%).Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

so the HDI ranking can be deleted… Qplb191 (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

An OECD member it is  developed country and has a high standards of living .It has the world's 28th-largest economy by nominal GDP Qplb191 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You are not adding anything to that sentence, and the HDI is way more informative than "has a high standard (no s) of living". nableezy - 14:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead

Israel is located in the Holy Land, historically known as Palestine or Eretz Israel. In antiquity, it was home to independent Israelite and Jewish kingdoms but in later history the Jews gradually became a minority in the area as a result of the diaspora. Several empires came to control the region over the course of history, including the Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, Islamic, and Ottoman empires. In late 19th century, Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine increased as part of the Zionism movement. 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 follow through its promises, Britain turned to the United Nations after World War II, which in 1947 recommended the partition of Palestine creating independent Arab and Jewish states there and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan was hesitantly accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Palestinian Arab leadership, who viewed it as unfair, 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 the planned Arab state failed to materialize. The day later, a war broke out between Israel and its neighboring Arab states, which concluded with a ceasefire in 1949 that left Israel with one-third more land than originally assigned by the UN 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, over 700,000 Palestinians Arabs were expelled or fled from the territory Israel eventually controlled to neighboring countries, with fewer than 150,000 remaining, and in the following decades Israel absorbed many waves of Jews who emigrated or fled 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 is disputed since 2005. Israel has established settlements within the occupied territories, and effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, 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.

Can we agree with this? I think this is fine: it doesn't exaggerate Jewish history with the controversial alleged expulsion of the Jews by the Romans, it summarizes ancient history to focus on modern controversial points, and it doesn't blame the Arabs. Maybe we can put that Zionism arose because of the persecution suffered by the Jews, but I'm not sure about that. I left the numbers for the expulsion of Palestinians because there seems to be no consensus to exclude them. Any suggestions for improvement? Mawer10 (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and how could I forget: The Jews gradually became a minority in the area as a result of the diaspora => and conversion. Synotia (moan) 21:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I honestly (seriously) don’t get it, are you trolling about the article being biased toward israel and western interests or the opposite or what exactly ? Stephan rostie (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are you accusing him of trolling? Synotia (moan) 10:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not accusing him of anything i literally don’t understand what he mean or want properly. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Stephan rostie I think he was saying that the sentence "the Jews gradually became a minority in the area as a result of the diaspora" is not good because it suggests that the decrease in the Jewish population was caused only by a voluntary or forced diaspora, and ignores other reasons such as conversions or assimilation. But the impact of these other events is unknown, with wars clearly being the main cause. I think the phrase is great, but if anyone has a better suggestion... Mawer10 (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure i agree, honestly almost every jewish wikipedia page always ignore the historical conversions from judaism to christianity and islam and the conversation of other historical groups to judaism. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

yeah because it's less convenient... ben-gurion used to look at the palestinians and see them as descendants of the ancient jews, before abandoning that potentially dangerous idea Synotia (moan) 17:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source to support this claim? eyal (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ben-Zvi and Ben-Gurion advanced this idea in this book from 1918. (didn't find a pdf, sorry) This has been mentioned by Shlomo Sand for example Here and there. Someone else mentioned this here. Synotia (moan) 15:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

After centuries of persecution, in the late 19th century Zionism emerged promoting Jewish immigration to Palestine, then a Ottoman territory mostly Arab with a small Jewish minority. During World War I, Britain conquered the territory formalizing its administration under the Palestine Mandate years later and promised a Jewish homeland there. As the Jewish population in Palestine grew, tensions between Arabs and Jews grew as well, so in 1947 Britain turned to the UN.

This formulation is a good option too. Mawer10 (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not bad. However I have some things to add:

Must: mention the religious significance of the area, especially Jerusalem.

Possible: Mention/link to the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, Balfour Declaration, Sykes-Picot Agreement, perhaps also the Arab League somehow.

Also, you can indeed add a short line saying that Zionism arose as a response to the contemporary rise of European nationalisms that systematically excluded Jews – as a matter of fact, Zionism saw the establishment of an independent Jewish state as the only viable solution to this problem. I've proposed this prior actually.

Regarding the Zionism and immigration thing, I prefer your first version, it's more nuanced; initially the Zionist movement also proposed places like Argentina, but over time Palestine ended up winning the hearts due to its significance to the Jewish people. Synotia (moan) 21:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"Israel is located in the Holy Land", well, I think we can all agree that the term Holy Land speaks for itself in terms of the religious significance of the region. The goal is to summarize as much as possible, but keep the points relevant. Isn't the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence about the British promise of an independent Arab homeland in Palestine? Mention the Arab League how exactly? Is it accurate to say that the Arab League declared war on Israel in 1948? When the paragraph says Britain "promised a Jewish homeland there" this is already an indirect mention of the Balfour Declaration. The Sykes-Picot Agreement could indirectly be referred to as "the Ottoman Empire was divided between France and Britain with the latter getting Palestine", but I think that's not necessary. On the rise of Zionism I think "after centuries of persecution Zionism emerged..." or "Jewish nationalism emerged promoting..." is enough, any addition could be too verbose or POV, but if you have a good way of expressing it... Mawer10 (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont think we should even be saying holy land in the narrative voice. Lots of people find nothing particularly holy about that patch of land, and this isnt Abrahmicfaith-opedia. nableezy - 02:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. Perhaps something like "in an area known as the Holy Land, of religious significance for the Abrahamic religions/Jews, Christians, and Muslims" Synotia (moan) 07:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Palestine is the 'official' name of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, this name is used by all serious sources and other names are in minority use. However, putting only "Israel is located in the region of Palestine" in the introduction can lead to a misunderstanding by the reader or supposedly not be neutral since the term is very politicized by conflict Israel-Palestine. ("if the region is called Palestine, then it belongs to the Palestinians, what are Jews doing there?" or "so, all of Israel is an occupation of territory of the State of Palestine".) Although the following paragraphs of the introduction use Palestine, there seems to be a consensus to use more neutral terminology at the beginning or to use several different names at the beginning. Judea and Canaan are very old names, so we can disregard them. Let's try this: "Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions known as Palestine or Eretz Israel". Now we only have the Israeli/Jewish/Christian/pro-Israeli name and the Palestinian/Muslim/Arab/academic/world/pro-Palestinian name, without the religious term. Is it fine? Mawer10 (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think its OK, can't wikilink Palestine though (or it must be to something in the disambig). Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Palestine (region) ? Synotia (moan) 10:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The term is ancient (the concept of a land made holy by the presence of God, i.e. a "holy land," is present in Judaism before the 600s BC; the first Christian referral to the "Holy Land" is ca. 160 AD by Justin Martyr). While it has its roots in religious belief (first Jewish, then Christian), its usage today is secular (roughly encompassing both the State of Israel as well as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) rather than religious, and used to denote a geographic territory rather than a belief of the perceived holiness of said territory. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a valid geographic identifier.Ecthelion83 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Ecthelion83 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ecthelion83 You are right. According to GPT Chat: «The term "Holy Land" can have both religious and secular connotations. Religiously, the Holy Land refers to the region in the Middle East that is significant to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as the birthplace of their respective faiths. However, the term "Holy Land" can also be used in a more secular context to refer to the historical, cultural, and geographical region of Israel and Palestine. This includes popular tourist destinations like the Dead Sea, Masada, and the Sea of Galilee. Therefore, while originally a religious term, the Holy Land has emerged as an important cultural and tourist attraction in the modern world.» But "located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions known as Palestine or Eretz Israel" is a good sentence too. Mawer10 (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I think your last is better. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions known as Palestine or Eretz Israel

The name Palestine has no religious significance. Synotia (moan) 10:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't say that it does. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Everybody needs to stop quoting ChatGPT. It is well know that it makes things up. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed - ChatGPT, in my opinion, is not yet a reliable/credible source, except in cases where it directly cites reliable sourced material. Ecthelion83 (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not even reliable when it directly cites a reliable source, because it will literally invent a quote, and even invent a source. Feel free to test it out yourself, you can even ask it to provide the ISBN or DOI numbers of the source, and it'll give you a quote with a citation with a source and an ISBN or DOI... and it's all just made up. No such source, no such quote, the DOI points to something else, etc. Formatted great, looks real, but not real. Levivich (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I experienced this myself, that’s indeed true Stephan rostie (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

BTW, these are called "hallucinations". Levivich (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's try again.

Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions known as Palestine or Eretz Israel. In antiquity, it was home to independent Israelite and Jewish kingdoms but in later history the Jews gradually became a minority in the area as a result of the diaspora. Several empires came to control the region over the course of history, including the Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, Arab, and Ottoman empires. After centuries of persecution, in the late 19th century Zionism emerged leading to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, then an Ottoman territory mostly Arab with a small Jewish minority. During World War I, Britain seized the territory formalizing its administration as the Palestine Mandate years later and promised an independent Jewish homeland there. As the Jewish population in Palestine grew, tensions between Arabs and Jews grew as well, so Britain turned to the United Nations after World War II, which in 1947 recommended the partition of Palestine creating independent Arab and Jewish states there and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan was hesitantly accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Palestinian Arab leadership, who viewed it as unfair, leading to civil 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 the planned Arab state failed to materialize. The day later, a war broke out between Israel and its neighboring Arab states, which concluded with a ceasefire in 1949 that left Israel with one-third more land than originally assigned by the UN 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, over 700,000 Palestinians Arabs were expelled or fled from the territory Israel would come to control to neighboring countries, with fewer than 150,000 remaining, and in the following decades Israel absorbed many waves of Jews who emigrated or fled 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 is disputed since 2005. Israel has established settlements within the occupied territories, and effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, 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.

1. The rule of several Arab empires was labeled as "Islamic", I changed it to "Arab".
2. I removed the bit about the British promise of an Arab homeland in Palestine because Palestine was already an Arab territory, naturally it should have become an Arab state. The cause of the current situation was the promise of a Jewish homeland there. #"The plan was hesitantly accepted by the Jewish Agency". Is anyone against using the word 'hesitantly'?
3. I changed "inter-communal war" to "civil war", it's shorter and seems to better describe what happened. Any objections? Mawer10 (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe the 150,000 Arabs figure is in the immediate aftermath of the war.

And for the Jews gradually became a minority in the area as a result of the diaspora, I'd personally write as a result of exile and conversion. Synotia (moan) 13:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"Palestine was already an Arab territory" is not true. The Ottomans were not Arabs. Levivich (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The Ottomans were not Arabs

Levant arabs were ottomans themselves and had ottoman citizenship. Stephan rostie (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, it should be "Islamic", not "Arab". Levivich (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

When I said that Palestine was already an Arab territory I meant that its inhabitants are mostly Arab, without outside interference it would have become an Arab state, not a Jewish state. Therefore, citing the British promise of an Arab state in Palestine seems to suggest that this territory was not Arab before it. I have no objection to using "Islamic", I changed it to "Arabic" because I thought it was an improvement. As for the diaspora, this was caused by various events over centuries and we are not sure how much impact each event had. Can we agree with something like: Jews gradually became a minority in the area as the Jewish diaspora increase. Mawer10 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

What you're saying just isn't what the RSes say. What the RSes say is that Britain made a "dual obligation" to both Jews and Arabs that it couldn't keep. This is a key part of the history of Israel. The dual obligation was discussed not too long ago on this page somewhere, when we added the line about it to our working drafts. Levivich (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, there is too much (complicated) detail about the I-P conflict in the end of the 2nd paragraph; I definitely prefer the earlier draft language we've been going with. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

... and rejection of the partition plan is not what led to civil war (as we've discussed not long ago on this page in response to an earlier draft). Sorry, but I see this draft as overall moving in the wrong direction. Levivich (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"Inter-communal war" was linked to 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine. Because of that I suggest the change to "civil war". Mawer10 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think my amendments about it don't change much, I could be wrong but as far as I know the "dual obligation" involved Arabs outside Palestine and Britain never really tried to fulfill that preferring her deal with the Jews and the French. The mention of the British promise to the Jews is the point that really matters while the British promise to the Arabs over an already predominantly Arab territory does not seem to have had any significant impact. Mawer10 (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The "dual obligation" was the one made to Arabs starting in the 1915 McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, and the one made to Jews in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. See, e.g., 2nd paragraph of this: [17]. In between those two was the secret 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement, in which the imperialists agreed to divide the territory amongst themselves. Not the best RS but another quick Google find, aptly named "McMahon, Sykes, Balfour: Contradictions and Concealments in British Palestine Policy 1915-1917": [18]. I contend a reader won't understand the creation of Israel if they don't understand what Britain did in 1915-1917 to win WWI. Levivich (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The Peel Commission was an attempt to "fulfill that" and the reason the British dropped the hot potato in the UN lap was because they couldn't find a way to reconcile the dual obligation. This is fundamental to everything that came after. Some background at Permanent Mandates Commission (Palestine). Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but I think that the phrase Britain... promised both Jews and Arabs an independent homeland there is not good because it suggests that the British promise to Arabs and Jews are equivalent, but no, it's completely different. The promise to the Arabs was that Palestine, a territory already Arab for millennia, would be an independent Arab state or part of a single Arab superstate along with Mesopotamia, Syria and most of the Arabian peninsula. The promise to the Jews was that Britain would give an Arab territory (Palestine) to other people, basically foreigners (Jews). The promise to the Arabs did not have much impact on the Arab-Jewish conflict inside Palestine because even if the promise to the Arabs never existed, the story would be much the same: native Arabs and newly arrived Jews at war. To me it doesn't make sense and it doesn't even make any difference in the text to cite the British promise to the Arabs, because the territory was already Arab and if it weren't for Britain it would be an independent Arab state today. I prefer my version because it makes clear that Palestine was mostly Arab when Britain promised to give that land or part of it to another people, with it clear the tensions between Arabs and Jews were to be expected and unable to resolve the mess Britain turned to the UN. Mawer10 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

What does your silence mean here? Mawer10 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably that your last response is original research, rather than what reliable sourceses say. Look, you're right that two "homeland promises" to the Arabs and the Jews were different in that one was about pan-Arabism, whereas the other was about a Jewish homeland in Palestine. And maybe you're right that even if the Arab state promise never happened, maybe there would still be an Israel, and still an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But where you're wrong is in two places: first, you've missed the point that but for the Arab state promise, the Arab Revolt might not have happened, and thus the Mandatory Palestine may never have happened--the Ottoman Empire might still exist, who knows, we're talking about alternate history.

But the second place is the most important place where you're wrong: reliable sources talk about the importance of Britain's dual obligation to the history of Israel (I linked to one example above). So, when we summarize reliable sources as we do here, we're going to mention the importance of Britain's dual obligation to the history of Israel. Levivich (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If you agree with me, at least partially, we should create a new sentence. Let's try something more or less like this: Britain seized the land in World War I [creating the Palestine Mandate years later] and promised give independence to the Arabs there [in order to gain their support (against Ottomans)] while at the same time promised give the land to the Jews to [build their homeland]. [As the Jewish population in Palestine grew, tensions between Arabs and Jews grew as well,] and unable to deliver on this contradictory dual obligation, Britain... Britain seized the land during or after the World War I? Or both, seized during and legalized after? I saw the two versions. I think we should delete "in order to gain their support" because this is in the context of WWI and Britain promised the same things after the war, also in this point of the text the war looks finished. Can we include the mention about the creation of the Mandate?. Mawer10 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Official language

Shouldn't the 'recognized language' in the infobox be changed to Hebrew, as is explained in the main text? TheBartgry (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

2nd lead paragraph (March 25)

Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories are located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions. In antiquity, it was home to multiple 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 Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic, Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader, 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 order to gain 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 was mostly accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders who viewed it as unfair, leading to inter-communal war.

Links omitted. Do we have agreement on everything except the first sentence, or not yet? Levivich (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Once again, shorter is not always better... I like your writing about the peace plan, but I overall prefer something of similar depth as the other guy proposed.

Also, I stand by my proposal of "as a result of exile and conversion". Synotia (moan) 16:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"exile" is the same as "expelled". And I don't think "conversion" is, for lack of a better word, correct. The sentence is describing what caused the diaspora; conversion is not among those causes, because conversion doesn't result in diaspora. Aside from what caused the diaspora, if we want the sentence to instead be about what caused reduction in Jewish population in the region, the idea that there were fewer Jews there because some converted to Christianity is also incorrect, for a number of reasons, one of which being that Jews who convert to Christianity are still ethnic Jews. You know... Christ was Jewish and all that, Jewish Christians were still Jews. And that's also without getting into which conversions were free or forced (unknowable). Levivich (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"Jews were expelled or fled the area" is controversial. "Unable to deliver on this contradictory dual obligation", the tensions between Jews and Arabs would be better. Mawer10 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I've added "Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic" to the draft above per comments in the next section. Levivich (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead before begins by naming the powers that have controlled Palestine since the fall of the last independent Jewish state to Rome in 63 BC. This is why the other empires were disregarded, as the empires that controlled post-Jewish Palestine seem to be more important since under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Hellenic empires there was a strong Jewish presence in the region. Mawer10 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need to name the empires in the lead at all, and have made that argument a couple months ago somewhere on this page. I also felt that "Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and other empires" would get the point across more succinctly. But I'd agree to naming them all (as drafted above), or omitting the pre-Roman empires, or whatever reasonable variation. Levivich (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I've replaced the "[First sentence.]" placeholder with the suggested "Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories are located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions." The current status quo is "Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories are located in the Holy Land, a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions.", which is the same but with "Holy Land". I think we can just link Holy Land under "region of great significance". The first paragraph of the lead gives location, so I see no need to talk about the name of the location again in the second paragraph; the point is the significance of the region, not what it's called. Levivich (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions known as Palestine or Eretz Israel" was the consensus before. The name of the region where Israel is located is important because anyway the name is cited after as "Palestine". Mawer10 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the consensus before" but "Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories are located in the Holy Land, a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions." is what's in the article right now. Levivich (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions, known as Palestine or Eretz Israel. In antiquity, it was home to Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. The Jewish population gradually decreased due to expulsion, religious conversion, and migration, resulting in a significant diaspora. Several empires came to control the region over the course of history, including the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic, Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader, and Ottoman empires. After centuries of persecution, the emergence of Zionism in the late 19th century led to increased Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine, where most of the population were Muslim Arabs. Britain captured the territory during World War I, and promised both Jews and Arabs an independent homeland there in order to gain 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 was mostly accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders, who viewed it as unfair, leading to inter-communal war.

? Levivich (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with it.Dovidroth (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Approved as kosher by the Synotia (moan) 06:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Good by me as well, with the possible exception of omitting the phrase "and the Israeli-occupied territories," which is unnecessary in this context and has no impact on the text's meaning. We're not ignoring the occupied territories - they are already mentioned in other lede paragraphs. I would also remove the part "who viewed it as unfair" - there is no need for apologetics here; We should not discuss the motivations of each side, but rather use general descriptive language. Thoughts? Tombah (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point, Tombah. After all, they said clearly they wouldn't accept ANY partition of the territory, as I have been saying all along. Dovidroth (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The Palestinian Arabs were right to reject the partition of Palestine and accept only a single Arab state with rights for the Jews (still a minority), after all it was their homeland for centuries. Palestine is also the homeland of the Jews, maybe they had the right to have a state in part of it, but most of the Jews there at that time had arrived recently, let's stop trying to blame the Palestinians. Mawer10 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not a forum Synotia (moan) 11:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

1. You said Jews were just an ethnic group back then and Jews who converted to Christianity were still Jews. So, what would be more correct would be "assimilation" or "religious conversion"? Arabization, Hellenization?
2. The text talks about Jews being the majority in Palestine at the beginning, so when the text mentions Arab majority wouldn't it be better to use "then" instead of "where"?
3. "promised both Jews and Arabs an independent homeland there". We didn't finish talking about this above in the "Lead" section.

The rest is ok. Mawer10 (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"Several empires came to control the region over the course of history, including the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic, Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader, and Ottoman empires." becomes a little odd at the end - the Crusaders weren't really an empire, and the Ottoman empire was also Islamic (on paper). So I would suggest something more precise along the lines of: "Several regional powers came to control the region in antiquity, including the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic and Roman empires, followed by the Islamic caliphate, Crusader states, Ayyubids and Mamluks in the medieval period, and the Ottoman empire in the early modern period." Iskandar323 (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I like your version, Iskandar. It's much better. Dovidroth (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Below is a version including Iskander's changes, with two minor amendments - I have moved the Israelite and Jewish kingdom bit after the longer list, to create better flow for the Jewish demographic story, and I added Egypt to the long list:

Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions, known as Palestine or Eretz Israel. Several regional powers came to control the region in antiquity, including the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic and Roman empires, followed by the Islamic caliphate, Crusader states, Ayyubids and Mamluks in the medieval period, and the Ottoman empire in the early modern period. Home to Israelite and Jewish kingdoms during antiquity, its Jewish population gradually decreased due to expulsion, religious conversion, and migration, resulting in a significant diaspora. After centuries of persecution, the emergence of Zionism in the late 19th century led to increased Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine, where most of the population were Muslim and Christian. Britain captured the territory during World War I, and promised both Jews and Arabs an independent homeland there in order to gain 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 was mostly accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders, who viewed it as unfair, leading to inter-communal war.

My remaining concerns are:

• Jewish expulsion: We say Jewish population gradually decreased due to expulsion, religious conversion, and migration, resulting in a significant diaspora. Two problems (1) putting expulsion first conflicts with the scholarly position, which states expulsion was a very small amount, and (2) the conversion vs diaspora language is confused, as conversion in Palestine did not contribute to the diaspora, only conversion outside, but the latter did not reduce the population of Palestine.
• Muslim and Christian population as discussed in earlier threads, the word "most" is not a reasonable reflection of 95-98%. There was previously a resistance to including actual numbers, so "vast majority" is perhaps ok.
• Partition plan leading to civil war as discussed in earlier threads, the partition plan was not the cause of the war. The civil war was an outgrowth of the Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

1. I think we should mention the creation of the Mandate. After World War I, Palestine was put under British Mandatory rule, and or Britain captured the territory during World War I, creating the Palestine Mandate years later, and
2. I said earlier that the phrase "promised both Jews and Arabs an independent homeland there in order to gain their support" is not good because it suggests that there is an equivalence between the British promise to the Arabs and the Jews, but they are completely different. Also, I think we should delete "in order to gain their support" because this is in the context of WWI and Britain promised the same things after the war, and in this point of the text the war looks finished. What about Britain... promised give independence to the Arabs there [in order to gain their support] while at the same time promised give the land to the Jews to build their homeland. [As the Jewish population in Palestine grew, tensions between Arabs and Jews grew as well, and] unable to deliver on this contradictory dual obligation, Britain...
3. where most of the population were Muslim and Christian.. Christians were a significant minority, and why use religious terms? What about: then the vast majority of the population were Arab [Muslim]..
4. I understand this way: "Jewish population gradually decreased due to expulsion (by Assyrians in 722 BC, by Babylonians in 586 BC), religious conversion (Religious conversion hardly ends the identity of an ethnic group, I prefer "assimilation" as it also includes Hellenization and Arabization), and migration (to other prosperous centers in diaspora as Babylon and Alexandria because of the Greco-Jewish, Roman-Jewish wars and destruction of the Jewish religious center/s), resulting in a significant diaspora". Mawer10 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

3rd lead paragraph (March 25)

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 led to de-facto borders along the "Green Line", leaving Israel with one-third more land than originally contemplated by the partition plan. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled the Green Line borders to the West Bank (then held by Jordan), Gaza (then held by Egypt), and neighboring countries, with fewer than 150,000 Palestinian Arabs remaining in Israel. During and immediately after the war, around 260,000 Jews emigrated or fled from the Arab world to Israel. 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.]

Links omitted. This draft keeps the status quo 700/150, and introduces "Green Line" to describe migration. In my view it's getting kind of long, but not too long. Yay or nay? Levivich (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

..."while an independent Arab state was not established" Ok. The "the following day, neighboring Arab states attacked the newly formed state" is controversial too, I have nothing against that phrase, I think it's accurate, but there was many discussions about this and apparently there wasn't any consensus and because of that I changed it to "the day later, a war broke out between Israel and neighboring Arab states". The number 260,000 disregards a large number of Jews that Israel absorbed later, "Israel absorbed many waves of Jews in the following decades" seems better. "settlements in the Palestinian territories" What Palestinian territories? The text does not mention what they are. It is also not clear from the text that the West Bank and Gaza are the remaining territories of the British mandate that did not fall into Israeli hands after the 1949 war. I have nothing against using the term "Islamic", but you should give a justification for using it instead of "Arabic". I'm sorry about the supposedly excessive excerpts of text about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but this conflict has not ended and has shaped Israel's history since its existence basically. Mawer10 (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to the Jewish exodus from the Arab world, I prefer your previous version "absorbed many waves of Jews who emigrated or fled from the Arab world and elsewhere", since mentioning only 260,000 is misleading and not representative of the many immigratory waves that happened afterwards. The Palestinian exodus, in contrast, occurred during the war itself. Also I don't like the fact that you ommitted the other empires that ruled the region (Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic, etc). Dovidroth (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with "During and immediately after the war, Israel absorbed many waves of Jews who emigrated or fled from the Arab world and elsewhere" instead of "During and immediately after the war, around 260,000 Jews emigrated or fled from the Arab world to Israel".

I'll add Assyrian, etc. to the 2nd paragraph draft in the section above. Levivich (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Israel never declared itself a state on the borders of the partition plan. The declaration contains no commitment on borders or following the plan, and by the time it had occurred the Yishuv had already depopulated several sites within the Arab state's boundary under that plan. nableezy - 05:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Says "on the territory assigned in the UN partition plan" which is vaguer than "on the borders of" but in either event, how about just ending that sentence at "proclaimed the State of Israel" since Green Line is mentioned later? Levivich (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

declared its independence is what id go with, and on the territory assigned has the same meaning as within the borders specified. But either way it isnt what was declared. nableezy - 06:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Levivich (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Depends how you look at it https://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Letter_from_Eliahu_Epstein_to_Harry_S._Truman,_May_14,_1948.jpg Selfstudier (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Letters by politicians are not declarations of independence. Yishuv leaders specifically debated including anything about boundaries or abiding by the plan and voted against it. See the source cited at Israeli Declaration of Independence here, or a better source here (and later in that book discussing this very letter here). nableezy - 07:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree they are two separate documents, still that is the document on which the US based its (immediate) recognition of the new state. Selfstudier (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this? nableezy - 07:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is wrong to say that Israel declared its independence on the territory established in the UN partition plan (although, as I said, it depends on how you choose to look at it). Selfstudier (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's another ref for interest, this also confirms the "incompatible promises" thing in passing. Selfstudier (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect, and sources say both that the letter was either born of ignorance or deception, and that Israel specifically did not declare any limit to its territory. Your own source says my own view is that Israel committed a major blunder in not stating the borders of the new state in the declaration of independence. How do you get that it did declare some borders? Epstein said something that was not true, that is confirmed by both my source and yours, but you claim what he said was true anyway? nableezy - 07:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not claimed that anything in particular was true, there are two facts, the declaration and the letter. There is nothing new by way of facts other than these, all that varies since 1948 is the interpretation that historians put on these two documents (mistake, chicanery, blah blah). If we want to say there was a borderless declaration that's fine because that is a fact but then we need to say as well that at the same time there was this letter declaring borders (most sources mention both things). Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No, that makes no sense, because a. the letter isnt a declaration of borders by a state, and b. the sources say the letter was wrong and didnt matter, so why would that be mentioned in the lead of the article on the country? Some ambassador wrote something that wasnt true? Thats what you think should be in the lead of the country's article? Here, what reliable secondary source says Israel declared its independence on any borders or in any limited territory? Because between your source and my source theres two sources that say they did not and 0 that say they did. nableezy - 09:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Another ref and and anotherSelfstudier (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that an Israeli diplomat announced that Israel did something that Israel in fact did not do. All of these sources confirm that Israel did not do this thing. None of them support the notion that Israel actually declared any borders or territory. An Israeli diplomat said something that is not true. That is so far from important enough to mention in the lead of the article on Israel, and it has no relevance to whether or not Israel actually declared any borders (it did not, again each source youve brought agrees on this point). This is a minor detail that doesnt even belong in this article at all, much less the lead. And it is a complete distraction. nableezy - 09:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree. We should not just ignore something that sources discuss at length at the same time as the Declaration. To meet your objection we can say something like "and....requested recognition from the US based on the borders of the UN partition plan". Anyway, I will just go with the majority on the point.Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually writing leads consists in ignoring a mass of sources which discuss everything at length. So in terms of method, eliciting just one document out of hundreds if not thousands that gives a particular slant (challenged by Zionist leaders later) is egregiously WP:Undue. Neither side accepted the Partition Borders: in the sense that the Arab world rejected it, rationally, because the map defeated the expectations of the majority, while the Zionist world accepted it 'provisionally' as achieving official legal status and international recognition on a part of Palestine which, as the war planning since 1947, they had every intention of fighting to assume eventually total control. The only change historically has been the acceptance unilaterally by the PA, and later, Hamas, of the pre-1967 borders as the basis for a future state. So your suggestion really amounts to saying that the Yishuv/Israel recognized borders in that letter. It didn't. On the ground, militarily it fought throughout Dec 1947 to May 1948 (Gush Etzion) to retain, consolidate and extend de facto control even in land that the UN Partition Plan assigned to Arabs. Neither side accepted the core corpus separatum outlined in the Plan. So this was politics/geopolitics/ and hard realism in which pro-forma undertakings were tactical. To mention them, in a stripped down lead text, is to freight it with more unresolved problems, because such an addition will only lead to further counter-proposals to re-established the lost balance.

It is not a matter, either, of going with a 'majority' when we are engaged in establishing a majority where arguments and proposals are fluid. Going with a majority here means, 'well, I disagree with Nableezy, on this point, so as long as a majority disagrees with him, I'm fine with the outcome.' None of us will be satisfied with whatever text emerges (in terms of personal viewpoints). What we are doing is attempting to negotiate a text acceptable to all, sufficiently succinct and 'unpointly' to ensure stability.Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Also the Arab states attacked the newly formed state is inaccurate. Its only true if one says that Israel made up the entirety of the Mandate territory. Now this is certainly coming from a biased source, but biased towards Israel, but it is a reasonable summary of this: The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. The Arab states invaded Palestine, not Israel. nableezy - 06:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The only way to get a workable compromise here is, as virtually always, not to squeeze in details (the letter, for example which has a whole minor literature on it), Selfstudier. With sources, again, we have a vast range of texts with variations on a standard narrative that has endured for several decades, but whose thrust is known to be now, if not false, then a caricature. The parallel between the expulsion/flight of Palestinians and the expulsion/flight of Jews in Arab countries is utterly misleading. Both were outcomes desired by Zionism and the new government. The former was implemented strategically over a brief period of time, the 'exodus' was organized for well over a decade, an invitation to aliyah.

So editors must try to par down, certainly the lead, account to the bare minimum. British withdrawal, declaration of independence of Israel, the outbreak of a formal war between Israel's army and those of the Arab states (Jordan unlike Yishuv/Israeli forces, had withdrawn only to reenter essentially the West Bank on Israel's declaration). Throughout all this time, offensives were operative that had no interest in respecting Partition 'borders'.Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a hard no on that point based on the six sources I've posted here. In my view it's beyond dispute that on the day after Israel declared independence, Israel was attacked by its new neighbors. That's what all the mainstream sources say and I feel I've well proven this point already. Another reason I'm a "hard no" on this is because to say the "Arab states invaded Palestine" implies that the Arab states attacked Palestinians, which of course isn't what happened. That "Israel was attacked" on 15 May 1948 is not debatable. (Fwiw I also don't really like "newly formed state" either because on 15 May 1948 it wasn't exactly "formed" yet. I think "declared" would be better. But that's a minor point.) All that said, do you have alternate language to suggest besides "attacked Israel" or "attacked Palestine"? Levivich (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I have alternate language to suggest: The following day, neighboring Arab states attacked. I think that's clear enough while avoiding the issue. Levivich (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The Arab states invaded Palestine, not Israel.

I'm not sure how you define Palestine and Israel here? Synotia (moan) 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Palestine being the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine. Israel being to be determined at that point. Unless you claim that Israel is the entirety of the territory under the mandate then the Arab states did not invade Israel. And thats why sources focused on 1948 say invaded Palestine. There were certainly attacks on Israel and Israeli forces, but no invasion of Israel. nableezy - 01:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"The following day, neighboring Arab states attacked leading to 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which concluded..." OK, I think It's good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawer10 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The attack didn't "lead to" the 1948 war, it was the start of the 1948 war. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What's the difference? It sounds the same for me. Mawer10 (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution, and Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel while the planned Arab state failed to materialize." It's so simple, removing "on the territory assigned in the UN partition plan" doesn't make much of a difference. I agree that Arabs attacked Israel, even though Israel technically had no borders, Arabs fought Israeli soldiers in the war, and the UN plan had no impact on how the war was fought on the ground. Mawer10 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a hard no on "while the planned Arab state failed to materialize". States do not "materialize". And "failed to materialize" makes it sound like it was Palestine's fault, like they just didn't try hard enough to materialize a state. "Planned" is vague: planned by who? Israel? Palestine? The UN? Not everyone planned on an Arab state. I also don't like connecting the two with "while", which implies there was a parallel process. In fact, it wasn't really that parallel. The Jews and Palestinian in 1948 were in vastly different circumstances, their respective paths to statehood were unique. And even suggesting two paths to two states is just one POV (another being one path to one apartheid state). Levivich (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel and/while the planned Arab state was not established." The Arab state in Palestine alongside with the Jewish state was planned by the UN, the text talk this some words before. Mawer10 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No, still implies that Jewish leaders had some responsibility for establishing an Arab state. It also still implies a parallel process. I would avoid any construction that suggests that both the Jews and the Arabs were assigned homework (form a state), and the Jews finished their homework but the Arabs didn't. That's why two sentences is better IMO. Levivich (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel; the planned Arab state was not established/declared." Is it good? Based on your argument, I suppose that you agree with me about the phrase "Britain... promised both Jews and Arabs an independent homeland there". Mawer10 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution and Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence. An independent Arab state was not established. Logically, the first sentence connects three thoughts that are in fact connected, that all happened on the same day: 14 May 1948, British Mandate officially ends, Israeli independence declared. The second sentence gives a separate thought: the fact that an independent Arab state was not established (I'd be fine with "Palestinian" rather than "Arab" here, but some will argue that "Arab" is more accurate than "Palestinian" at this point in history). I think it's important for the lead to connect end of British Mandate with Israeli independence (same day), and doesn't imply that there was a parallel or contemporaneous deadline for establishing an Arab state; rather, it should convey that an Arab state was not established, without making such implications. Levivich (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Based in the UN plan, in the end of the British mandate should be created an Arab and Jewish state together. Because of that I think that the end of the Mandate, Israeli declaration of independence and an Arab state not declared in that day should in one sentence. And since the text said clearly that the Palestinian leadership view the plan as unfair and refused it, I don't think that link the three thoughts in a sentence really implies something. But, I'm going to agree with your suggestion. Mawer10 (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

leaving Israel with one-third more land than originally assigned/contemplated by the partition plan/UN plan. Are there percentage numbers for this? leaving Israel with X% more land than originally assigned by the partition plan or leaving Israel with 78% of the former mandate territory looks better. Mawer10 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a hard no on that point based on the six sources I've posted here. In my view it's beyond dispute that on the day after Israel declared independence, Israel was attacked by its new neighbors.

Yawn. That's the Zionist schoolboy version, reflected yes, in numerous RS. It's not the way we've come to understand that moment - one thinks of Matthew Hughes, David Fieldhouse and many other historians, who have striven to detach themselves from the meme-ridden story to see this in larger context. Hughes, for example, reviewing Benny Morris's history of that conflict, repeated that it was yes, a David and Goliath narrative, only that the data indicate that the Goliath was, in the face of the 5-7 'Arab armies invading Israel, the Arab forces, totally unprepared, unlike the Zionists, for war. The best neutral description of this particular week I know of is Bickerton's.

Just before midnight . .14 May 1948, King Abdullah of Trransjordan, standing on the eastern side of the Allenby Bridge across the River Jordan, fired his revolver into the air, so signaling his army, the Arab Legion, to enter and occupy the area on the west bank of the river the UN had allotted to the Arab state. Early on the morning of May 15 troops from Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, together with volunteers from Saudi Arabia and Libya, entered Palestine to support local Palestinian irregular forces and the Arab League’s Arab Liberation army. The Arab League of Arab states informed the UN Secretary-General on 15 May that their aim was to create a “United State of Palestine’ in place of the two-state UN plan. They also claimed it was necessary to intervene to protect Arab lives and property. The first Arab-Israeli war had entered as new phase. On 15 May the first of around 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi and 10,0000 Egyptian troops, with a few Saudi Arabian, Libyan and Yemenite volunteers, crossed the frontiers of Palestine with the intention of establishing a unitary Palestinian state. Pp.79-80 The primary goal of the Arab governments, according to historian Yoav Gelber, was to prevent the total ruin of the Palestinians and the flooding of their own countries by more refugees.80 IDF established on 26 May ‘managed to mobilize more troops that the Arab forces. By July 1948 the IDF was fielding 63,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,0000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949 p.80. Ian J. Bickerton, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History, Reaktion Books, 2009 ISBN 978-1-861-89527-1

In short the hordes weren't at the gates with a five pronged army attacking Israel, which was at the time still engaged in an ongoing state of war with Palestinians and assorted irregulars. The Arabs had legitimate interests in the area, and only shared with Israel the same basic goal, of a unified state, binational as opposed to an ethnocracy. And the Jordanian army mostly kept to its remit, to ensure the area set out for Palestinians in the plan, at least on the West Bank, would retain its teritorial integrity. Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

binational as opposed to an ethnocracy

Source please? Synotia (moan) 19:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've bolded the allusion to this binational state view which you seem to have missed in the quotation from Bickerton above. I don't know why one needs to source common knowledge, but if one wants the same datum, spun from the opposite point of view, see Benny Morris,1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, Yale University Press 2008 ISBN 978-0-300-14524-3 pp.65-66

Ethnocracy doesn't need sourcing. It is all over Zionist thinking, and Israeli historical praxis from day one.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What is a "Zionist schoolboy"? Levivich (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There are many definitionss. One is that the terms refers to a young student inculcated with a highly selective set of simplistic '48 stories of how a 2nd holocaust at the hands of Amin al-Husayni's neo-Hitlerian Palestinians and Azzam Pasha's genocidal predict5ions was averted, and never hearing that, in those months, Hungarian and Israeli negotiators were haggling over the pricing of each Jew's ransom to allow aliyah, with the Israeli team refusing to take older Holocaust survivors because, for a country selecting for fit soldier material (like the holocaust-surviving lads who died uselessly at Latrun at Ben-Gurion's insistance), the aged Jews were considered 'inferior merchandise'.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That's why I put together #Sources (1947-1949):

• Oxford 2014: "Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria invaded, but the Haganah successfully defended the state."
• Gale (Hill 2017): "The next day, the Arab League states—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria—launched a concerted armed attack."
• Gale (Elicott 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."
• Palgrave Macmillan (Statesman's Yearbook 2023): "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."

These encyclopedias weren't written by Zionists, and the mainstream view, though challenged by some scholars, is still the mainstream view. Levivich (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

we do not base our articles on tertiary sources. Beyond that, it is silly to pretend that this is mainstream view when numerous sources have been provided showing that it is a disputed view, with many sources saying that the Arab states invaded Palestine, not Israel. nableezy - 23:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:TERTIARY: Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Levivich (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY: Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. May help evaluate does not mean base our article on. nableezy - 00:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

We're like two people quoting the Bible at each other. Levivich (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are notoriously lazy and dated. In this wikipedia is no exception. All those entries repeat what was written widely from the 1950s onwards for decades. It was the standard line, a meme picked up and repeated endlessly. Compare Bickerton - he actually differentiates and gives details, and he doesn't drool on confusing 'Israel' with Palestine. Anyone can google enough RS to get the generalisation they prefer. What counts is whether these generalizations match up with the detailed critical literature over the past decades.Nishidani (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There's been a discussion about this before, is it really necessary to repeat it? Let's try to use a less controversial phrase. What about "the following day, a war broke out between Israel and neighboring Arab states" or other phrase? Mawer10 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If there are many definitions, can you give me one example of anyone using the phrase "Zionist schoolboy" anywhere? Because I could not find any examples. Levivich (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

He was saying that the paragraph you wrote is the Zionist mythology taught in schools. If you want to report it somewhere go do that, but this tangent has nothing to do with the article so kindly take it elsewhere. nableezy - 01:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you recognize it as something somebody might report somewhere. Levivich (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I see it as something that you might report somewhere. But I also see it as off-topic and not relevant to the article and request, again, that this talk page be used for its stated purpose. nableezy - 01:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Am I not "somebody"? Levivich (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No, youre a specific body. Anyway, still not on topic, and the on topic thread is more interesting to me so Ill leave you the last word in this one. nableezy - 02:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Good, because I have no time for this, I'm a busybody. Levivich (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Levivich you can act like the sources you brought are the foremost works on the subject, but they are not. And you can be a hard no all you like, doesnt really matter to me tbh, but you are mistaken on the meaning of invaded Palestine, and professional historians routinely use that phrasing. For the view that what the Arab states invaded in 1948 was Palestine, not Israel, you can see things like Morris, Benny (2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. . Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-14524-3. Retrieved 2023-03-27. The 1948 War—called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster), and by the Jews the War of Independence (milhemet haGatzmaHut), the War of Liberation (milhemet hashihrur) or the War of Establishment (milhemet hakomemiyut)—was to have two distinct stages: a civil war, beginning on 30 November 1947 and ending on 14 May 1948, and a conventional war, beginning when the armies of the surrounding Arab states invaded Palestine on 15 May and ending in 1949. Or Tucker, Spencer C. (2017). Enduring Controversies in Military History: Critical Analyses and Context. ABC-CLIO. p. 481. ISBN 978-1-4408-4120-0. Retrieved 2023-03-27. Then, on May 14, 1948, the Jews of Palestine declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day the Arab armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq invaded Palestine, thus beginning the Israeli War of Independence. There were certainly attacks on Israel and Israeli forces, but not an invasion of a state that had no borders or defined territory. But the idea that because Wikipedia editor disagrees that the phrase "invaded Palestine" is accurate that means that noted scholars like Benny Morris and Spencer C. Tucker are wrong is a non-starter. nableezy - 01:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The point is, they invaded. Whether you call the place they invaded "Israel" or "Palestine" is not anything I care to debate. Levivich (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Since the distinction is fundamental one has little option in vetting phrasing on these core issues other than to address the point, because Israel makes the text conform to Israel's national storytelling, whereas Palestine reminds the reader that the picture is more complex (Arab interest in intervening in a war where 13,000 Palestinians eventually were killed and 700,000 were being systematically eradicated from their homeland). 'Invaded' has to be accepted, even though it still creates a POV disparity: the Yishuv was defending or gaining 'invasive' positions (Gush Etzion) outside of its Partition area right down to May 14. Jordan's army re-entered Cisjordan, having earlier withdrawn under British request, and occupied, apart from Jerusalem, the area designated for a future Arab state. I don't expect editors to adjust their reliance on dated or lazy sources which repeat a known meme, but they should be aware that this showcases a standardized narrative which is, in light of the facts, question-begging. It only serves to buttress the old 48 meme: 'we wuz the victims of an assault by nasty neighbours who butted in to muss up our house when we were just going about settling into our new home'Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution and Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence. An independent Arab state was not established. The following day, neighboring Arab states attacked. A January 1949 ceasefire led to de-facto borders along the "Green Line", leaving Israel with one-third more land than originally contemplated by the partition plan. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled to the West Bank (then held by Jordan), Gaza (then held by Egypt), and neighboring countries, with fewer than 150,000 Palestinian Arabs remaining within Israel's Green Line borders. During and immediately after the war, Israel absorbed many waves of Jews who emigrated or fled from the Arab world and elsewhere. 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.

How's this? Avoids stating the borders at declaration and naming the place that Arab states attacked. I also changed the line about Nakba/Green Line to (I hope) clarify. Levivich (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Not terrible, though I would say logically an independent Arab state was not established makes more sense following the war, not at the start. The During and immediately after the war, Israel absorbed many waves of Jews who emigrated or fled from the Arab world and elsewhere. is vague for no reason other than, from what I can tell, an objection that it does not include the numbers for decades of later migration. So I would return that number too. But the current location of no Arab state seems disjointed. nableezy - 01:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, trying it with those changes, and both versions of the Jewish immigration sentence. Levivich (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution and Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence. The following day, neighboring Arab states attacked. A January 1949 ceasefire led to de-facto borders along the "Green Line", leaving Israel with one-third more land than originally contemplated by the partition plan. An independent Arab state was not established. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled to the West Bank (then held by Jordan), Gaza (then held by Egypt), and neighboring countries, with fewer than 150,000 Palestinian Arabs remaining within Israel's Green Line borders. During and immediately after the war, [around 260,000 Jews emigrated or fled from the Arab world to Israel. / Israel absorbed many waves of Jews who emigrated or fled from the Arab world and elsewhere]. 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.

I think I like the specificity of the 260k number as well; Jewish immigration in later years could be addressed later in the lead. Levivich (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Also I dont really like de facto borders for Green Line, needlessly wordy and imprecise. Ill write up a suggested version after taraweeh tonight, nableezy - 02:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

OK I'm gonna check to see what the thesaurus has for "temporary line of demarcation". Levivich (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The British announced the termination of the Mandate on 14 May 1948, and Israel declared independence that day. The following day, five neighboring Arab states attacked, beginning the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The armistice agreements that resulted in the creation of the Green Line left Israel in control of over one-third more territory than the partition plan had called for, and no independent Arab state created, with Egypt occupying the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupying, and later annexing, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. During both stages of the 1948 Palestine war, over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled Israeli territory to the West Bank, Gaza, and the neighboring Arab countries, 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. The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the rest of the territory of the British Mandate, along with the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has since effectively annexed both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and has established settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, actions the international community has rejected as illegal under international law. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, relinquishing the Sinai Peninsula, and Jordan, and more recently normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded.

Some of the changes I made have made it longer, but I think you cut out some crucial bits earlier. Im sure it can be tightened a bit though, just my first go at it. nableezy - 03:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks good to me. And between this and the 2nd paragraph above, I think they're better written than what's in the article now. However, I'm not sure we've shortened it at all. Levivich (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Can cut a bit I guess here:

The British announced the termination of the Mandate on 14 May 1948, and Israel declared independence that day. The following day, five neighboring Arab states attacked, beginning the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The armistice agreements that resulted left Israel in control of over one-third more territory than the partition plan had called for, and no independent Arab state created. During both stages of the 1948 Palestine war, over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled Israeli territory to the West Bank, Gaza, and the neighboring Arab countries, 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. The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the rest of the territory of the British Mandate, along with the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has since effectively annexed both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and has established settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, actions the international community has rejected as illegal under international law. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai Peninsula, and Jordan, and more recently normalized relations with several Arab countries, though efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded.

nableezy - 05:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Dovid. The 260k figure is only for the years 1948-51. The total figure stated of refugees stated in that article is 900k (including Iran however) over the years; the antisemitism in Arab countries was kickstarted as a result of the war and it never ended, I'm sure you know this.

I would write it something like Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled, with over 400 towns and villages becoming permanently depopulated. The war started a continuous massive exodus of Jews from Arab countries, leaving most Arab countries devoid of Jews by the 21st century. Synotia (moan) 07:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Those largely were not refugees, and it had nothing to do with the war, and the war did not start any massive exodus. 900k includes every Jewish immigrant from every Muslim country for 30 years. That is not relevant, and many of them didnt even end up in Israel. nableezy - 15:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

it had nothing to do with the war

See for example Iraq. Synotia (moan) 16:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You know those numbers are included in the 260k right? The later waves of immigration that adds up to 900 total leaving (but not all to Israel) is what I was talking about. nableezy - 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I find your first version more complete in terms of coverage of territorial changes. Synotia (moan) 07:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure but this isnt an article on the 48 war, it is an article on Israel. So I was fine cutting out the non-Israel specific parts. nableezy - 15:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but these territories are still linked to Israel through occupation, conflict, colonisation... so I personally find it relevant enough nevertheless. Synotia (moan) 19:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't notice it before, but we shouldn't say termination was announced on 14 May 1948, as it was announced before that. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

My problem with the 260,000 number is that it doesn't present the picture correctly, as I explained before, since most of that immigration to Israel from the Arab world happened after that war and it was much bigger (closer to 700,000). It's much better to make a general statement and provide a link to the article: "Israel absorbed many waves of Jews who emigrated or fled from the Arab world and elsewhere." In addition, it should say "...the rest of the territory of the FORMER British Mandate", since the Mandate didn't exist by 1967. Other than those two objections, I'm willing to accept your version as a reasonable compromise. Dovidroth (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does, because the paragraph is about 1948 and its immediate consequences. Not about later immigration. And 700k is from the entire Muslim world over decades, not just the surrounding Arab states. nableezy - 06:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You are presenting a misleading picture by omitting later waves from the Arab world and hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors who immigrated at the time from European refugee camps, instead of simply providing a link and adding "elsewhere" to sentence. No consensus for your version, then. Dovidroth (talk) 07:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Again we are in meme territory, this time the invention of a counter-narrative to create a false balance between the 700,000+ Palestinians driven off or fleeing in 1948, and the Jewish exodus from the Arab world 1947-1973, which was a consequence of 1948, not coterminous. The number of aliyah refugees and others entering Israel from 14 May to the end of that year, in the several months while hostilities were underway was 103,000, mostly from Europe.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

With all this number counting, and what seems like the wish of some editors here to right great wrongs, I think we'll never reach a consensus. Let's leave the numbers out, or we'll never get done with it. " A large number of Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled the area during the war, and around the same time, many Jews emigrated or fled from the entire world to Israel" would be just perfect IMHO. Tombah (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

As long as we wikilink 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, I don't personally care whether the number is there or not. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course, thanks. We're getting closer to consensus. Tombah (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Self. That is the second time in this thread I see the expression 'I don't (personally) care'. Tombah. That's a silly crack, as if ascertaining the relevant facts for a specific historical period, if they don't line up with the narrative one wants, must be discarded because they appear or threaten to lend equal weight to the victims and the victors, whereas history is what the latter write (POV). I get the impression here that editors get their information as often as not from other wiki pages, esp re these numbers. In anycase 'fled from the entire world' is comical. If you take the time to familiarize yourself with any relevant works, in this case, Dvora Hacohen's Immigrants in Turmoil: Mass Immigration to Israel and Its Repercussions in the 1950s and After, Syracuse University Press, 2003, you would see how immensely difficult it was to 'gather in the exiles', with selection bias and the reluctance of many communities. Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reading material, Nishidani, but please read the suggestion again. We're saying the Jews "Emigrated or fled". It covers all cases. Tombah (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't. 'emigrated or fled' is a dull, vapid and inaccurate cliché modelled on 'were expelled or fled', and is a false analogy. Those who read extensively would know that both the Yishuv and Israel devoted intense efforts to getting Jews to emigrate; that the war rendered life for Jewish communities in the Arab world difficult, and that it was a core policy to get as many of them to Israel. So, 'A top priority for the new state was to assist Jews in the diaspora to relocate to Israel. Great numbers from the Arab world, whose social conditions had worsened as a result of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, subsequently made aliyah'. But of course the textual outcome won't be that.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The effort to expunge the numbers and claim "some number of Palestinians fled" is only being pushed because one wants to whitewash what occurred. nableezy - 15:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

And also, I promise the next person to edit the lead without consensus after full protection expires is getting a trip to AE. We had consensus on the current paragraph, and you may not force through your "some number fled" attempt through edit-warring. nableezy - 15:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This is just watering things to a point of meaninglessness. Synotia (moan) 11:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Except that wasn't around the same time, it was over the next 25 years, so that would be gratuitously imprecise and exactly the kind of false balance that Nishidani has now had to re-explain more times than I can count, but definitely ad absurdum. Also not sure how 'large number' and 'many' are improvements on actual numbers. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What about: [In following decades after the war,] Israel absorbed thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, especially from the Arab and Muslim world. Mawer10 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Something along those lines would be better, yeah. Also 'hundreds of thousands' surely? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you looked at mine above? Synotia (moan) 14:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Also has good parts, but the 'mass' part of the exodus was over just a few decades, as above, and Mawer suggested 'Arab and Muslim world', because it included Iran (although just 'Muslim world' works on its own too). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont get how people are conflating the topics here. How are you introducing decades of immigration in the paragraph on the 48 war? nableezy - 18:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Because really what drove them to leave is either direct political policies in response to Israel's declaration of independence (see the Iraq example), or the massive antisemitism that erupted as a result of it and still permeates in the Muslim world to this day. (In Algeria, the Jews having sided with the French did not help their case, but they moved to France rather than Israel) Synotia (moan) 19:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That isnt accurate, but even if it were it wouldnt go with material about 1948. And, again, the Iraq example is already included, those numbers are part of the 260k. The pertinent and relevant counts are included. And Jewish immigration to Israel absolutely belongs in the lead, it is a foundational topic. But connecting decades of migration to the war is only being done because of the material on the expulsion and flight of the Palestinian Arabs. Its an attempt at both sidesism, and it just isnt accurate. nableezy - 21:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

100 years of Aliyah (Immigration) to Mandatory Palestine and the State of Israel, between 1919 and 2020

Correct. If we are going to talk about post-war Jewish immigration to Israel in the lead, then the story in this chart is what needs to be described: a significant increase in immigration from various regions due to the opening of the borders and the end of hostilities. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

1. "After centuries of persecution, in the late 19th century Zionism emerged leading to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine"
2. "As the Jewish population in Palestine grew, tensions between Arabs and Jews grew as well, and unable to... dual obligation Britain turned to the UN"
3. "In the decades following its independence, Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, especially from the Arab and Muslim world"

Nableezy, Onceinawhile What do you think? Mawer10 (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine with 1 and 2. Re 3, the chart on the right shows that "especially from the Arab and Muslim world" is inaccurate. More correct would be something like: "primarily from Eastern Europe and the Muslim world" (I am assuming Russia fits in Eastern Europe, and the Arab world fits in the Muslim world). Onceinawhile (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, "In the decades following its independence, Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, primarily from Europe and the Muslim world". Mawer10 (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Three points

Three other problems with the version being discussed above:

• Blame for 1948: five neighboring Arab states attacked, beginning the 1948 Arab–Israeli War: We don't say "Israel attacked, beginning the Six-Day War", so why do we assign blame for 1948? The Arab armies viewed themselves as replacing the British, not least because their two main armies (Egypt and Jordan) were still being financed by Britain. This entry of the neighboring states needs to be described neutrally.
• International community's rejection of the occupation: Israel has... established settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community. This wording suggests the international community's problem with the occupation in the non-annexed areas is that Israel has simply taken control of a little bits of land to put its people on. The actual issue is that it has restricted the native population to tiny enclaves in a permanent state of subjugation, while its citizens control and settle almost two-thirds of the land. The wording needs to point to the real issue.
• Gaza: No mention of the now permanent siege of Gaza.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I had suggested before something like: "The following day, a war broke out between Israel and its [five] neighboring Arab states". The phrase "five neighboring Arab states attacked, beginning the 1948 Arab–Israeli War" was suggested by Nableezy and/or Levivich. "Israel has... in the occupied territories, actions rejected as illegal by the international community", Is it better? Or something like: "Israel has... established settlements in the occupied territories, actions criticized by the international community for making it difficult the implementation of the two-state solution". But, the "occupied territories" doesn't refer only to the Palestinians territories, but also to Golan Heights and for a certain time the Sinai. Mawer10 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Re 1948, others should comment.

Re occupied territories, the challenge for the lede is both explaining and encapsulating all the key points in a short sentence. We could boil it down to three words: annexed (EJ and Golan), blockade (Gaza), and enclavization (rest of the West Bank). The wider term occupation applies across all of these, and settlement to all except Gaza.

How about this for a construct that encapsulates all of these:

OLD: The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the rest of the territory of the British Mandate, along with the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has since effectively annexed both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and has established settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, actions the international community has rejected as illegal under international law.

NEW: The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the rest of the territory of the British Mandate, along with parts of Syria and Egypt. Israel has maintained an occupation of most of these territories, via actions the international community has rejected as illegal under international law: the annexation of both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the blockade of Gaza, and the enclavization of Palestinians and settlement of Israelis in the West Bank.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, along with the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has [since] established settlements in the occupied territories, except Gaza which has been under [an Israeli-Egyptian] blockade since 2007, and effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, [all these] actions are rejected as illegal by the international community [under international law].

I didn't put in about the enclavization of the West Bank to avoid too much detail. Mawer10 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

3rd paragraph, again

On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution and Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence. The next day, five neighboring Arab states attacked, beginning the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. [The Jewish state defended itself successfully and/The war concluded with] The armistice agreements [that resulted/in 1949] left Israel in control of over [one-third/X%] more territory than [originally assigned by the UN plan/the partition plan had called for], and no independent [Palestinian] Arab state created, [with Egypt occupying the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupying, and later annexing, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem/as the rest of the territory of the former British Mandate (as the Palestinians territories), West Bank and Gaza, were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.] During the war, over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from [the territory Israel came to control/Israeli territory] to [the West Bank, Gaza, and the] neighboring Arab countries, with fewer than 150,000 [Palestinian Arabs] remaining [within/in Israel]. [In following decades after the war,] Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, especially from the [Arab and Muslim world]. The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the [rest of the territory of the former British Mandate, along with the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights/Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip.{note- whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement in 2005 is disputed.} Israel has [since] established settlements in the occupied territories, and effectively annexed [both] East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, [though these] actions the international community has rejected as illegal [under international law]. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai Peninsula, and Jordan, and [more recently] normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded.

I think it will be easier to talk now, I've highlighted all the passages in the text that are controversial, or a little long, or can be deleted or added, or are not important, or can be summarized better between [] or in italics. Mawer10 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Without looking at the rest of it, "The British announced the termination of the Mandate on 14 May 1948" is factually incorrect. That's the date it terminated, not the day they announced the termination. I believe the announcement was made in September 1947. Also, the British couldn't implement the UN partition plan even if they had wanted to. Levivich (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Per End of the British Mandate for Palestine, Two weeks later, on 11 December [1947], Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones announced that the British Mandate would terminate on 15 May 1948. Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What about: "The British ended the mandate on May 14 1948" + "without a resolution". Mawer10 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Like, "On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution and Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence"? Levivich (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Perfect, I made the change in the text. Mawer10 (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

References

...No independent [Palestinian] Arab state [was] created:

1. as Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupied [and later annexed] the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
2. , with Egypt occupying the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupying [and later annexing] the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
3. as the Palestinians territories, West Bank [including East Jerusalem,] and Gaza, were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.
4. as the remainder/rest of the former British Mandate territory, West Bank [including East Jerusalem,] and Gaza, were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.
5. as Egypt and Jordan occupied the remainder/rest of the former British Mandate territory, i.e., Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Which one should we use? Any other suggestions? Mawer10 (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the statement should be linked to any of those, it should just stand by itself (unless you have sources that specifically say that the reason is because of the Egyptian and Jordanian control of the territory. Like here "The Palestinian Arab State envisaged in the partition plan never appeared on the world’s map and, over the following 30 years, the Palestinian people have struggled for their lost rights." (Doesn't have to be exactly like that but should just just stand by itself). Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead needs to talk about the results of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Israel gains more territory than it should by the UN plan and Jordan and Egypt capture the remaining territory of the former mandate which are seen as the territories of an Arab Palestinian state that was not created at that time. Mawer10 (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I will limit the options, merge 1 with 3 and delete 2 because just like 1 it repeats the same word (occupied/occupying) twice and ignore the small detail [later annexing/annexed]. Delete the adjective "British", and merge 5 with 1. Only 2 options, it's more easy. And two choices too: we create a phrase based on them or we create a better one. no independent [Palestinian] Arab state [was] created

1. as Egypt and Jordan [respectively]? occupied the [Palestinians territories of/rest of the former Mandate territory], [respectively]? the Gaza [Strip] and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
2. as the rest of the former Mandate territory, [respectively]? the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza [Strip], were occupied by Jordan and Egypt [respectively]?. Mawer10 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"The Palestinian Arab state envisaged in the UN plan was not created as the rest of the former Mandate territory were occupied by Egypt and Jordan, respectively the Gaza [Strip] and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem." Isn't so verbose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawer10 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This is still ascribing the non creation as being due to...why do you think that is the case? In September 1946, at a conference with the British in London, the Arab states were demanding the creation of an independent Arab state no later than 31 December 1948. That was always the consistent position of the Arab states, that Palestine as a class A mandate, was supposed to become (as happened with the other Class A's) an independent state. The Jordanians and the Egyptians both claimed to be holding the territory on behalf of Palestinians.

Also implicit in the proposed wording is that the Jewish state as envisaged in the partition plan was created, no it wasn't, instead Israel was declared without borders and without consideration of the Jerusalem aspect of the partition plan.

An acceptable alternative to stand alone statement is to simply remove the statement about non creation of an Arab state altogether since it is entirely obvious that one was not created. Selfstudier (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The armistice agreements in 1949 left Israel in control of... more territory than originally assigned by the UN plan, and no independent Palestinian Arab state [was] created [at that time] as the rest of the former Mandate territory were held by Egypt and Jordan, respectively the Gaza [Strip] and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.]

 ? Mawer10 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That's the same. There should not be any linkage. Or there should not be any statement. Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

• The 2nd Citation Needed (It's in the foreign relations section talking about GNI spent on development assistance):
• I found a source for it ([19]https://www.oecd.org/israel/israels-official-development-assistance.htm.) where I believe it was an implied citation:

~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 21:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done Lightoil (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we all paddling in the same direction?

I think we should significantly shorten the existing lead in order to make room to significantly expand the lead with what's missing. This is in response to many editors saying the lead is too long in the two most recent RFCs about apartheid and human rights. Those two RFCs were launched in January. The Jan 6 version of the lead was about 700 words (not including footnotes). MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests 300 words, which is far too short for this topic, but the RFCs suggest 700 words was too long.

The lead needs to summarize the body, including these sections, in less than 700 words:

1. Geography/environment
2. History
3. Government/politics (domestic and foreign)
4. Demographics
5. Economy
6. Culture

Today's version is about 650 words, in four paragraphs:

1. 125-word paragraph covering geography and capital city
2. 225-word paragraph covering history from antiquity to independence
3. 240-word paragraph covering history from independence to present day
4. 65-word paragraph for everything else

This is highly imbalanced. While history can and should take up a larger proportion than the other sub-sections (geography, government, economy, etc.), it can't be 475 words of history in the lead, it should be less than half that.

My most-recent suggested 2nd paragraph in the #2nd lead paragraph (March 25) section was 180 words. Shorter than the current paragraph, but still too long. Onceinawhile's suggested 2nd paragraph in that same section was longer, just under 200 words.

My suggested 3rd paragraph in #3rd lead paragraph (March 25) was about 180 words, still too long. Nableezy's suggested 3rd paragraph in that same section was longer, over 200 words. Mawer's 3rd paragraph in #3rd paragraph, again was even longer, over 300 words (including bracketed material).

If we are to shorten the history section to make room for other stuff in the lead, we would need to eliminate a lot of detail. For example:

1. We can spend a few sentences, tops, on everything before the country was founded. That means we cannot name every empire (or maybe even any empire) that ruled this land since the dawn of time.
2. We don't have room to talk about changes in ownership of the occupied territories. We probably should somehow combine wars and the territorial changes resulting from them (1948, 1967, 2005).
3. We don't have room to get into the reasons why various people/groups did various things (make a dual obligation, accept partition, reject partition, go to war, etc.).
4. Similarly, we don't have room to go into the reasons that various peoples migrated at various times (fled, exiled, assimilation, displacement, etc.). We need to condense population shifts into a sentence or less for each major shift (diaspora, Zionism, Nakba, Aliyah).
5. Links can do a lot of heavy lifting and save a lot of words.

These are just some of the details that strike me as unnecessary in the lead; I recognize others may feel differently about specific details. But a fundamental question: are we all paddling in the same direction: significantly shrinking history in the lead, so we can add more other stuff? If you've read this far, you've just read 520 words. The lead should be about this length. Levivich (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

One very obvious thing to do would be to calve off everything pre-Zionism into a vague handwave-y statement about the region being steeped in history and having notable significance to all Abrahamic faiths alike as well as totemic significance to the Jewish people, with links to History of Palestine and one of History of Israel/History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Levivich (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I support Levivich’s proposal to make the lede reflect the article. Less focus on the history will make consensus easier to achieve. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Mostly agree, and yes having this much material on ancient kingdoms for a state established in 1948 makes no sense. Ill take a stab at tightening my proposed 3rd para above again. Can probably get it down closer to LV's proposed length. nableezy - 03:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Another 3rd paragraph

On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution and Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence. The next day, a war broke out between Israel and its neighboring Arab states. The war concluded with the armistice agreements in 1949 leaving Israel in control of more territory than the partition plan required and the rest of the former Mandate territory were occupied by Egypt and Jordan, respectively the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. During the war, over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the territory Israel came to control to neighboring countries, with fewer than 150,000 remaining. In the decades after its independence, Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, primarily from the Muslim world. Since the 1967 Six-Day War Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, [including East Jerusalem], and Gaza, along with the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has established settlements in the occupied territories, except Gaza, and effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, all these actions are 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 not succeeded.

1. Exclude the controversial statement "the Arabs attacked", there will never be a consensus for that.
2. No number "five", no "one-third".
3. Exclude "no Palestinian Arab state was created", this is clear from the text.
4. Delete the information about the occupation of Sinai, change the text to reflect only the territories that Israel has occupied since the Six-Day War to the present day.
5. Should we mention "including East Jerusalem" twice?

Some sentences could be rewritten to be shorter, but would have limited impact. Mawer10 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Too long. The Arabs indeed attacked, it's not a question, it's a historical reality that cannot be revised or ignored- it must appear. Additionally, we have to drop the numbers - too detailed for lede. Tombah (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let's put "The next day, neighboring Arab states attacked" and after that we will put "Israel attacked starting the Six-Day War" too. Someone will want to say that Israel attacked as a preventive act of self-defense, and then someone will want to say that the Arabs attacked because... Anyway, this discussion goes far and the result will be "no consensus". As for the numbers, there was also no consensus to remove them, perhaps they could be replaced by percentage data but there does not seem to be a satisfactory one. I think if we were to add one more thing, it would be the fact that settlements are making it difficult for Palestinians to achieve their own state, nothing more. Mawer10 (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

US State history puts it "The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948" (my bold).

Source 4 in lead of 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight gives "more than 80% of the population at the time". Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Mawer10, not an improvement in the least. But more importantly, you are not even allowed to participate in this discussion, since you aren't an extended-confirmed user with 500 edits. I don't understand why nobody realized before. I suggest you to stop before sanctions become necessary. Leave this issue to those editors who are allowed to get involved in the first place. Dovidroth (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Non ecp editors are permitted to participate constructively in talk page discussion but not to edit or to participate in RFC, RM etc. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

So why did you remove this comment? Seems like a double standard. Dovidroth (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That was an RFC, non ecps are not allowed to participate (as I just explained). Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh yeah maybe learn the rules before saying something like that. nableezy - 18:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Dovidroth I am an editor and self-reviewer with more than 7,900 edits and more than 180 articles created on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and I have been editing on Wikipedia for 3 years, although my activity on the English Wikipedia is recent. You can look pt:Usuário(a):Mawer10/Artigos criados and pt:Usuário(a):Mawer10.Mawer10 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"During the war, more than 80% of the Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the territory Israel came to control to neighboring countries". Everyone agree? Mawer10 (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution and Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence. The next day, a war broke out between Israel and the neighboring Arab states. The war concluded with the armistice agreements in 1949 leaving Israel in control of more territory than the partition plan required and the rest of the former Mandate territory were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. Most Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the territory Israel came to control after the war. Since the 1967 Six-Day War Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, along with the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has established settlements in the occupied territories, and effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, all these actions are rejected as illegal by the international community. While Israel has signed peace treaties or normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded.

The level of detail about the Palestinians is ridiculous. Mass Jewish immigration began earlier and is already covered in the 2nd paragraph. Other trimming. Also, could we not create new sections about the same topic so often? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's fine, I would just change the sentence about the expelling of the Palestinians to "During the war, the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the territory Israel came to control". Mawer10 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Absurd downplaying of what occured, for the sole purpose of covering up the ethnic cleansing of a native population. nableezy - 14:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

How is this downplaying? This is just enough information for the lead. The article is about Israel, not the Palestinians or a past war. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The expulsions of the Palestinians is a foundational event in Israeli history. It is much more relevant than the Crusades or any other thing that has no relationship at all to Israel. But how is it downplaying? It doesnt give any idea of how many people that is. It would be like saying "most of the Native Americans were removed from their territory as the United States expanded west". nableezy - 18:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The expulsions of the Palestinians is a foundational event in Israeli history.

No, it isn't.

It doesnt give any idea of how many people that is.

It says "most Palestinians." It's ridiculous to count the number of Palestinians in the lead section of ISRAEL, especially when Jews were never counted in it.

It would be like saying "most of the Native Americans were removed from their territory as the United States expanded west".

There are five words about Native Americans in the lead of the United States: "In the late 18th century, the U.S. began expanding across North America, gradually obtaining new territories, sometimes through war, sometimes through purchase, and frequently by displacing Native Americans." --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The United States has 200+ years of history as a country, and it is not currently engaged in a conflict with the Native Americans. But yes, the article United States likewise downplays the ethnic cleansing of the native population. Id rather not repeat that error here. Im glad your No, it isn't gives this the same consideration and reflects the sources that your arguments have consistently done. Meaning, to be clear, it does not. The expulsion of some 90% of the native population from the territory that would become Israel is a topic that is given a huge amount of weight in reliable sources. This is not a hagiography for Israel, and we reflect notable controversies in our article's lead. Most is not nearly 90% driven from their homes. That is downplaying an ethnic cleansing, and it should not be accepted. nableezy - 21:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No, we won't make this article an essay about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor about the history of Palestinians. This article is about the state of Israel, and its lede requires only a short mention of the most significant events in the nation's history, and many are already missing. The portrayal of the 1948 events as "ethnic cleansing" is of course highly disputed; an opinion held by scholars deeply identified with one side of the conflict. Stating that many Palestinians were displaced during the war would be neutral and sufficient. Tombah (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, did you become the arbiter of this article when I was not looking? This article is indeed about the state of Israel, which would mean removing the nonsense about ancient kingdoms not related to it, but also including the founding of it and its ethnic cleansing of the native population. No, that is not neutral or sufficient, and thankfully we already have a consensus on that, so if you again try to remove it through edit-warring we can see if you are indeed the arbiter of content here or subject to sanctions at AE like any other editor. nableezy - 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"thankfully we already have a consensus on that"

No, in recent weeks, many editors have cut that sentence short and removed the Palestinians numbers. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thats called edit-warring. Not a new consensus to remove. nableezy - 05:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, again

Let's try to build consensus on the second paragraph:

Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions, known as Palestine or Eretz Israel. In antiquity, it was home to [several independent] Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. In later history the Jews gradually became a minority in the area [as a result of the diaspora/as the Jewish diaspora increase/because were expelled or fled the area, resulting in a significant diaspora.]. Several [regional powers/empires] came to control the region:

1. over the course of history, including the [Mesopotamian, Persian, Hellenic,] Roman, Crusader, Islamic/Arab, and Ottoman empires.

1. in antiquity, including the [Mesopotamian, Persian, Hellenic and] Roman empires, followed by the Islamic caliphate, Crusader states, Ayyubids and Mamluks in the medieval period, and the Ottoman empire in the early modern period.

After centuries of persecution, in the late 19th century Zionism emerged leading to increased Jewish immigration to [Ottoman] Palestine, then the vast majority of the population were Arabs. Britain seized the territory during World War I [creating the Palestine Mandate years later] and promised give independence to the Arabs there while at the same time promised give the land to the Jews to build their [independent] homeland. [As the Jewish population in Palestine grew, tensions between Arabs and Jews grew as well, and] unable to deliver on this contradictory dual obligation, Britain turned to the United Nations after World War II, which in 1947 recommended the partition of Palestine [creating independent Arab and Jewish states there] and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Palestinian Arab leadership, [who viewed it as unfair], leading to inter-communal war.

• I think we should include the mention about the creation of the Mandate. What about: After World War I, Palestine was put under British Mandatory rule or Britain captured the territory during World War I, creating the Palestine Mandate years later or Britain captured the territory during World War I formalizing its administration as the Palestine Mandate years later
• I deleted "in order to gain their support" because this is in the context of WWI and Britain promised the same things after the war, in this point of the text the war looks finished.
• I think we should delete "Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic empires" from a list and just name the empires that dominated the region after the fall of the last independent Jewish state in 63 BC.
• Acceptance and refusal of UN plan + "leading to inter-communal war" is wrong. What's correct? Jews started an insurgency? Mawer10 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"The United Nations resolution sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups" is the way the above US state history puts it. 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine is the wl. . Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Mandate for Palestine is the wl to write "After WW1 Britain was awarded the...." (at San Remo conference in 1920. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know enough about these details, but apparently the phrase is supposed to suggest the escalation of a pre-existing conflict, rather than the start of a new one. The article Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine says: "After the UN Partition Plan resolution was passed..., the civil war between Palestinian Jews and Arabs eclipsed the previous tensions of both with the British". Mawer10 (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The Jewish insurgency was against the British from earlier on (44) if that is to be mentioned. The UN Res is not till 1947 and led to civil war (the earlier part of the 48 war). Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

So what should we change exactly? Mawer10 (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Pre-zionism history

Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions, known as Palestine or Eretz Israel. In antiquity, it was home to [several] Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. In later history, Jews gradually became a minority in the area as a result of the diaspora. Several empires came to control the region throughout history, including the Roman, [Byzantine], Arab, and Ottoman empires.

1. Exclude "Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic" empires, and name only the empires after the end of the last Jewish state in 63 BC.
2. Exclude "Crusader", it wasn't an empire. Replace "Islamic" with "Arab" to differentiate them from the Ottomans.
3. Delete details about the causes of the Diaspora.

What do you guys think? Mawer10 (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not just delete everything and replace it by

Israel is a state in the Middle East

? Synotia (moan) 20:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions, known as Palestine or Eretz Israel. Although it was home to several Jewish kingdoms in antiquity, Jews gradually became a minority in the area as a result of the diaspora. Several empires came to control the region throughout history until the Ottoman Empire conquered it in 1516.

The Zionists did not randomly choose Palestine to establish the Jewish state, I think the Jewish presence in antiquity and the Diaspora deserve mention. Mawer10 (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's my stab, very much along the lines of what I proposed here, which basically emphasizes three things: rich history, religion, Jewish angle:

"Israel sits at the southwestern tip of the fertile crescent, which is characterized by a rich civilizational history and a position, since antiquity, as a cultural crossroads contested by rival regional powers and polities. The area has great religious significance in the Abrahamic faith tradition, as the geographical setting for scriptural narratives, as well as totemic significance for the Jewish people as the site of previous Israelite and Jewish states.

This is the type of encyclopedic, top-level, NPOV summary I think we should be aiming for. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

While it can be shorter that what's currently live, it doesn't need to be that shorter. Are 200 years of Crusader rule really not notable enough to be in the lead? Synotia (moan) 19:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Has zero relation with the topic of this article. nableezy - 20:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

How is it any different from the other country articles? Synotia (moan) 20:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Besides the fact that Israel even as an idea was hundreds of years away from the Crusader states? nableezy - 20:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It would make lead too short. I find your previous proposal more reasonable by just naming the rulers:

"...Several regional powers came to control the region in antiquity, including the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic and Roman empires, followed by the Islamic caliphate, Crusader states, Ayyubids and Mamluks in the medieval period, and the Ottoman empire in the early modern period."

Dovidroth (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

A combo could work: "Israel sits at the southwestern tip of what was the fertile crescent, an area characterized by rich civilizational history. Several regional powers came to control the region in antiquity, including the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic and Roman empires, followed by the Islamic caliphate, Crusader states, Ayyubids and Mamluks in the medieval period, and the Ottoman empire in the early modern period. The area plays a central role in the Abrahamic faith tradition, as the geographical setting for scriptural narratives, and holds totemic significance for the Jewish people as the site of early Israelite and Jewish states. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I like your version, but wouldn't make more sense to also mention the Israelite and Jewish states before this series of rulers? If done, the final sentence could perhaps be rewritten as holds totemic significance for the Jewish people as the site of their early statehood to avoid repetition. Synotia (moan) 13:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What about using "Mesopotamian" to refer to the Assyrian and Babylonian empires? Mawer10 (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not bad, but it's a little longer than the two versions I presented before and very different from the consensus that was reached earlier, which basically went in this order:

1) religious significance to Abrahamic religions

2) name the place where Israel is located

3) ethnically Jewish kingdoms in antiquity

4) demographic change [diaspora]

5) many empires conquered the region over centuries until the Ottomans.

And this information connects perfectly with the next sentence: "After centuries of persecution, in the late 19th century Zionism emerged leading to increased Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine, then the vast majority of the population were Arabs". Mawer10 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

First, the order above places too much emphasis on the religious; the history component of the lead should start with a more generic statement about the history. Secondly, I see no consensus for adding haphazard and generalizing statements about the demographics of any ancient populations into this section. Thirdly, it is precisely because Ottoman situation is mentioned in the immediately successive sentence it is not necessary to mention it immediately before, alone among all of the past polities otherwise not mentioned. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Israel is located in a region known as Palestine or Eretz Israel, which throughout history has been controlled by various entities and regional powers due to its strategic position between Asia and Africa. The area has great significance to the Abrahamic religions and was home to several Israelite and Jewish states in antiquity, although Jews became a minority in the area in the 4th century. After centuries of persecution, in the late 19th century Zionism emerged leading to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, then a territory of the Ottoman Empire and with a predominantly Arab population.

What about this? Mawer10 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I avoided referencing specific regional names because one rapidly gets into a WP:FALSEBALANCE debate about Palestine/Israel, not least to mention that 'Eretz Israel' is A) not English (that would be 'Land of Israel'), and B) not a particularly clear geographical descriptor, but a quasi-geographical, quasi-religious descriptor. Not sure why you don't like the fertile crescent reference, since that is deeply pertinent to why the history is long, since that area as a whole is a cradle of ancient civilizations. The broader problems about the demographic stuff, here 'minority' stuff, is this material is not actually referenced in the history section of the article, so introducing it here is not actually summarizing anything and is a violation of MOS:LEAD. There are also holes a mile wide caused by the assumptions inherent in the statement. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought a consensus had been reached on naming the region where Israel is located because the region is referred to as Palestine in the following sentences anyway, although I already imagined that there would be a discussion about the use of the term Eretz Israel alongside Palestine. About Jews becoming a minority I got the idea from proposals in previous discussions, one of the proposals was "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.,". Until a few minutes ago I believed that the list of empires was the main problem, now i'm getting lost. Mawer10 (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

post zionism history

After centuries of persecution, in the late 19th century Zionism emerged leading to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, then a territory [of the Ottoman Empire and] with a predominantly Arab population. After World War I, Palestine was put under British Mandatory rule and Britain promised give independence to the Arabs there while at the same time promised give the land to the Jews to build their homeland. As the Jewish population grew in the country, tensions between Arabs and Jews also grew and, unable to fulfill its contradictory dual obligation, Britain turned to the United Nations after World War II, which in 1947 recommended the partition of Palestine [creating independent Arab and Jewish states there] and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Palestinian Arab leadership, [who viewed it as unfair], [leading to inter-communal war/sparking conflict between Jewish and Arab groups.

How exactly should this be? Mawer10 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Human rights in the lead

Returning to the pending human rights statement in the lead. The just closed RFC re apartheid found a consensus for something about hr issue in the lead but that the language still needed to be agreed. The other RFC (unclosed and archived here) proposed the following sentence:

" 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.

Alternative formulations? Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Looks good. Since space is at a premium, I'd also be fine with shortening "for violating the human rights of the Palestinians" to "for human rights violations". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Accusations are not lead material. And why use the term crime against humanity when it's not used for far worse places like Myanmar, China, or Russia? Those are some insane double standards here on Wikipedia. I've written this prior. This is not gonna help Wikipedia to become perceived as a good balanced source for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Synotia (moan) 18:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternative formulation? Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly also, I checked the articles United States and Australia, new nations built on an incomparably higher amount of skeletons. Just for example, colonizers in Australia committed a perfect genocide against Aboriginal Tasmanians, with the last one dying in the 1870s and the last ones being put on display in a museum like an animal. Until the 1960s they were not legally true human beings, being counted under the fauna & flora section in censuses. Yet none of this is mentioned in the leads, not even a bit. Meanwhile the amount of Palestinians apparently increased 8-fold since 1948?

I am absolutely no supporter of Israel's policies regarding the Palestinians. However I can't help but notice the insane discrepancy in wording between the Israel article and other ones if this passes... what a blow it would be for Wikipedia's credibility. Synotia (moan) 19:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:WAX, and beyond that China says 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. and on top of that has extensive material on what is titled Uyghur genocide within the article. Iran has The Iranian government is authoritarian, and has attracted widespread criticism for its significant constraints and abuses against human rights and civil liberties, including several violent suppressions of mass protests, unfair elections, and limited rights for women and for children. Myanmar has although the country's treatment of its ethnic minorities, particularly in connection with the Rohingya conflict, continued to be condemned by international organizations and many nations. As far as your other whataboutisms, Australia, the US, any number of other settler-colonial states are not currently being accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel is. But again, WP:WAX. Another article being poorly written does not mean this one should be. As it stands, we have a formal closure saying there is an affirmative consensus for material on Israel's human rights record in the lead. That will be implemented. nableezy - 19:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And  Done nableezy - 19:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Israel's human rights record yes. But a term that shows the Armenian genocide when you hover over it? Synotia (moan) 19:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You appear to dislike the term crimes against humanity. It is just a classification for a set of crimes in international law, it includes such things as the deportation and transfer of civilians into and out of occupied territory, copiously documented with Israel, it includes apartheid, again well sourced as something human rights orgs have accused Israel of committing. If your problem is that the term is used by sources about Israel's actions in the occupied territories then you should take it up with them. If your concern is that other articles do not include the term where they should, then go edit those articles. nableezy - 19:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Are the HRVs limited to the occupied territories, or also within Israel? Levivich (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know only Amnesty has accused Israel of crimes against humanity or war crimes within Israel. The other orgs have limited that charge to the occupied territories. nableezy - 19:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Tombah, you need reasons for your edits, and the idea there is no consensus for something requires evidence and reasons, especially given the result of the above RFC. Are you seriously disputing the fact that Israel has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity? Are you of the belief that is not a notable controversy about Israel? If you are not disputing these facts, why are you deleting it? nableezy - 07:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I think they might have meant that there is no consensus for the crimes against humanity bit, as they did leave the human rights violations part. Synotia (moan) 08:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, again, that the accusations exist is beyond reproof. In fact, this is the accusations-lite version. Plenty of sources, e.g. Israel’s Crimes against Palestinians: War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, Genocide or Ilan Pappe's infamous The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine take it several steps further, not to mention the at-this-point very self-evident apartheid accusations. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Not that I dispute the sources. Yet, I believe that including this accusation is inappropriate, not leadworthy, and perhaps tendentious. Unfortunately, numerous nations, including several western democracies, have been charged with war crimes since the early 20th century. AFAIK, the US and the UK militaries have both been charged with war crimes quite recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this is not mentioned in their ledes. We won't use double standards when it comes to Israel, just no. Furthermore, there was never agreement on the allegations of apartheid, and we won't incorporate them now through a backdoor. Again, no. Tombah (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Being charged with ongoing war crimes by the UNSC (United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334), and by the worlds leading human rights organizations is unique to Israel. If you feel the leads of United States and United Kingdom are poor then go fix those. But those cases are simply not in the same league, the amount of coverage that Israel's actions in the occupied territories, nearly permanent since shortly after its inception, pales in comparison compared to the coverage of even the entire war in Iraq does in coverage of the United States. Because that war has not been a defining topic for the US, whereas Israel's conflict with, and treatment of, the Palestinians has been treated as a defining characteristic in sources. Pretending like disparate circumstances must be covered in identical ways is what is tendentious. nableezy - 08:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, for the people not reading WP:CON, consensus requires policy based reasons. Not just claiming a lack of consensus and revertin at will. nableezy - 22:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Getting pretty sick of people reverting for "no consensus" and never making an appearance on the talk page. nableezy - 22:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

We have an established consensus on including the wider human rights situation in the lead. Yes, we dont have a consensus on any particular wording, but the editors that are edit-warring this out of the lead are not even pretending to engage in a good faith discussion about it here. Israel being accused of ongoing war crimes by the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, leading human rights organizations in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel is a noteworthy controversy that per WP:LEAD belongs in the lead. There has been no argument against it besides a lack of consensus, a lack that is demonstrably false given the result of the RFC. I am again returning it to the lead. And if you remove it without comment again Dovidroth I will be reporting it to arbitration enforcement. nableezy - 16:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"and human rights organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity" - This part is not lead-worthy; many countries have been accused of that. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

We have an RFC that resulted in a "clear consensus to include broader wording about the human rights situation in the lead." And now the same users arguing against that RFC are edit-warring out mention of the broader human rights situation in the lead. How would you suggest implementing that clear consensus? nableezy - 05:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

"Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn accusations of human rights violations." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The general human rights violations are not the accusations; those are matters of considerable international consensus, hence the OP's proposed wording: "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 ..." The only real question here is what to put in place of the "..." - since "apartheid" per se is out (although the RFC did precede Israeli law professors concurring on this), that brings us to the question of alternatives. If not "committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.", what else? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thats absurd, that does not address the topic at all. And the users who were all "strongly opposed" and were overruled against consensus continuing to obstruct and edit-war strikes me as textbook WP:TE. nableezy - 14:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani I dont think "at times" belongs, the war crimes are ongoing (eg settlements). Same for the crimes against humanity. nableezy - 17:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree, see 23 March letter from 30 Rapporteurs to ICC re Palestine investigation "Indeed since the Court opened the investigation, many new violations, allegedly amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity, have been committed." Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. Three users who were all strongly opposed to the RFC that resulted in a clear consensus to include material on the human rights situation are simply obstructing the implementation of that consensus, doing everything they can to water down what is already watered down to the point of meaninglessness. ScottishFinnishRadish, I know there was no consensus for any particular wording, but is this sequence really acceptable following that RFC close? nableezy - 18:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I wish that I had the time available to look into this but, unfortunately, I don't right now. I will say that the consensus for inclusion was pretty strong, so those opposed would be better served by working on compromise language taking that consensus into account, rather than waiting for another RFC and ending up with essentially no say in the resulting prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

So we're going to pretend Talk:Israel/Archive 91#RFC re human rights violations in the lead didn't happen? Somebody ping me after the TBANs are issued and maybe we can pick it up from there. Levivich (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I dont see a close there, but I do see one up above at this RFC that established that there is a strong consensus for wider language. Its fine, Ill open a new RFC now. nableezy - 15:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Gruß

I've stumbled upon the German article for Israel and found its introduction a good template to follow, as it also does not 95% focus on the conflict. The main thing I'd do is add about the territories occupied in the Six-Day War.

As a rule of thumb, German Wikipedia articles are usually at least as good as their English counterparts, in my experience, especially in articles about social sciences. Synotia (moan) 13:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Why would English WP want to use a German WP article as a template? Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I personally think its introduction gives a more balanced overview of the topic? Or are you departing from some sort of dogma? Synotia (moan) 14:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The word template distracted me, as long as its just your personal opinion, no problem. It's not my opinion, however. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Perhaps "blueprint" was more appropriate I guess? Synotia (moan) 14:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think thats a terrible lead and have no interest in basing anything in our article off of an unreliable source (meaning any open wiki, including all other language Wikipedias). nableezy - 22:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not mean using it as source; only as a possible model for how to structure the lead Synotia (moan) 09:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I dont believe I said to use it as a source. My comment is related to how I feel that is a terrible lead. And not an example or model to follow. nableezy - 19:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I intended to accomplish this with the lead proposal I provided above. This, in my opinion, comes close to what a fair piece ought to have looked like in a pure, impartial editing setting. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is covered in great detail in the current lede, yet this is only one aspect of Israel that needs to be discussed. It is absurd to characterize a state solely in terms of its conflict with another people. Tombah (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The lead requires that we summarize "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". It's not a debate, its a requirement. characterize a state solely in terms of its conflict with another people is also a gross exaggeration of the actual situation, existing or proposed. Selfstudier (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No, not a good idea. Our articles aren't much chop, and German sister articles no better. They may be as bad as ours, but that is another story. There is reason to challenge the assertion that we can drawn on them for a model, which one may ascertain by reading Aleida Assman's, From Collective Violence to a Common Future: Four Models for Dealing With a Traumatic Past in Filomena Viana Guarda, Adriana Martins, Helena Gonçalves da Silva (eds.) Conflict, Memory Transfers and the Reshaping of Europe Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010 ((isbn|978-1-443-82005-9)) pp.8-23, esp.p.13 which notes a late 80s-early 90s 'pact of remembering' that unites some collective sense of successors of perpetrators and successors of victims of the holocaust, in a way that militates against calling a spade a spade. Germany has a strong record for censuring criticism of Israel, and academics get into serious trouble if they speak their minds about Israel's abuse of human rights. Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Digestible sections

If anyone is wondering what I'm doing, I'm basically checking the section sizes function at the top of this talk page and breaking up the prominently oversized and indigestible sections either by splitting the sections or adding subheads. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit finally slew the dragon and deposed the history section as the top reader-friendly fail. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I've just undone this edit and resurrected the dragon. I'm sorry, but we won't be the first country article to split its historical portion into two in order to shorten it, there's definitely no reason for doing that - it feels really confusing and looks awkward. We have numerous additional country articles that are about the same length. Although I haven't counted the letters, Italy and Greece appear to be somewhat lengthy, as is to be expected from other nations with deep histories and roots that date back thousands of years. And still, these articles' "History" sections haven't yet been split. Tombah (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverted, seems like a much needed improvement, an alternative would be to shorten it and then it wouldn't need to be split up.Selfstudier (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree these sections are a problem on various country pages, especially so now with the new Vector 2022 format which only displays the top level of headers on the left. Greece is another good candidate; I've done that too. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Countries have a single history section. And secondly, the template above is meant to highlight the excessive size issue in order to reduce it, and simply creating new headings is not solving the problem.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Tend to agree but it will do for the time being until the problem is fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Apartheid Israel

Israel articles do not reflect the plight of the Palestinians and does not highlight it's Apartheid regime. It's increasingly becoming difficult to change and add truth do these articles, which is dangerous for the Palestinians who need to be heard. Far right groups and constant riots are taking place in Israel as the coalition government is seeking to remove the courts and dictate, the page has no details of this. 2.27.113.28 (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the country of Israel. The issues with the Palestinians are discussed in other articles, as are the protests and Israeli government. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That comment is about Israel. The idea that the "issues" a country has should be segregated off to ancillary articles is one I have a hard time squaring with our NPOV policy. This is not a hagiography for the world's most perfect country and the shining beacon on the hill for all humanity to aspire to. nableezy - 17:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You're speaking like it is a universal truth accepted by every individual, country and organization in the world, but it is actually very far from that. Israel in fact does not discriminate against people based on their race, and even while the situation for Palestinians living specifically in the West Bank is quite complicated, it is really not apartheid. Yet, it is true that Israel has been the target of several related accusations in recent years; there's a brief explanation of the claims in the section on "Apartheid concerns", below the "Israeli-occupied territories" part of the article. And like 331dot mentioned above, these claims are covered in depth in several other articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Tombah (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh? You what? Israel absolutely does discriminate based on race. Even if all of the laws actualizing the second-class status of Arab citizens of Israel, as also examined exhaustively in the HRW and Amnesty reports and elsewhere, were not enough, the Basic law has enshrined racial discrimination into the very constitution of the country: institutional racism par excellence. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The apartheid thing is disputed. In my opinion it has not reached that point (yet?).

However, the discrimination thing is obvious. In 2018, the Israeli government stopped giving a shit about what color it shows to the world: the white smoke was that law defining Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish people and removing Arabic's co-official status.

And it wasn't all jolly before that: one overlooked thing for instance is that Arab citizens lived under military rule from 1948-1966, needing permits even to just go from one town to another; Jews did not. Synotia (moan) 08:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this a joke? We just had a long RFC on that! This is why I never respond to anonymous IP comments who don't even bother to read the existing talk page. Dovidroth (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Law professors Coalition deal

The below paragraph has been reverted twice in succession by editors Tombah and Dovidroth:

"In a March 2023, a position paper by the Israeli Law Professors' Forum for Democracy, a group of 120 Israeli law professors, stated that recent changes introduced by the Netanyahu government "validate the claim that Israel practices apartheid". Specifically, the group criticized the 23 February power-sharing agreement signed between the Likud parliamentary faction and the Religious Zionism faction granting special authority over the occupied West Bank to the far-right leader of Religious Zionism, Bezalel Smotrich. The law professors argue that this transfer of responsibility to civilian hands is a violation of international law and specifically the 1907 Hague Regulations."

This aspect of the power sharing agreement has also been criticized by the Biden administration, "U.S. officials, however, have warned about the transfer of Israel's West Bank authority responsible for civilian affairs from the military to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. It has called this a step toward annexation." and a Haaretz editorial "In light of the fact that there is no intention of granting civil rights to the millions of Palestinians living in the West Bank, the result of the agreement is a formal, full-fledged apartheid regime."

The constant denial by some editors apparently unable to see past their personal POV needs to stop. The first revert was based on it not having been agreed which is just wrong and the second revert gave no reason for it at all, just silent lockstep with the first revert.

References

Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

So this wayward slide in international law terms is very relevant, and this weighing in of domestic expert legal opinion on the subject, coming from a serious line-up of 120 Israeli lawyers with significant academic stock, seems mentionable. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Classical antiquity

@Tombah: To the crux of this edit, the 8th century BCE is very much Classical antiquity. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This term has more to do with the history of Greece and Greek-influenced civilizations. I wouldn't use it for the history of the Near East and particularly the Levant, which was at the time much more related to the civilizations of the Fertile Crescent and ancient Egypt, and remained so up until the conquests of Alexander in the late 4th century BCE. Would you place the reign of Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II, living in the early 6th century BCE, under classical antiquity too? Tombah (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the term is relevant here, yes. Era boundaries vary by geography and state of civilizational advancement, but classical antiquity is broadly a term used to characterize all Mediterranean civilization, including that of the Levantine coast. The Assyrians are specifically mentioned on that page, not least because they interacted directly with other civilizations of the archaic period of classical antiquity, and for Babylon we have: Nabopolassar and the antiquity of Babylon. We also have the rather topical: "It is not likely that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed all of Jerusalem in 586. To demolish a big fortified city would have been an enormous task in antiquity and also unnecessary." P.8 Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. The "classical" part could be dropped if it is considered misleading. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2023

In the 3rd Paragraph from top, where it says: over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled Israeli territory to the West Bank, Gaza, and the neighboring Arab countries, 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. You should add that Jews were also expelled and didn't only emigrate voluntarily.

I would suggest the line look like this: 260,000 Jews emigrated, fled or were expelled from the Arab world to Israel.

the Wikipedia article on the exodus of Jews from the Arab world itself states that some were expelled Jewish exodus from the arab world Crainsaw (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The expulsions that took place in the Arab world postdated that considerably. Most of the countries actually barred the emigration of Jews at the time. nableezy - 20:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

"allegations" of apartheid

This is a throwback to I think 2006-2007, but there has long been a strong consensus against "allegations" of Israeli apartheid. See the various move discussions at Talk:Israel and apartheid in years past for that consensus. And currently, there is a consensus that the main article be titled Israel and apartheid. Trying to sidestep that with a claim of necessary attribution by calling it again "allegations" is violating that established consensus. The section header should be consistent with the main article title, and that would mean simply "apartheid" as the section title. nableezy - 15:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC on implementation of apartheid RFC

Previously, an RFC was held that established clear consensus to include broader wording about the human rights situation in the lead that was not focused on apartheid. Should that include the sentence Human rights organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.? Nableezy 15:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - Israel is unique in that the UN Security Council has repeatedly, and recently, determined it is guilty of ongoing war crimes (eg United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 passed in 2016 said that the council "Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace") and it further has been accused of crimes against humanity by a number of human rights organizations (eg Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B'Tselem have all accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid.) These are notable controversies about Israel, and per WP:LEAD notable controversies belong in the lead. There are countless sources discussing the accusations that Israel is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the weight given to these controversies in the sources is considerable. Not just news sources every time a new report is issued (eg here or here or here or here or here), or the scholarly sources focused on them (eg here). That Israel has been consistently accused by the international community and by the world's leading human rights organizations or war crimes and crimes against humanity is a notable controversy that has the weight in sources to be included in the lead. nableezy - 15:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Meh A while back I wrote the following to Nableezy (see archive): 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.

Later I've been told that it's not because other articles are poorly written, that this one should be too. Now, I understand that argument, but I still deep down stand by my idea that Israel would be uniquely demonized on Wikipedia; would that be really productive for its credibility on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, considering these topics are still covered on here at length in any case? --Synotia (moan) 16:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Comparisons of criminality based on numbers of dead are distasteful to say the least; levels of criminality tend to be determined as much by the degree of intent as anything else. To the point of proportionality, no other country in the world can boast a military occupation on the longevity and scale of Israel's nor match its drawing night to the same crisis of morality as reflected in South Africa's original sin. As noted here, no other country has 45 UNHCR resolutions to its name. However, these additions need not be unique: why not start some similar RFCs on the Russia and Burma pages? If they sink, you can cry foul. For now, the claim of singling out is speculative. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course there are other such countries - Turkey has been occupying a part of Cyprus for 50 years and the ethnic cleansing there was much more thorough. Alaexis_¿question? 21:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Synotia. 'Israel would be uniquely demonized on Wikipedia'. No. We have a middle ground between 'demonization' and 'euphemization' which consists in simply stating the fact that Israel has been accused of those crimes often by highly regarded investigative bodies. Alaexis. The analogy is patently skewed. Turkey does not hold under occupation the other, Greek side of Cyprus, has not regularly bombed civilian infrastructure and does not conduct nightly raids all over the Greek side, or shoot up Greek Cypriotes in their towns as terrorists.Nishidani (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, they don't do it because there are no Greeks left under their occupation. Alaexis_¿question? 06:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Tell that to the olderly inhabitants of Rizokarpaso. You'll probably need a good dictionary of Cypriotic dialect to understand the profanity of their replies. Please desist from replying if you can't understand what is being said, i.e. an analogy was drawn between Northern /Southern Cyprus and Israel/ the Palestine Territories, and it shows you point was meaningless. Jeezus, does one have to spell out the obvious?Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

According to Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus there were 343 Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyrpus, which is about 0.2% of the pre-war Greek population of Northern Cyprus. On the other hand, 40% of Palestinians live between the sea and the river. This is precisely what I meant when I said that the ethnic cleansing was much more thorough - and recent - in Cyprus. Alaexis_¿question? 09:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No. This was just asked and answered a couple months ago at another RFC, Talk:Israel/Archive 91#RFC re human rights violations in the lead. I don't see any new information since the last RfC, so same answer as before. Repeating this RfC is disruptive, as is trying to edit war the language in. Levivich (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

An RFC that had no consensus is not a reason to oppose a new one. Nor is a talk page a place for complaints about user conduct, if you feel it is disruptive go report it., I hope the closers give this comment the weight it deserves. And yes, there is new information, namely we now have an established consensus that the lead should include material on the wider human rights situation outside of apartheid. nableezy - 16:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No. WP:NPOV. Many countries have been accused "of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

How is this NPOV specifically? Where is the quote "of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity" in the WP:NPOV Chefs-kiss (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No. We should wait considerable time before starting a new RFC per Levivich. This will be violation of WP:NPOV without mentioning the Palestinian terrorism also the lead is already too large and this matter is already discussed in WP:DUE manner anyhow the current wording is too much but I willing to accept it as matter of compromise --Shrike (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No. The lede of this article already promotes a very specific, fairly biased point of view on the subject by framing the whole history of Israel as the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - and continues to overlook the profound effect that Palestinian terrorism has had on Israeli history and daily life to this very day. We don't need to make room for highly disputed claims. Following the previous RFC, this article already mentions that Israel has been charged with violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, and this is more than enough. Tombah (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No per NPOV, Levivich, and Shrike. I would have expected someone proposing the text to include properly weighted sourcing, and absent such don’t see any reason to add. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

See the section Israel#International_opinion nableezy - 00:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes per OP.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No Per WP:NPOV @Nableezy: ffs keep the Israel-Palestine coverage on Wikipedia neutral. Sounding like agenda-based news agencies will only create mistrust in the user reading the articles for the first time on Wikipedia. Moreover, denouncing Israel on Wikipedia isn't going to make it any weaker. Best wishes!! Pg 6475 ^TM 05:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

ffs, please dont ping me again, especially if you are unable to articulate something approximating a reasoned argument. NPOV means including all significant views, and the view of the United Nations (General Assembly and Security Council), International Court of Justice, and the world's leading human rights organizations that Israel has committed and is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity is indeed significant. And "news agencies", regardless of the fake news-esque attempt at critique in calling them agenda-based, are what we on Wikipedia refer to as "reliable sources". But mostly dont ping me. Thanks. nableezy - 05:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I will, and I will keep keep pinging until I strive to make Wikipedia better. Wikipedia was created for knowledge. Not for politics. Pg 6475 ^TM 08:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No, you should definitely not ping editors who are notably on a talk page and who have requested you to desist.Bad manners. The point you tried to made is void of useful argument, since you patently fail to understand NPOV and fail to grasp a very elementary distinction by mashing up POV pushing fake news tabloid sources with RS. We are dealing here with the question of whether or not consistent and repeated references to a feature of Israel's history in highly reliable sources merits inclusion or not. And wikipedia is programmatically opposed to censuring material on the grounds of editors' personal or political distaste.Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Review WP:Harassment then. nableezy - 16:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• No - No other country in Wikipedia has accusations of "crimes against humanity" in lead, which is hyperbolic and WP:UNDUE, specially in this case. Take for example the articles of North Korea, Syria, Russia (its President is looked by the ICC for God's sake!) and China (even accusations of genocide in Xinjiang are not in lead). Dovidroth (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There is virtually no engagement by detractors with the proposition at all, despite having been invited to put forward alternative formulations on several occasions. There appears to be not just a refusal for the specific form of words but for any form of words at all, even though WP:LEAD says "The lead should....summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Are the detractors asserting that well sourced accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity are not a prominent controversy? I also fail to see what the treatment given to other countries has to do with the Israeli case. Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• SupportThe 'other countries are worse and Israel is being singled out' argument is an official meme circulating for decades. There are categories of nations. Israel is a democracy, not a totalitian or third world basket case. In Western terms it is anomalous: a democracy that has occupied another people for 56 years, sacks its resources, colonizes it best lands, closets the target population into bantustans, vaunts the ethnocratic nature of its state, demolished 56,000 houses beyond its borders, and shoots to kill people who exercise their legitimate right to protest at these violent practices by demonstrations on the grounds that throwing stones constitutes a lethal threat to occupying soldiers armed to the teeth.etc.etc- These anomalies that disconcert our expectations that Israel is 'normal' like us are endlessly noted by Israeli /diaspora scholarship, and authoritative NGOs. They are structural features of the state. Everyone editing here knows all this, it constitutes a section of the page and per WPMOS has to be summarized in the lead. As selfstudier says, y'all have to come up with an alternative to the phrasing objected to, which crisply captures the gist of these endemic accusation. And the euphemistic waffle about some generic phenomenon of 'allegations that Israel has abused human rights' is pointless. Please try to productively find a solution, rather than trust that numbers will paralyse any change.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the political essay. It was almost convincing. But keep in mind that this is Wikipedia, a site created to spread knowledge, not political agendas. No, we won't utilize the platform to evaluate a country using the standards an editor has just invented. Tombah (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes There are four types of crime prosecutable at the ICC, aggression, genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The latter two are subject of RFC. War crimes refer to crimes committed in the conduct of an armed conflict and there are 10 mentioned subtypes of crimes against humanity, see Quigley .

Quigley discusses "persecution", one of the ten, as alleged by HRW and reported by the BBC, among others. Apartheid is another of the ten regardless of whether the word itself is used and accusations by major human rights groups have been reported on extensively,

The 2022 US State report on human rights for Israel states (this source is generally supportive of Israel):

"Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings; arbitrary or unjust detention, including of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories;restrictions on Palestinians residing in Jerusalem including arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, and home;substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and association;arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative;restrictions on freedom of expression and media including censorship;harassment of nongovernmental organizations;violence against asylum seekers and migrants;violence or threats of violence against Palestinians and members of national, racial, or ethnic minority groups;and labor rights abuses against foreign workers and Palestinian workers."

That covers several others of the ten cases which along with accusations of war crimes are simple to source. Israel received a letter from the ICC briefly laying out the three main areas the investigation will cover: the 2014 Gaza War, Israeli settlement policy and the 2018–2019 Gaza border protests.

The conclusion must be that accusations of crimes against humanity (without specifying them even though we perhaps should) against Israel are notable and a major topic of controversy in the case of Israel and therefore required for the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 21:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• No it's absurd to be singling out Israel for accusations of human rights abuses, when numerous other countries have no such wording in their articles. You can reply to this with "other stuff exists isn't a valid argument" but it is obvious to any reader that the wording makes Israel seem worse than every other country in the world, which clearly is not a NPOV relative to any other country. Countries more than 10x to 100x the population of Israel that have oppressed millions more people and commit plenty of war crimes, accused by many of "crimes against humanity," have nothing about that in their lead, and it is misleading to readers to feature that here when it is featured no where else on the Wiki. Bill Williams 22:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes: Not particularly extraordinary information - pretty much the bare bones in the context. I have waited for some cogent no votes to emerge, but none have. Opposers crying 'NPOV!' have no case. NPOV means NPOV with respect to reliable sources, and the proposed text is that Israel has been accused of a litany of sins, which it surely has; I don't see anyone providing sources that countermand the notion that it has been accused of these things. There is no NPOV case to be made. The whataboutist voters should go take their complaints to the other country pages. Accusations of war crimes in the Russia lead, genocide in Burma, ethnic cleansing in China, etc. are all perfectly valid. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• No, clearly over the top and sensationally worded with crimes against humanity. It is also absurd to single out Israel for such a sentence when countries with far worse records, do not have this. This is lacking weight and neutrality. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• No I prefer the current phrasing "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians." While the proposed phrasing is less ideologically charged than apartheid, and I do not think the current phrasing is perfect either (much, though of course not all, "international condemnation of Israel" is simply due to applying a double standard), the proposed phrasing unduly emphasizes two specific controversial charges. To be clear, there is evidence that Israel commits war crimes, but so do many countries. The phrase "violating the human rights of the Palestinians" is more inclusive of the various human rights abuses committed by Israel, encompasses a wider range of commentary on Israeli practices, and less ideologically-charged. Thus, it is a much clearer case to make that there is DUE, NPOV criticism of Israel for "violating the human rights of the Palestinians," a phrasing I would support, than for those two specific changes. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• No (summoned by a bot) Mention of "accusations" of war crimes in the lede is simply UNDUE. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per the OP's reasoning. Regarding WP: NPOV a lot of people saying it violates it but not explaining in what way. It would be nice for people to elaborate precisely what about NPOV they think is violated. It is simply giving more context. To quote 'Avoid stating opinions as facts' however the proposed text is 'Human rights organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity'. It is not stating as fact. The proposer has also added tertiary sources to confirm their statement as well as academic sources. However I do agree that perhaps its better to wait for a while before another RfC is done. Chefs-kiss (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• No. There is violence on both sides. This matter is too tangled to just sum it up in a lead sentence. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - I was on the edge but after reflecting on it I believe it may be actually applicable to include that sentence as it reflects the allegations made by the respected human rights organizations. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

ancient history

None of the material in the ancient history section is relevant to a state founded in 1948, this is not an article on the history of the Jews and Judaism. We have that article, History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. But none of it relevant to the modern state of Israel. And since you all like pointing to other articles so much. United States, founded in 1776 with hundreds of years of relevant history (basically from the Mayflower) and covering an area ~450x the size of Israel, goes from ancient to modern in three paragraphs. The earliest relevant empire for this article is the Ottomans, and then the advent of Zionism. This would be like a biography of Nableezy beginning with Nableezy's great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather's first sexual encounter as the beginning of the history of Nableezy. It makes zero sense except as an effort to establish that this really really really REALLY REALLY is the now and forever the homeland of the Jews. That is not the purpose of this article. And Dovidroth, kindly dont remove maintenance tags without consensus, it is disruptive. Especially given how persistent the back and forth on the history section has been. nableezy - 16:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You cannot compare with United States as no European state existed in America. Israel case is unique in this regard and many sources connect the ancient Jewish states with modern state of Israel so it clearly WP:DUE to include and removal is violation of WP:NPOV Shrike (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thats just assertion. What is the relevance of the Canaanites to the modern state of Israel? What sources connect those topics? nableezy - 19:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Tend to agree also the lead is too long. I think this suggestion that was made before is better:

"Israel is located in a region known as Palestine or Eretz Israel, which throughout history has been controlled by various entities and regional powers due to its strategic position between Asia and Africa. The area has great significance to the Abrahamic religions and was home to several Israelite and Jewish states in antiquity, although Jews became a minority in the area in the 4th century.״ Qplb191 (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

We are not talking about the lead here. nableezy - 20:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

My bad , but anyway, the things you said are also true for lead. There is really no connection between that and modern Israel, only if you want to prove that Israel "only belongs to the Jews" Qplb191 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Really? Okay, try removing the Phoenicians, Arameans, Assyrians and Babylonians from the pre-19th century history of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq; classical period Athens and Sparta from the article on Greece; and any mentions of the Roman Empire from the articles on Italy and other countries along the Mediterranean, and the UK. Make it quick, and don't forget to remove any mention of Amon, Moab and Edom from the article on Jordan. Oh, and why are the pyramids and pharaohs included in an article about Egypt yet that area was dominated by foreign empires for 2000 years prior to Egypt's modern incarnation? Do me a favor, modern Israel has many more cultural ties to ancient Israel and Judah than Jordan will ever have to Moab, or modern Iraq to ancient Babylonia. Apologies, good faith and everything, but there is no other explanation for the blatant, repeated efforts made by some users here to delegitimize Israel by pushing POV edits. This needs to cease right away. We are destroying Wikipedia's reputation, and wasting everybody's time in the process. Tombah (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

April Fools' Day was 9 days ago, so this is a bit too late for this joke. No, we won't remove Israel's ancient history from this article. The same goes for Greece, which discusses Classical Athens and Alexander the Great, and Italy, which discusses the Roman Empire and the different empires which came to rule the peninsula. These are historical events and polities that, despite existing thousands of years before the modern states, have significant connections to them, and are important part of their history. Same about the history of ancient Israel and Judah, and no, it is irrelevant that parts of their territories were located in what is known is the past 75 years as the West Bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombah (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Once again, you are not the arbiter of this article. What sources connect these topics? And yes, of course it is relevant that much of what happened in the section is outside of Israel, as this is, once again, an article on the state of Israel, not a history of the Jews and Judaism in all of historical Palestine. nableezy - 20:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I won't waste my time explaining the obvious. If you really wish to read more on the subject, you can start with the Israeli Declaration of Independence. And what exactly is 'historical Palestine'? You seem to be employing politicized, non-academic words. Tombah (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ha!!!! See Palestine (region). That is a hall of fame worthy comment lol. But absent sources directly connecting random ancient kingdoms to a state established in 1948 and first imagined in the late 1800s it will be removed. nableezy - 22:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The whole history section is a mess and the why of that has been explained ad nauseum. The expression "historic Palestine" gets over 600K hits in Google. I won't waste any more time explaining the obvious because WP:IDHT and all. Selfstudier (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Which means what? By the way, you probably meant 122,000, mostly from non-academic (ideologically charged) sites. C'mon, this is getting ridiculous. Tombah (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"About 615,000 results (0.64 seconds)". Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You forgot the quotation marks. Remember: we're searching for the phrase as a whole, rather than individual word hits. Tombah (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

With quotes, duh. Teaching granny to suck eggs. Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

How about the 1.3 million scholar results for "Palestine" vs the paltry 79k for "land of israel"? Get off it, you want to pretend like Palestine is not the commonly used academic term for the territory you spend your time on you can pretend that, but I dont have to play along in that fantasy. I ask again, what sources connect any of these ancient kingdoms to the topic of this article? nableezy - 23:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

We were discussing the term "Historic Palestine", not "Palestine". You're welcome. Tombah (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and throughout history "Palestine" has been the common English term. See this ngram to demonstrate the point. And Ill thank you for not purposely misquoting me, I said "historical Palestine", not "Historic Palestine". Please be more honest in your comments than erecting strawmans rather than arguing against what I actually wrote. nableezy - 14:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The Hebrew/Israelite civilization was the main civilization in the Palestine region in the post-Canaanite era until the 1st century AD. The connection between modern Israel and the ancient Jewish kingdoms is the fact that Israel is an artificial recreation of these Jewish kingdoms. Ancient Hebrew civilization is linked to the existence of modern Jewish ethnicity and nationalism, and the latter are linked to the creation of modern Israel. Mawer10 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

That isnt true, or at least the latter bit. But again, what sources connect these topics? What sources that discuss Israel give that much weight to ancient kingdoms? Sources please, not personal opinions. nableezy - 00:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you having a laugh? Why is the state named Israel? Why is Jerusalem the capital? Why is the menorah on the nation's emblem? Why were the terms Judea and Samaria and other ancient Hebrew toponyms revived? Even the coins show motives used in coinage of the Great Jewish Revolt and the Bar Kokhba revolt, along with inscriptions using the Paleo-Hebrew script, including the word "Yehud", slogans used by Jewish rebels, and other symbols prevalent in Jewish art in antiquity. Either you're asking editors to prove 1+1=2 just for amusement, or you're so ignorant about the history of Israel that a topic ban might be necessary... Tombah (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

We dont operate on personal feeling, to avoid synthesis the sources on a topic must relate to the articles subject. Lots of countries invoke a nationalist mythology so that their population is distracted from their racist and colonial origins. That does not make that mythology itself relevant to the state. Again, what sources connect Canaan to the modern state of Israel, first even imagined in the late 1800s? If you cannot answer that, with sources and not personal feeling based on superstition, then the material should be removed. nableezy - 14:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if you'd read the Etymology, you'd know that it was almost called a host of other things, including Ever, Zion, and Judea – 'Ever' would have been more appropriate really, since it's where the government works to ensure that everyone lives happily Ever after heedless of the consternation of the international community. But everything is more broadly named after ancient things because of a persistent nostalgic mimicry of course. Everything has been intentionally branded to conjure up the past. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, Yahwist but not Jewish? Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. But more importantly, the history section of a country's article always deals with important events that happened in that land, even a long time ago. This article has information about non-Jewish history as well (the Persian-Byzantine wars, Arab conquest, Crusades, the Ottoman period, etc). This whole discussion seems pedantic and totally dishonest, not based on any wiki policy. Dovidroth (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe you don't if you can't tell the difference, but the comment was deleted to avoid getting into it. For project-based reasons as to why this material needs sensibly rationalizing, please see the reality check below. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Foundational to Israel's being. Israel was founded as the Jewish homeland, in Israel, the historic homeland of the Jews. It is 1,000% relevant. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sources decide that, not random people on the internet. Im going to be removing the stuff that fails WP:SYNTH. People who restore it will need to provide sources that do not fail our policy on original research. nableezy - 20:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This thread is just a deranged rant by an anti-Israel activist. The ethnic, geographic, linguistic and religious roots of the State of Israel are in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources connecting Canaan to the state of Israel. nableezy - 03:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do ancient people need to play any part in creating a country thousands of years later? The lead includes notable information on the history of the location, not just the modern government. With that logic we should remove every indigenous or minority group or previous civilization from the lead of every country article if they didn't play a part in creating the country, even though they played a history in the location of the country itself. Israel didn't pop into existence in an area where nothing previously happened, the region was inhabited for thousands of years by various groups of people who formed numerous civilizations. Bill Williams 13:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have no clue why this argument has any relevance to this article, considering how the lead of Greece has an entire paragrpah nearly all on millenia old history, while the lead of China has an even longer paragraph on a much more detailed history of centuries old dynasties that didn't play a part in the founding of modern China. The same applies to numerous articles, and it's pretty obvious that Nableezy is targetting Israel specifically... Bill Williams 00:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Ive asked you several times to follow WP:NPA, please dont make me ask you at AE. I dont edit Greece or China. And this isnt about the lead. And Israel is not the continuation of an uninterrupted civilization spanning millennia, so spare me the irrelevant WP:WAX. nableezy - 03:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to state that you believe we shouldn't include history in the lead of this article that is included in dozens of other countries' articles, I think that cutting out history from this article doesn't make much sense to me when it exists all across the Wiki. What does "uninterrupted civilization" mean in this context, it's not like people just disappeared and stopped inhabiting it at some point, and do you think Greece and China and numerous other examples were run by the same government for thousands of years? Bill Williams 12:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

To say I am "targeting" anything is absurd. I have never edited the China article. I have zero interest in dealing with another topic in which nationalistic editors filibuster material on logically inconsistent grounds. I already do that with too much of my time tbh. This is a topic I am interested in and well enough informed in to edit competently. And yes, it is a personal attack. Stop talking about me, the end. If you cannot then yes I will ask that you be made to. As far as uninterrupted, theres a reason why the the history section skips past thousand of years of Arab and then Muslim rule. Its because it is focused on creating this narrative of now and forever the Land of the Jewish People. Whatever is inconvenient to that narrative, including that much of the history discussed in that section is focused on a territory outside of Israel, is ignored. nableezy - 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Why would we take our cues from some of the worst country pages out there? These are both C-class articles - for sure, they're drowning in irrelevant bloat. There are exactly 10 featured articles-class country pages, which you can peruse here. Germany devotes exactly two sentences to pre-modern history in its lead, reflecting just 2,700 words of history in its body. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Germany didn't have much notable history from thousands of years ago, so that isn't a reasonable example. Those articles might not be great, but every I'm stating that numerous countries that have had notable civilizations for millennia and that belongs in their lead. Egypt has an entire paragraph in the lead of what happened centuries or millennia before the modern country existed, as does Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and numerous other countries with significant history. Why should this article in particular not mention the notable history of the region? Bill Williams 12:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, I provided Germany as an example of a "featured article-class country page", as opposed to Egypt, which is a C-class mess. Japan, another featured article, has extensive history, but only 1,500 words in its history. I believe Nableezy's principle point here is that the ancient history is overweighted and undue, and that's true. Somehow this article does fine summing up 1,000 years of medieval history in less than 300 words, but the preceding 1,500 years (pretty remotely distant history at this point) sits above 900 words. Do the math. Even allowing for a certain degree of nationalistic latitude, does that seem properly weighted to you? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The best featured article in that regard is Japan, which manages to sum up 32,000 years of pre-history and history in 188 words. Anyone with an average knowledge could, editing, easily bloat that out to ten times that size, by citing really core things not mentioned, like the Yayoi and Kofun periods. Fortunately editors preferred the crisp laconicism favoured by FA reviewers. There seems to be no interest in driving this to good article status let alone FA. Nableezy's point is cogent. Israel was established in 1948, and its prehistory goes back to 1882,1895, when Zionist movements took shape which, when implemented, gave rise to the state of Israel after half a century. That itself is an extraordinary achievement, whatever one's POV.

The problem arises when editors try to ground the rationale of that state in the particular story of events that, leaping 2000 years, gave rise to the Israeli kingdoms in the early Ist millenium, and under the Hasmoneans - the prior 3 centuries of autonomous statehoods established in that territory. They do so, understandably, because an asserted continuity with the ancient period exists with the modern reality in the charter myth of Zionism. But Israel is not a 'successor state' (Toynbee) of the Israelitic Northern Kingdom and Judea. It is the brainchild of the characteristic nationalism of modern European states applied to the Middle East, and as such, as with every other European state, the core problem it faces is to decide whether the heuristic model for its future is to hew to its immediate European parent model, or cleave to a piece of engineering that will reforge it in terms of the analogies of Israelitic and Jewish history prior to 2,000 years ago. Editors who oppose expansion basically subscribe to the former view, and the POV used reflects a postwar eurocentric reading of history. The editors who opt for the latter idea of the state as a redemption of the ancient status ante quo before the ills of the diaspora set in (as the story goes) exhibit a POV that affirms Israel's essential continuity with the examples of nationalism exhibited in the reigns of Kings David and Solomon, Judas and Jonathan Maccabee, Hyrcanus et al. The past, we all know, is another country, and Jewishness is an immeasurably vast, greater historical story spanning millenia, not to be straightjacketed into the political realities of some centuries in the past, or the past 75 years. They should not be confused, nor ineptly conflated by trying, as only poets do, to pour a sea into a thimble.* Do so, in historiography, and you only get doggerel, like our lead.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

One never knows, someone mighty object to my nanoscoping Italo Calvino's glass metaphor and accuse me of a shaky memory. La poesia è l'arte di far entrare il mare in un bicchiere/Poetry is the craft of getting a sea to fit inside a drinking glass).Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Reality check

For those that think a country page's history section should be an endless homage to the pre-modern past, think again. The actual WikiProject Countries guideline is for the History section to contain 4-6 paragraphs of text, that's total, for all eras. Now, while that might be unduly conservative, not a single featured article-class country page contains more than 3,000 words of history total. The history section here is 6,000 words. The precise reason why "History of X" pages exist is to avoid the over-elongation of concise entries on modern countries. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I can go with this. In terms of modern Israel, it really doesn't matter which cities were destroyed in the Late Bronze Age collapse, or how exactly Rome came to dominate the area. But whoever chooses which details to delete is likely to do so in a highly biased manner, and this needs to be subject to debate and consensus. Ar2332 (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 Thank you for this entirely reasonable contribution to this discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think for such extensive change we need an RFC if such change is warranted if the community will think it is we need a second RFC to understand what to delete if it all --Shrike (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

aka WP:FILIBUSTER. nableezy - 14:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not a guideline, which is clearly stated at the top, by the way, but just an outdated essay by someone. No country has nearly as little as "4-6 paragraphs" of history, of course. But what needs to be trimmed first here is the over-detailed "British Mandate" section. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, so the one part that needs trimming is the most formative period for the modern country? Hmm. Not sure that totally checks out - that's the most instructive and viable part of the pre-1948 history. Balfour, Irgun, etc. - all pretty key. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Declaration of independence

• Israel's declaration of Independence: ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books. 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. Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. ... Israel's very founding in grounded in the Jewish history of the land. Couldn't be more relevant. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You're badly confusing national myth, a.k.a. the political form of origin stories, with history. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The two aren't mutually exclusive. While inevitably idealized (or "over-dramatized," as the Wikipedia article says), national myth can certainly be history. In fact, the most effective national myths tend to be those grounded in historical fact. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. Apart from considerations that wiki is an encyclopedia devoted to established articles on a factual grounding, myth and history are antonyms. I'm reminded that Nishida Kitarō tried to challenge the principles of Aristotelian logic by asserting the absolute identity of opposites.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:IJDLI

@Tombah, @Shrike: Come on then people. Just shitting out the words 'undiscussed' [20] and 'without consensus' [21] doesn't actually mean anything unless you actually specify what you think requires discussion and/or consensus. I mean, both of those edit summaries are essentially the working definitions of WP:BRNOD, so unless status quo WP:STONEWALLING in a contentious topic area is your intent, I expect to see some fully elaborated explanations of exactly why a dozen edits are being mass reverted pretty soon. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah: So it's been three days now and I'm still awaiting that explanation, unless of course this silence is your silent consensus that you actually do not have a valid explanation for the entirety of the mass revert that you didn't look at very hard. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2023

In the official languages section of the infobox please change 2 things:

• Official languages → Official language (as there's only one official language)
• Make Hebrew link to Hebrew language not Modern Hebrew, as the overall article on the language should be linked. For a similar example, in the United States infobox, English links to English language, not American English

Thank you, and please notify me in your reply with {{ping|CityUrbanism}}  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

According to the BBC, the (frequently described as racist) Nation State law "ascribes Arabic "special status" and says its standing before the law came into effect will not be harmed." Idk what that means however. Anyone? Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

What that means is a debate to be had, but I think the request can be partly implemented, since Arabic has a separate field in the infobox and would not be affected. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: @CityUrbanism: I updated the link, but the wording cannot be changed here, because it's part of the {{Infobox country}} template. If you want, you can ask the folks maintaining that template to include an option for a singular official language at the relevant talk page. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm I believe singular official language works in Template:Infobox country. See Spain.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 22:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right, there's a workaround. Fixed! Actualcpscm (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm Thanks for your work.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

The United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel on March 25, 2019. --> The United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel on December 6, 2017.

The date the United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is in December 6, 2017, not March 25, 2019. March 25, 2019 is the day the United States officially recognized the Golan Heights.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel-capital.html WAccount1234567890 (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I was going to request an edit to this article in 'United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel', but I did it here by mistake. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Done there instead. Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)