Talk:Israel

This should be corrected

Gaza is no longer occupied by Israel, but the infobox shows it as occupied.

Parham wiki (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This is why I say that the current depiction of the map of Israeli territory is invalid. I think the current Wikipedia is not neutral at all because it does not depict the actual facts. Mahawijaya Wisnuwardhana (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Neutrality is especially important considering the situation currently, and we are talking about territory here. Xradicon (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That Gaza is considered occupied is clearly sourced in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Gaza's consideration as occupied territory is disputed in mainstream accounts. Zanahary (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Majority sourcing considers it so and current "boots on the ground" is proof positive of same. Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Capital

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

---

the limited recognition as Jerusalem should be removed. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel it is a fact. All govt functions are based there.96.81.123.61 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Limited recognition means that a limited number of countries recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Only 6 countries recognise it, and two of them qualify it as West Jerusalem, so the tag is definitely valid. Whether the government functions from there or not is irrelevant to external recognition. AryKun (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Limited recognition designator with regard to the capital of Israel being Jerusalem should be removed. There are nine UN countries that officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, not six. They are: Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo, and the US (https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/22/middleeast/jerusalem-vote-united-nations-list-intl/index.html). However, this is again inconsequential as other countries do not decide where a sovereign nation can or cannot place its seat of government. "Limited recognition" here is inappropriate. That would be like Great Britain deciding to tell Ireland that Dublin could only be given "limited recognition" as multiple territories in that area have been the subject of generational armed conflicts for centuries. 141.126.64.83 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Sovereignty over Jerusalem is disputed, technically it is a Corpus separatum and there are many UN resolutions declaring any change to character of Jerusalem as illegal and void. Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You make a fair and valid argument. Too bad these biased left wing moderators and editors are unable to see past their inconsistent logic 2604:2D80:4302:5D00:180F:D46B:E8FC:1BBB (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The place were the govt functions are based and were the capital is are not automatically the same thing. For example the Capital of Netherlands is Amsterdam but the Government is in the city of The Hague. Switzerland's government is in Zürich but it doesn't have a capital. Bolivia had it's government functions based in La Paz, but the capital is Sucre. Also the UK very much recognitions Dublin as the official capital of Ireland, as far as i could find every single official UN member-country recognitions Dublin as the official capital of Ireland. Atomicegalewing (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter who recognizes it. The govt functions are there. Too much anti-semitism is being allowed on this page.2607:FB91:D7F:4B67:20B3:3087:CDD:7C91 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

proper neutrality and factual truth for encyclopedic purposes is not anti-semitism (and neither is anti-zionism but that's a different story), stop mending the definition of words to hide the truth.

it's simply true, there is limited recognition on the proclaimed capital of israel by a significant number of countries - 28 in fact - and that's worth noting in the encyclopedia, just as how it's worth noting that palestine's capital also being proclaimed jerusalem has limited recognition too - by about 55 countries - check both pages if needed, they both have 'jerusalem' with '(limited recognition)' next to it. ballads^one 22:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as the capital, it is where the National Govt is located. That is aNational Georgraphic refrence which has a lot more basis in fact than the opinion of the socalled international community. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/capital/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unselfstudier (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

International recognition is not a requirement for the capital designation. This is just more of the holding Israel to a different standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.7.174 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please show another article about a nation that has a dispute over its capital, where that nation is treated differently. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 19 September 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.

Admin note: The following user comments and debates represent Wikipedia user views and do not discuss empirical verification or cite specific issues with documented citations. Both users suggest bias but do not cite specific portions of the full entry. Contested historical events may and should be cited with competing sources, but the users do not do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MandelaKingFanon (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is not neutral

Clearly the text mainly talks about the “crimes” of Israel, I’m sure when you go to a Wikipedia page about the US you don’t see the stuff they did first thing in the article, and they did a lot. 2001:4DF4:308:3A00:C431:A077:A2BB:D2A0 (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The US page may have the wrong balance, although it certainly mentions slavery. Not mentioning the only historic use of nuclear weapons on civilian populations is a bit of an omission though. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

As usual, concerns about 'Israel's wrongdoings' are both way out of sync with the reality, scope and context of the actual situations, and they consume far, far more of its general description than wikis of dozens of countries who are truly, consistently and endemically awful human rights abusers with problems that are worse by orders of magnitude in terms of scale, brutality and normalization by sanction of policy. Wikipedia is in general a purveyor and amplifier of misinformation, division and hate, and little more. 208.98.222.25 (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

WP is not a forum for your personal opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The lack of parity with the articles for other countries is at least in part because Israel is not simply the name of a country. It is also the name of the site of significant international political turmoil and in some ways an active war zone. The idea that its representation in an encyclopedia should be identical to that of a country significantly less embroiled in conflict misses this fact. This is not just an article about the nation as a political entity. It is also about the land it claims and the things that happen there. It is also about the people that reside there and the things they have done. Anything less is deceit in the form of reductionism. ZephyrCubic (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss concerns about the United States article at its talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Don’t be dishonest. They’re identifying an inconsistency across pages. Zanahary (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

And they should go to Talk:United States to address those inconsistencies or start a broader discussion at WP:VP. Bringing up inconsistencies means little without proposals for action. Thanks for your views. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The implication is that the crimes ought to be de-emphasized in the Israel lede. Not that the U.S. article ought to have its crimes emphasized in lede. Zanahary (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would this be the correct course of action? De-emphasizing the crimes of any state is a disservice to the people who suffered them as well as to people who wish to learn about them. Sophie (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Because I am evil. I am the evil Wikipedia editor and I make changes to the project to mess with victims of state crimes. I'm covered in hair that is not mine. Zanahary (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

[Comment removed per WP:ARBECR].

Perhaps so but please make sure you comply with WP:ARBECR before commenting further. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment

The IP user is correct if they indeed identified an inconsistency in how different nations are treated with regards to crimes against humanity mentioned in the lead section. Inconsistencies between how Israel is covered and how comparable nations are covered in comparable situations, especially in the Middle East, is indeed inappropriate and constitutes a double standard, which is unacceptable. However, this alone doesn't justify either downgrading the mentions in this article or upgrading the mentions in the US article, if no consistent standard is yet defined or can be applied. To prevent this discussion from going round in circles, I suggest that

(a) editors stick to relevant policies and guidelines. If no consistent policies/guidelines exist, editors should not make up standards on the fly but discuss the problem of standards centrally, at the appropriate place in Wikipedia. The talk section of this article is not an appropriate place.

(b) all editors remind themselves that these are controversial topics, and that Wikipedia oftentimes suffers from Anglocentrism (because many sources and editors have an Anglo-centric viewpoint and bias; this includes a US bias), which means a comparison between the leads of Israel and the US or Great Britain is especially inappropriate, due to potential double-bias problems. A more apt comparison would be the lead sections of, e.g. Turkey or China.

(c) inconsistencies are pointed out specifically, with examples, in the form "page A mentions X but page B doesn't mention Y, even though these are comparable". TucanHolmes (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you strike your suggestion of antisemitism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarified my point. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing the word and replacing it with a link to an article on antisemitism is no better. I could just as well argue that the double standard is anti-Arab. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you appear to have a bone to pick. So lets pick it: I did not just [remove] the word and [replace] it with a link to an article on antisemitism, my aim is to put the IP user's issue with the article into context. So yes, the suggestion of secondary, Israel-focused antisemitism remains. That's why I immediately qualified my comment by adding point (c) to make clear that if demonstrable instances of a double standard can be found, the situation should of course be resolved; but that the discussion can and should proceed only on such a factual basis, and not on the basis of a vague "but other articles". I do not understand why you have a problem with that, and I also do not see how this is anti-Arab. I am well aware that this definition of antisemitism is also weaponized to silence criticism and critics of Israel, but that is not what's at stake here. This is about how we cover, in the lead of an encyclopedic article, the complex geopolitical history and human-rights situation (to put it mildly), as well as the current status (de jure and de facto) of the territories of Israel and Palestine, referencing the history of crimes against humanity, as well as past and present conflicts. This current conflict as a whole has a simple, evidently colonial core (resistance to Zionism), with a complex, tangled, muddied web of additional factors on top (religion, racism, imperialism, ...). This is all a lot to cover, but it is also not much more complicated than other national histories involving a lot of crimes against humanity. We should neither heighten nor downplay the c.a.h. of Israel relative to those mentioned in the article leads of other nations, because heightening them could be construed as antisemitic, just as downplaying them is rightfully construed as anti-Palestinian/Islamophobic. Israel is of course not a country just like any other country, but so is Northern Cyprus or the PRC, or Northern Ireland for that matter (no, I do not want to open that can of worms). Covering these entities and conflicts – especially in a neutral way – is never easy.

See, this is why I insisted on only discussing this issue on the basis of demonstrable instances of a double standard. Otherwise, ours are just empty words, theoretical follies, completely inconsequential, leading us nowhere, in circles. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No bone to pick. But thank you for the clarification. I still have a problem with the paragraph linked to. I'll look at that entire article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I am slightly confused, why is Israel referred to as having universal suffrage?

Can those in Gaza and the West Bank vote in Israel's elections? I think perhaps there should be some clarification here on what is meant by universal.

If they cannot vote, then I can't see how that claim is true unless you adopt a tautological approach that everyone that can vote in Israel can vote.

The British Empire never had universal suffrage, for example, even when British men and women could vote, since Indians never had seats in the British parliament. 2A02:C7C:37B8:BF00:F493:27E1:7A05:6758 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What matters is not our own interpretation of who can vote in Israel, but what independent reliable sources describe as who can vote. If the sources provided say that Israel has universal suffrage, then thats what we say. If the sources are in error, that needs to be taken up with them. If the sources are not being accurately summarized, please detail those errors. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The picture is certainly more conflicted in reliable sources than the page previously prevented, and given this, I have clarified the discussion around this and removed the wikivoice claim in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The comparison to the British Empire is flawed at best, and that actually goes to the root of the question regarding Israeli universal suffrage. Gaza and the West Bank (outside of East Jerusalem) are not considered part of Israel by either the international community (which doesn’t recognize East Jerusalem either) or Israel itself (which, outside of East Jerusalem, does not officially or legally consider the West Bank or Gaza as part of Israel itself, individual Israeli citizens’ opinions not withstanding). Israel has only annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem (international recognition of such annexations also notwithstanding). US citizens in Canada can vote in US elections, but Canadian citizens in either the Canada or the US cannot. The definition of universal suffrage regards the extension of the right to vote to the citizens of said country, and not those who are not citizens. While the Palestinian Authority has chosen to not hold elections since 2006, Palestinians were able to vote in those elections, and Israeli citizens living in the West Bank were not. Which makes sense, since those Israelis living in settlements in the West Bank were obviously Israeli citizens and not Palestinian citizens, and thus rightfully should not have been allowed to vote in Palestinian elections. This is where your comparison to the British Empire breaks down, as Britain ‘’did’m formally and legally annex those territories of the Empire, but did not extend the right to vote in those annexed territories it legally considered to be a part of the British Empire. It may seem a small difference, but it is an important one specifically for the discussion of suffrage. I would add that Arab-Israelis (Arabs who have Israeli citizenship, constituting about 1/4th of Israel’s population), including those who call themselves Palestinians, do have the right to vote in Israeli elections. They have political parties and, when winning enough votes, representatives in the Knesset. In the government immediately preceding the current one, an Arab party was even part of the ruling coalition. So, yeah, is it a sticky issue that depends very much on specific legal issues? Absolutely, but the same is true in most countries with “universal suffrage,” including the US (with issues of access to voting locations, eligible voter list purges, those convicted of felonies that have served their sentences still being extra-judicially denied the right to vote, etc). There are other topics of human rights where these specific legal principles likely do not take precedent, but in the issue of suffrage, they do. Universal suffrage is the right to vote among all citizens, not those without citizenship. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

All Israeli citizens above 18 can vote. No matter what their gender, religion, orientation etc. is... You can refer to Knesset Election Law. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

All Israeli citizens above 18 can vote. But who can become a citizen? Palestinians are not allowed to return to their homeland, despite UN declarations, and become citizens under the Law of Return. Permanent residents who are not Jewish and not already citizens cannot become citizens without swearing that it is a Jewish state. The definition of Jewish is complex under the Law or Return excluding many who believe they are Jewish but not orthodox or of mixed religions. This is not as simple as your one sentence. Hence the confusion of universal suffrage. Of course we will still go by RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: The sentence you're restoring is not "well cited" as it gives a broken link. And it misleadingly suggest that some Israelis can't vote, and introduces a fringe description of ethnocracy, while most reliable sources call Israel a democracy. I also believe that you violated the remedies by reverting me twice. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The link isn't broken. It is behind a paywall on that site. It can be found at [1] and citating literature (141 cites) can be found at [2]. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel Studies is available on JSTOR as well, which you can access through the Wikipedia Library. You can access it here if you register for the library access. The quote is on page 261 and is as follows:

settlers remain fully enfranchised Israeli citizens while their Palestinian neighbors have no voting rights and no impact on Israeli policies that control their own regions. This has somewhat changed following the Oslo agreement, although most Palestinian residents and lands in the territories are still under Israeli control to various degrees.

Also, two consecutive reverts are counted as one, so no I did not violate a thing. Read WP:EW for further explanation on what a "revert" is. nableezy - 15:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is given undue weight in the article. This is far from being a scholarly consensus, and now most of the paragraph just restates this particular article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Bald assertion with no evidence. nableezy - 20:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Undue in the sense of what exactly? The scholarly sources are insufficient? You would like to see more? The disparities raised here are widely broached in sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a due weight issue. Now the position of those who "question" whether Israel has universal suffrage has a disproportionate weight in the section. One article is definitely not sufficient. Alaexis_¿question? 06:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be an exaggeration for there to be an article on whether or not Israel has universal suffrage. A paragraph would suffice. Israeli citizens above 18 have the right to vote. Palestinians above the age of 18 have the right to vote for their own government (although there haven't been elections for several years). Homerethegreat (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The point is Israeli settlers in the West Bank get a vote on who manages the Israeli occupation of the West Bank while the Palestinians in the West Bank do not get a vote on that. nableezy - 14:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Did Israeli settlers vote in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election? As far as I am aware, they did not. That the Palestinian Authority has not held an election since then is an issue to be taken up with them. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The settlers arent governed by the PLC, Palestinians are governed by the Israeli Civil Administration, therein lies the difference. nableezy - 14:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That's quite a generalization. Hamas, as far as I am aware, governs Gaza, and at least within Area A of the West Bank, the Palestinian National Authority is the governing body. So no, you cannot make the blanket statement that "Palestinians are governed by the Israeli Civil Administration." We aren't living in 1985. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The source is talking about the West Bank, and yes all of the West Bank remains Israeli-occupied and is under the authority of the Civil Administration. Yes, the PNA has some responsibilities, ones that can and are usurped at will by the Israelis. And the source is post-Oslo. nableezy - 15:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose you need to correct several other articles here, then, because that is not what is reported on Wikipedia at all. Also, aren’t Palestinians in Gaza still, you know, Palestinians? —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a good place to start would be a paragraph at Elections in Israel about suffrage? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

All the personal opinions aside, do reliable sources say that Israel had universal suffrage or not? To the best of my knowledge, they do. Jeppiz (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The reliable source cited in the article says otherwise. Again, here (Wikipedia Library link). nableezy - 14:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Which is already in this article in the section regarding criticism of the status of universal suffrage. So... what are we discussing here? Seems NPOV is well established as the article is currently written on the topic. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Somebody removed it. Then it was restored. nableezy - 15:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

So again I ask, what are we discussing here? —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

Several editors are trying to make the overblown lead shorter, so I want to remind that the most recent and extensive discussion about what should be in the lead was in March and is spread across several archives: 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98, but I don't see it implemented. It should be continued from there to finally shorten the lead. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note that some of the information presented is inaccurate and liable to be misinterpreted. For example, Israel has disengaged from Gaza in 2005. Furthermore, the second paragraph seems to deal much more with the Palestinians than with Israel's development. Of course there is place to speak of the Israeli-Arab conflict, yet it doesn't define Israel.

Indeed, one must assume that the deifinig features of that era for Israelis is the transition from a Socialist Economy in which Agriculture and industry were the main economic engines into a Free Market economy in which the Service sector and High Tech industry now play the major role.

Furthermore, I find it astounding there is no mention the Great Aliya/immigration from the former Soviet Union into Israel, another defining moment.

I therefore must insist that the lead is not ample and unbefitting and does not reflect or teach one regarding Israel's development. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip is still considered occupied territory under international law, so this is irrelevant. Perhaps a note on Gaza's disputed status could be included in the text, but I don't see that as so important. Mawer10 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Creating consensus

“ Israel is located in the southern part of the Levant, a region known as Palestine – the biblical Land of Israel or Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea. The region was conquered by many regional powers before coming under Roman rule, during which Jews became a minority in Palestine. In the medieval era, the Arab conquest established caliphal rule. The region was contested during the Crusades, but returned to Muslim control and remained so until the Ottoman defeat in World War I. After that, it was placed under British mandate by the League of Nations. In the late 19th century emerged Zionism, a movement advocating for the reestablishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Under the British, Jewish immigration to the region increased considerably, leading to tensions between Jews and the Arab majority population. After World War II and the Holocaust, Britain turned to the United Nations, which in 1947 recommended the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states, sparking a civil war between the two peoples. The British ended the Mandate on 14 May 1948, and on the same day Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence.

On 15 May, rejecting the partition plan, armies of neighboring Arab states began entering the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The war concluded with an armistice in 1949 leaving Israel in control of more territory than the partition plan had called for, and no new independent Arab state was created as the rest of the former Mandate territory were occupied by Egypt and Jordan, respectively the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs from Israeli territory to neighboring countries, leaving fewer than 150,000 within Israel. Over the next two decades, Israel absorbed approximately one million Jews who emigrated or fled, primarily from the Arab world and Europe. Despite a rapid population increase, Israel managed to survive and consolidate its territory and economy. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has established settlements in the occupied territories and annexed both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, actions the international community rejected as illegal. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalized relations with several Arab countries, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved as peace efforts have failed. The Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories is the longest in modern history and has drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians.

”

I propose adding the text above to the introduction. Excluding notes, hyperlinks, and references, it has 2,862 bytes compared to the previous version's 3,273 bytes. I've highlighted some points in the text that could potentially be discussed. As for the information it provides, I considered inputs made in the article's edits and on this discussion page. Mawer10 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The Balfour Declaration need to be brought up as well, in my opinion. Leaving it at "Under the British..." is too vague IMO. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

After that, the League of Nations assigned the Mandate for Palestine to Britain, which declared its support for the reestablishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. The declaration aligned with the goal advocated by the Zionist movement, which had emerged in the 19th century. Under the British, Jewish immigration to the region increased considerably, leading to tensions between Jews and the Arab majority population. Good this way? Mawer10 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10: Apologies for the delayed answer. Yes, sounds good to me. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment on apartheid charges

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 was a request for comments in which editors discussed whether or not to include the accusations of apartheid against Israel in the lead section of this article. An initial tally of the opinions expressed by editors in this discussion would indicate a large numerical majority for editors opposing inclusion. However, examination of the comments reveals that a number of comments are either not relevant in the context of relevant policies and guidelines, or employ reasoning in conflict with said policies and guidelines. Taking this into account, the sides now appear quite evenly matched.

Amongst these comments, the ones in favour of inclusion tended to argue from the prominence of these accusations in the body of the article, and that they therefore should be summarized in the lead; opposers employed a variety of arguments, including comparison to other articles, comparison to other tertiary sources, NPOV, a need for contextualizing the information that the lead does not allow, and also the relative prominence of the information within the body. All considered, after discounting clearly irrelevant comments, there was a rather even split of voices for and against inclusion, and on the policy-merits, neither can be said to have been so unambiguously right or wrong to declare a consensus here. Thencefore, in the present rfc there is no consensus either for or against inclusion.

During the rfc, Nableezy laid forth another proposal that focuses on crimes against humanity in general, rather than apartheid specifically. This proposal attracted interest from participants on both sides of the discussion, but no wording concrete enough to attain consensus was achieved. I suggest interested editors continue working on this idea in light of the arguments presented at this rfc.

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Is this additional sentence in bold to be added to the lede an accurate summarization to the body's apartheid section?

Main argument for its inclusion, MOS:LEDE: lede is a summary of the body, including any prominent controversies.

"Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories, the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including the accusation that the state is committing the crime of apartheid." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Warning for closing editor users with pro-Israel viewpoints have been canvassed en masse to this RFC specifically. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If the sentence is preceded by "have drawn international condemnation for," then it would be poorly phrased because it might suggest that the international community (i.e., international organizations like the UN and a significant number of countries, especially important ones) has accused Israel of this crime. I could be wrong, but as far I know, this is not yet the case. Mawer10 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10: I understand and sympathize with your point; and thus have removed "international" to make it less restrictive. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree with @Mistamystery 1000%. EytanMelech (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose An accusation doth not a crime make. Appropriate for the body, not the lede. The current “international condemnation” line is sufficient and neutral to the point. The apartheid accusation has plenty of territory in the body of the article, and on other articles focused on the topic. Wholly inappropriate imo to put in the lede. Mistamystery (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We already had an RFC about this less than six months ago and the result was not to include the apartheid accusation in lead. If you want to change that, you need to wait and then start another RFC on the same subject, although I think it was pretty clear the general consensus was against it and there's no reason to believe it has changed since then. Dovidroth (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, that RFC was never even closed, so I'm not quite sure how you are determining consensus there. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Plus this is a different phrasing. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That there is "plenty of territory in the body", as noted above, is the principal reason why, as noted below by O3000, it should be in the lead, which is expressly a summary of the contents of the body, per MOS:LEAD. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: This is 100% the single-most notable claim and controversy regarding Israel at this point in time. It is such a notable complaint that the Israel and apartheid page is overflowing with content. There is also ample reference to it here, on this page, in the summary of the child article. Following the most basic principle of proportionality and what is due in the lead based on the contents of the page, per MOS:LEAD, the 200 words on apartheid on the page account for roughly 1.2% of the total volume of readable prose on the page, which would be equivalent to 8 words of the 660 words in the lead, which is not far off what is being requested. And again, that is before one even considers the notability of the controversy in question and the 12,000 words on the child article. Notable controversies are to be included in the lead, per MOS:LEAD, and this is obviously a notable controversy. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Without the context of the peace negotiations that started in the 70s, peace treaties with neighboring countries, various agreements, and a multitude of offers and suggestions - the term "longest" is a misinterpretation and even misleading the thought of the reader. I may also be perceived as a bias that violates the NPOV and erode the trust of the readers to receive a well rounded picture.
2. Palestinians and other that don't allowing Jews into the Jewish historical Holy Lands is in deed a Palestinian Apartheid against Jews, which is worse than the definition at the article Apartheid as a system of institutionalised racial segregation, but still even more worse when Jews are posed with danger of life in Palestinian areas. Nothing like that exists in Israel, neither the sovereign Israel nor internationally accepted boundaries of Israel, or any other definition you'll come up with.

TaBaZzz (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What is your source for Palestinian Apartheid against Jews? O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

None of what you said negates the main argument; that the lede is a summary of body including any prominent controversies. "Palestinian Apartheid against Jews" is unsourced. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. I oppose both the wording of the sentence as you suggested it for the lede, and the inclusion of the said details in the body. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose.

1. A disproportionate amount of the lead section is already devoted to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which does not provide a balanced overview of the state. Israel, as a nation, encompasses much more than this conflict, and it is essential that the lead reflects a more holistic representation of the country. While it's undeniable that the conflict is a significant aspect of Israel's current situation, and the lead has ample coverage of this notable controversy, there are myriad other facets of the nation that should be elaborated upon to provide a well-rounded introduction.
2. The suggestion to feature accusations of apartheid against Israel in the lead, which remain as yet unproven allegations, are essentially used as no more than a pejorative and derogatory term. For a balanced portrayal, it is imperative to provide due weight to other dimensions of Israel's geopolitical, cultural, and societal landscape.
3. Moreover, a comparative analysis with other articles such as USA and UK, where similar accusations of imperialism and state-sponsored terrorism respectively, have been made, yet are not featured in the lead sections of their articles, underscores a potential inconsistency in editorial approach. This inconsistency may inadvertently lead to a biased representation, which is against the principles of a neutral point of view as stipulated by our guidelines.
4. Other, reputable sources such as Britannica [3] and CIA world factbook [4] do not use the word 'Apartheid', and for a good reason.

Marokwitz (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Google Israel in any given year and you will find nothing but articles on the conflict, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Actually, they are not accusations, but I have included this as a concession, these are reports that have conclusive findings after decades of research. When USA and UK have sections dedicated for imperialism and state-sponsored terrorism, you will find it in the lede, since the lede, is simply a summary of the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Support Something in the lead, per WP:LEAD, to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies", that this is a prominent controversy is not in any doubt, this RFC notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - @Marokwitz makes very fair points. I'd advise to read them. Indeed, one must pay attention to how major trusted encyclopedias such as Britannica and the CIA world factbook refer to this topic. They indeed DO NOT use the word Apartheid.

Most countries, especially countries recognized as Free and democratic do not accept or claim that Apartheid is happening in Israel. Furthermore, other countries with discriminatory practices towards minorities such as China, Russia, India etc. do not have Apartheid in their lead.

Furthermore, countries with well known discrimination against minorities such as Iran, Turkey, Iraq (against Christians, Kurds... etc.) do not have Apartheid in their lead.

Therefore, it seems only logical that Israel which most countries (especially democratic countries that adhere to human rights) do not claim that Apartheid is occurring there should not have in its lead the word Apartheid.

On discrimination and Racism in international indexes such as [5] ,[6],

Let's be as professional as possible on this topic and act in accordance to for example: Freedom House, or follow the lead of Britannica and the CIA World Factbook. I must say that this is incredibly important in order to ensure that Wikipedia remains a trusted encyclopedia.

I recommend reading the Freedom House Report [7] Homerethegreat (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion here is about whether this statement in the lede reflects the body content accurately. Your arguments revolve how apartheid in Israel, which has a dedicated Wikipedia article Israel and apartheid, doesn't exist. You are fighting problems irrelevant to this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read once again my comments. I'm ascertaining that in accordance to rankings regarding discrimination against minorities Israel does not rank in a place that is reflective of the need of the use of this terminology. One would expect this word to first be brought up in regards to discrimination against Christians in several Muslim countries, discrimination against the Uyghur Muslims by China etc.

Please refer to international data. I believe that FREEDOM HOUSE is far a better expert on Freedom than most of the panel here and therefore I refer you to read their passage. There is no use of the word Apartheid. Please refer to BRITTANICA etc. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Freedom House is funded by the US state department and is nowhere near to be as reliable or comparable to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations. You're arguing against existence of apartheid, which is not the main discussion here about how accurately this sentence in the lede reflects the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

To put things in perspective, Gal Ariely (2021). Israel’s Regime Untangled:Between Democracy and Apartheid. Cambridge University Press. gives a full description of the competing descriptions of the Israeli regime on page 1 of Chapter 1 "Israel has often been considered and classified as a democracy. In his classic study Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries, Lijphart (1984) included Israel in the category of “clear and unquestionable cases of democracy” (38). Ever since then, however, scholars from a range of disciplines – sociology, geography, philosophy, history, and political science – have been challenging Israel’s status as a democracy. While many still regard Israel a democracy (see Arian et al. 2003; Neuberger 2000; Yakobson and Rubinstein 2009), some have questioned the verity of this classification, suggesting that Israel is an “ethnocracy” (Yiftachel 2006), a “herrenvolk democracy”(Benvenisti 1988), or an “apartheid regime” (Davis 2003; Greenstein 2012; Pappé 2015). Between the two poles of democracy and non-democracy, others have classified Israel as a type of diminished democracy, labeling it an“ethnic democracy” (Smooha 1990), “illiberal democracy” (Peleg 2007), “hybrid regime” (Harel-Shalev and Peleg 2014), “Orthodemocracy” (Giommoni 2013), or a “theocratic democracy” (Ben-Yehuda 2010)." So the naysayers were on the rise when this book was written and which is prior to the HR/Amnesty and other reports of recent date. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

But that's just it, there's massive disagreement, as you yourself have pointed out. The case is enough to have mention in the article, but that level of massive disagreement, doesn't pass the level for lede inclusion. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said below, if one believes Israel is a democracy, there is nothing further to be said. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

First, that's not what you said below, second, you literally cited other sources yourself saying that it is a democracy, so clearly there is disagreement with your viewpoint on that. Are you sure that you have the objectivity to be part of this discussion? You seem to be making this about me as an editor and not about the topic of the article. I would again ask you to strike your comment. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDYOU Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

{{{1}}}

I have cited sources and policy, I see nothing wrong with that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You have no cited sources in the diffs I just showed you, and you violated the very policies that you are claiming. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, the first convo I initiated was with a source and the second with a quote from policy. Downhill from there. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Cite the source saying that I personally do not believe this to be a prominent controversy. Otherwise, strike the comment that you yourself have said was at least "perhaps" a misunderstanding of what I said. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that you do believe it to be a prominent controversy? It would be good to have an answer to my question, although it's not obligatory. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the first point raised by Marokwitz. I would argue that the status of Arabs in Israel itself is more prominent for the introduction than the accusation of apartheid, which is widely used to refer to the status of Palestinians in the occupied territories. The introduction already informs that their human rights are violated and settlements are being built on their land. Israel's status as a Jewish ethnocracy essentially relegates 20% of its citizens to second-class status. Mawer10 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and Close the request. This RfC was already conducted less than a year ago: Talk:Israel/Archive 97. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  A discussion that closed with no consensus regarding any specific wording. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  That was the same RfC, asking if the lead should include accusations of apartheid, and the conclusion was no. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to the international and accepted definition of Israel's governance, which is a Unitary parliamentary republic and recognized as free by Freedom House.[8] The use of the word Jewish ethnocracy reflects a POV. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not a particularly unusual or even minority POV; it is essentially the same thing as saying "Israel is a racist state", which has been a popular conclusion ever since the voting in of the extremely widely decried as bigoted Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, so much so that the US House felt compelled to counter it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Highly disputed accusation by partisan sources. No other country currently accused of apartheid has such a thing in lead. Dovidroth (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: And exactly how many of those other countries have a dedicated, substantive page on said apartheid accusations akin to Israel and apartheid - apart from the whataboutism of this, it's apples and oranges. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

China has some pretty lengthy sections of article text on their treatment of Uyghurs, but it is not mentioned in the article lead. Considering that China is accused of setting up internment camps with up to a million people in them, and credible accusations of organized forced sterilization, sexual abuse, and forced labor, yet none of this is in the article lead, I don't think this is entirely "whataboutism." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If you think that's a prominent controversy that ought to be mentioned in the China article, then go edit that article. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article. It just isn't mentioned in the lede. Possibly due to the similar issues we have here over how contentious the accusations are on an international level. I'm not calling for removal of content here anymore than I am there. I'm opposing a change being made here. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposing a change being made here Based on the China article. Which is not an argument about whether something should be in the lead here. Do you agree that it is a "prominent controversy"? Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Enough to be mentioned in the article, but too contentious and overly partisan to put in the lede, which elevates it to a more defining quality of the state itself. I do not find it universally accepted anywhere near enough to do that, no. Thus, I am not calling for its removal from the article, but opposing it being put in the lede, which is a similar treatment being done in other articles with prominent controversies. To use the China article again as an example, the events of Tienanmen Square in 1989 are mentioned in the lede, and outside of China itself, are near universally recognized to have happened as described by the international community. The same cannot be said here for this article. WP:WHATABOUTISM does not mean that we cannot use other articles to illustrate a point that we are trying to make. I'm making an argument about the issue here, and using another article as an example point, but not as a precedent. To quote, "...an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."--OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If you don't agree that it is a prominent controversy, there is nothing more to say. Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

That's an outright dishonest characterization of what I said, and I would ask you to strike your comment. Literally my first seven words in the post you just responded to call out your response as dishonest, false, and bordering on WP:NPA. Assume good faith, and that people are responding to you honestly, and do not lie about what they have said. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I asked a straightforward question, Do you agree that it is a "prominent controversy"? and the reply indicates not. Perhaps I misunderstood. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how an answer of "enough to be mentioned in the article" can possibly be construed as saying "no, not at all." Furthermore, you are making this about me as an editor and not the topic being discussed or how it is characterized among reliable sources and international acceptance. I am asking you again to strike your comment. You did not "perhaps" misunderstand. Whether intentional or not, you have twice now made defamatory comments directed at me. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, WP:AVOIDYOU. Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Then sue them for defamation in a real world court or take them to a noticeboard. This is not the venue to be making vague legal threats in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support Many organizations/countries vociferously claim apartheid and many vociferously deny. That makes it a prominent controversy that belongs in an article summary. One of the arguments here opposing is The apartheid accusation has plenty of territory in the body of the article, and on other articles focused on the topic. Wholly inappropriate imo to put in the lede. That would seem to be an argument supporting inclusion in a summary, not exclusion. Kinda like saying there is so much text in the cows article about cows that there is no need to mention cows in its lead. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support, per Iskandar323--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some good arguments have been made before (there was a recent RfC, general state of human rights in Israel, other countries that are accused of apartheid not having it in the lede). There is no reason to single out this particular accusation of human rights violation. Consider China, despite the accusations of apartheid against the Uighurs, we (rightly) only mention the overall state of human rights in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Again, the case of the Uyghurs is a red herring. The famous accusation there is of a Uyghur genocide, not apartheid. There is not a 12,000-word page about Uyghur apartheid akin to Israel and apartheid. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Besides the fact it is whataboutism. Different articles are different O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, the lead for China does mention the man-made Great Chinese Famine, and it should mention Uyghur genocide very briefly.VR _talk 11:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The accusations of apartheid are based in legal and technical language, but they also carry strong echoes of the South African apartheid. While there are similarities between the Israeli and South African situations, there's a distinct context to be recognized. Given the need for a better contextualization, it appears more appropriate to keep these accusations in the main body of the article. In fact, these accusations primarily pertain to the situation of Palestinians in the occupied territories, not Israel proper, within the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At this point, the privileged status of Jews in Israel proper that led the country being accused of ethnocracy seems more relevant to add in the introduction, which gives to the reader a better understanding of the country and an initial insight for why is it being accused of apartheid. Mawer10 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The actual conflict is already given prominence (probably excessively) in the lede and highlighting these particular politically motivated charges that are part of the propaganda campaign to delegitimized Israel as part of this conflict would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Note that no other country facing allegations of apartheid, however, substantial it may be, mentions this accusation in the article's introduction (see Allegations of apartheid by country -- China, Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the United States; it is of course, mentioned in the lede of the South Africa article, where it is undisputedly recognized as having been practiced, i.e. isn't only an accusation,). Chefallen (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  No other country has a page like the 12,000-word "Israel and apartheid". Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Most of the countries you list do have their most serious allegations in the lead. For example, the lead for Sudan says "widespread human rights abuses, including torture, persecution of minorities, alleged sponsorship global terrorism, and ethnic genocide in Darfur from 2003–2020. Overall, the regime killed an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 people." The lead for United States mentions its slavery. North Korea's lead says "The country is widely considered to have the worst human rights record in the world."VR _talk 11:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Weasel words and unbalanced. Ar2332 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  From MOS:WEASEL: "[so-called weasel words] may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." WillowCity^(talk) 00:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I would oppose if more words than this were being proposed or if it were inserted in an unduly prominent place in the lead, but this is a concise and due summary; I don't see the problem. We are not saying in our voice that the allegation is correct, but simply relaying an important debate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is a prominent area of controversy and relevant to any encyclopedic discussion of Israel in 2023. At the time of writing this comment, the body of the article includes the word "apartheid" 7 times: approximately the same number as "Canaan", and more times than "OECD" and variations of "normalize" (i.e., normalization of relations with Arab states), all of which are mentioned in the lead. The MOS:LEAD is clear: we include "any prominent controversies". A single clause in a single sentence is not undue. The proposed sentence does not pass judgment, but points out an accusation and presages further discussion (i.e., exactly what the lead is supposed to do). I could continue to reiterate points that other editors have made (more eloquently) above, but I think the point is made. WillowCity^(talk) 00:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. MOS:LEAD is cited heavily as supporting the inclusion of controversies, but my response is that the particular sentence is footnoted with do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. The salient issue here for the closer is whether or not this particular accusation is prominent. I don't believe it is. No other major encyclopedia treats the "apartheid" accusation as prominent enough to include in their own leads. This is important, because the closer shouldn't be judging what controversies are prominent based on secondary sources, they should be judging based on tertiary sources. Tertiary sources are the only kind of sources that evaluate the relative prominence of different subtopics to a broader one, as they summarize the agreements/disagreements within a broad field. Right now, the only tertiary sources given (Britannica, World Factbook, Freedom House) don't consider the specific accusation of apartheid to be relevant. United Nations resolutions are primary sources, by the way. And Amnesty Intl believes in the destruction of the Jewish state. [9] It's a pressure group with an ulterior motive. Not a reliable source.

I should also point out that this isn't any kind of accusation. The crime of apartheid is defined by the accusers as a crime against humanity. We can and should compare this case to other cases in which a country was accused of crimes against humanity. This is something done by other oppose !voters, and all of the other examples do not have specific criminal accusations levied against them in the lede. "Genocide" is not mentioned in our articles on Myanmar or China. The subject of racial tensions is not even mentioned in the lede of our article on the United States. No mention of segregation in the United States. Adopting the proposal above would be applying a standard to Israel that no other country in the world is currently subjected to on Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hard to see how the topic here is a "less important controversy". The point about tertiary sources might have seemed reasonable, if it hadn't been followed up by the attempt to smear Amnesty, when what the director in question actually said is that Israel shouldn't exist as a racist state, in the context of it's passing of a racist nation state law, which, ironically, is one of the very things that has helped cement its status as an apartheid state. And then we have the usual whataboutism. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Bold take that doesn't change the fact that Amnesty international is a non-neutral pressure group which has been confirmed at RfCs at WP:RSN (global consensus!). [10] Even if you agree with their goals about Israel (your opinions that Israel's nation-state law makes it an apartheid state is irrelevant), they're still an active party to the dispute over Israel being an apartheid state. They don't get to decide that their own opinions are prominent by the word & intention of the policy. That has to be done by neutral tertiary sources. You've more or less acknowledged "tertiary sources" is a reasonable standard because your only justification as to why it isn't is because I supposedly smeared Amnesty as in your view Israel really is an apartheid state.

And "whataboutism" doesn't apply to extracting principles from quality articles on Wikipedia. The amazing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains better than I can that comparisons are valid when made with articles that have been through previous discussions, because it gives an understanding of what principles most of the encyclopedia run under. Not every recent controversy is important enough to include in the lede of an article about a nation with a 2000+ year history. The use of the word "apartheid" is a relatively minor segment of the overall debate over Israel, given our dozens of articles on the broad subject of the Israel-Palestine conflict. [11]

If you want a better compromise I would propose to include something like how Israel is defined as a nation-state for the Jewish people. That's something Britannica acknowledges in their lede, and in your view has helped cement its status as an apartheid state. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Are we reading the same RFC at RSN and the global consensus that Amnesty is indeed a generally reliable source but also that it is biased against human rights abuses? And no, the crime of apartheid is not defined by its accusers as anything, it is defined by the Rome statute as a crime against humanity. That phrase seems to engender an emotional response, but it is just a class of crimes under international law. And no, Amnesty is not an active party to anything, they are definitionaly secondary to what they are reporting on. Amnesty International "believes in the destruction of the Jewish state"? Wow lol, hell of an interpretation of ‘No I don’t believe that Israel should be preserved as a state in which one race is legally entitled to oppress another’. That sort of hysterical and nonsensical reading of a comment opposed to racial subjugation doesnt make your argument stronger. nableezy - 00:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Go read comments at the RfC and you'll see plenty of people other than yourself calling it an advocacy organization. And he pretty clearly said in representing Amnesty's views that We are opposed to the idea — and this, I think, is an existential part of the debate — that Israel should be preserved as a state for the Jewish people. As an advocacy organization, it advocates that Israel is bad and shouldn't exist as a Jewish state. They have a point of view. They don't get to decide that their own point of view is prominent. They're the people who put out a report calling Israel an apartheid state. Using that report (or any books on why Israel is an apartheid state) as evidence the controversy is "prominent" is circular reasoning. You need to provide sources that give a broad overview of Israel and acknowledge prominently the apartheid controversy.

I think your comment would be better if you said why we shouldn't focus on tertiary sources, rather than zeroing in on Amnesty Intl and calling my comment "hysterical and nonsensical". I would like to know if you agree with emphasizing tertiary sources.

In response to what you said about whether or not apartheid is a crime against humanity, you haven't really addressed the actual point I've made which is whether or not we should compare it against other allegations of crimes against humanity. If apartheid is on the same level as genocide we should look to examples of other countries with high quality articles that have been accused of genocide and check if they include this material in their lede. Our article on Canada doesn't mention genocide of the indigenous in the lede despite being a featured article. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they advocate for human rights. And yes, they are generally reliable. Your own source says O’Brien reportedly said in a luncheon with the Women’s National Democratic Club in Washington and then says My exact words were as follows: ‘No I don’t believe that Israel should be preserved as a state in which one race is legally entitled to oppress another’ and The rights group official added, “Amnesty supports the right of the Jewish people and Palestinian people to self-determination.” You can keep pretending like the source actually supports what you claim, but that is not true, and people should know it is not true. Yes, Amnesty criticizes human rights violations by Israel (gasp!). That does not make them a primary source on those human rights violations, they remain secondary to what they are covering (and reliable). You can pretend that means it advocates that Israel is bad, but that is likewise not true and people should know it is not true. Our article on Canada, or the United States, or Japan, are largely hagiographies that dont discuss things that they should, but also Canada is not accused of actively committing genocide or any other crime against humanity. So, no, that isnt anywhere close to analogous. You could say China or Myanmar or some other states accused of active crimes against humanity, but, as always, another article's faults dont mean this one should be poorly written as well. As for why we should not be emphasizing tertiary sources, well because WP:SOURCETYPES tells us we should prefer secondary sources. We are the tertiary source, or task is (largely) to summarize the secondary sources. nableezy - 00:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of fabricating the quote in [12] there's not a lot more I can say. He denied he said it, but anyone can click the article and see that exact quote in the third sentence.

Re: Canada, a govt inquiry concluded that Canada committed genocide. [13] Go read WP:OSE (which you linked) and you'll see that comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case. Canada is an FA. Canadian Indian residential school system is an FA. The Canadian House of Commons unanimously agreed that system was genocide. I'd like to know why this isn't analogous, because it's a controversy not included in Canada's lede.

In terms of emphasizing tertiary sources, those are the sources that determine if a controversy detailed in secondary sources is prominent. I can find hundreds of secondary sources on almost any aspect of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's our task to summarize secondary sources, but when the summarization itself is controversial, shouldn't we be following reliable tertiary sources that know more about summarizing secondary sources? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, anybody can, and they can see that the source only says that he reportedly said this, not that he did. And beyond that, so what? So what if somebody does not believe in an ethnocracy? Why is that relevant? Its misdirection, an ad hominem, and also completely irrelevant. As far as Canada, I believe you missed the point. Nobody is accusing Canada of actively committing genocide now. It is history, not present tense. So it is not analogous to this accusation of what not just Amnesty but HRW and Btselem and UN agencies and experts and scholars and and and have said about an ongoing crime against humanity being committed in the present tense. And no, your bit on tertiary sources is simply not true. You dont know Britannica's, or any other tertiary source, editorial policies on these topics, and you also are not in a position to judge its own biases. We aim to proportionally describe significant views as our editorial policy, not mimic some other tertiary source. nableezy - 01:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree entirely with nableezy. Canada is not relevant, nor other examples of bad behavior in past history. Different articles are about different things. Older tertiary sources are not summarizing recent secondary sources and we prefer secondary sources anyhow. Amnesty is considered generally reliable for facts. It is an excellent source for such determinations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Since pretty much everybody considers the nation state law a racist piece of legislation, that would be correct, I could certainly find sources saying as much. Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the reader should decide that, and that it's possible to develop a vague/inconclusive wording that acknowledges the law and controversy over Israel being a Jewish state. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. We're not saying it in the article voice; we're saying that it is an accusation people make (which is detailed in more depth in the body, so it isn't weasel wording.) And it certainly is an accusation people make, so the only question is whether it is WP:DUE for the lead. Given the massive amount of high-quality sourcing over an extended period of time, it plainly is; WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY also says that the significant coverage in the body has to be reflected in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as unbalanced and singling out Israel unfairly and in a non-neutral manner. This proposal is raised here by the same actors and has been rejected here before. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• I prefer something like Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that is has commited war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials. I see no reason why this specific crime against humanity should be emphasized over other violations of international law, such as the settlements, the wall, the blockade of Gaza, the collective punishment, the restrictions on Palestinian fishermen, and yes the apartheid. All of those have drawn sustained international criticism, so much so that I cannot imagine how somebody can claim it is not a defining trait of modern Israel. But I personally dont get why so many people harp on this one crime, and yes I understand that as a crime it contains elements of other crimes, but you are just scratching the surface with this sentence, and it gets emotional, for whatever reason, on all sides of the topic. But the current wording downplays the criticism, and the proposed wording still undersells it while trying to use people's emotional, but generally uninformed, response to that word. Something should be included, I dont necessarily think it is this though. What I propose, in addition to being accurate, succinct, and generally brilliant, actually summarizes the topic as covered in the article as well. nableezy - 16:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  While I clearly disagree with you on virtually everything related to this conflict I can agree with enough of your logic to work with the proposed wording. The only issue I have is with the implication that the United Nations accused Israel of crimes against humanity. It's the United Nations Human Rights Council that accused Israel of war crimes and "possible crimes against humanity". There are United Nations officials who have taken positions on both sides of the conflict, it's WP:UNDUE to highlight a few. The institutions themselves that have officially criticized Israel are more important. The criticism also hasn't been "sustained" and has gone up/down according to Israel and the United Nations. The word "practices" could also be changed to "actions" for clarity of prose/simpler language. Ditto for "against the Palestinian people" since it's redundant if they're in the Palestinian territories and if the previous sentence is kept.

  A better wording might be Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism along with accusations that it has commited war crimes from the United Nations Human Rights Council and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations.

  I'd argue this is more accurate, succinct, and spotlights the institution of the United Nations Human Rights Council rather than a few officials. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Chess: It looks good, just a few tweaks for more cohesion and a smoother flow of information: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and the UNHRC. Voilà, c'est tout. Additionally, some information about the state of Israeli 'democracy' could be placed in the fourth paragraph. Mawer10 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Mawer10: the UNHRC hasn't formally accused (i.e. Passed a resolution) Israel of crimes against humanity which is why I worded it the way I did. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Since the UNHRC has not formally accused Israel of committing crimes against humanity its mention should be excluded, and only reference the human rights organizations, which have accused the country of both committing crimes against humanity and war crimes. Mawer10 (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  War crimes and crimes against humanity are both Atrocity crimes so you could shorten it up a bit that way. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe "additionally accused Israel of crimes against humanity?" I think the presence of the United Nations or some body under it is something people wanting to add stuff to the lede feel strongly about. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Then the accusations from the Rapporteurs and the UNHRC Commission of Inquiry should be mentioned. Alternatively, do not mention specifically where all these many accusations are coming from, since it has been dealt with in the article body in any event. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  I said United Nations officials, which I would include Volker Turk (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, not a part of the Human Rights Council) and the various Special Rapporteurs who have said Israel has committed a number of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is not just the Human Rights Council, it is the professionals working for the UN and consulted by UN agencies, not the states that make up some political agency. nableezy - 18:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think you should open a new Talk topic, since this is a request on comments on the use of the word Apartheid, and you're trying to reach a formulation regarding sentences on War Crimes.

  Just saying this since perhaps that way it will be more transparent and clear for other editors that this new discussion is going on. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  People are allowed to offer alternative wordings in an RFC. nableezy - 19:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  It would be better to open a new topic though? Since there is so much content here you can go amiss and not notice. I Just think it helps the editors' process. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's a part of the RFC, not a new topic. Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Request for Comment on apartheid charges" is the title. You're discussing War Crimes. Just saying it'll better to open a new talk topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  So you said, three times. Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I am suggesting some other wording to cover the accusation that Israel is committing apartheid. Can we stop with this meta where should this comment be part of the conversation? nableezy - 19:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Professionals working for the UN ≠ the UN. For a statement to come officially from the United Nations it has to be voted on by the states that make up the United Nations. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Statements from US gov't agencies are not votes on resolutions by the legislature. But they still have meaning, often more meaning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  US govt agencies have far more power than random UN officials. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Acts taken by Israel in its occupation of the Palestinian territory have been condemned by the UNSC as early as 1968 through 2016. They have been condemned by the UNGA from as early as 1969 and yearly for at least the last 15 years on settlements and the status of East Jerusalem. So yes, the condemnation has been sustained. nableezy - 02:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Neither resolution you have sited, nor the UNGA one, use the word "apartheid." To use them in support of this suggested edit would violate WP:SYNTH. Certainly, they can be used in an edit in support of "international condemnation" in general, but not accusations of apartheid specifically. At least, not without a secondary source connecting them to a statement regarding "apartheid," and even then that would have to be done carefully so as not to assume one person or one expert's opinion is taken as factual. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Those resolutions were cited in relation to the proposal above, which is different from the RfC proposal and does not specifically refer to apartheid. WillowCity^(talk) 03:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, and? Im citing those in response to Professionals working for the UN ≠ the UN. For a statement to come officially from the United Nations it has to be voted on by the states that make up the United Nations. Which was a response to my proposal of Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that is has commited war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials. nableezy - 04:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Condemnation doesn't equal accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. I can't find examples of the UN as a body accusing Israel of crimes against humanity. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ok but that isn’t what the proposed sentence says. But yes, the UNSC has called the establishment of Israeli settlements a flagrant violation of international law (UNSC 2334). They have also said the same about the Jerusalem Law (UNSC 478) and deportations of Palestinians (UNSC 799). The UNGA has repeatedly said the same, yearly for a decade plus, regarding the settlements (including, incidentally, today). Anyway, I was showing that the condemnation is sustained, but the accusations in my sentence are from UN officials and human rights organizations. nableezy - 15:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  "UN officials" can refer to anyone working at the UN, not necessarily experts in international law. It would be better to say "scholars" or "law scholars", or just leave the mention of human rights organizations which, because they are an organization, have more importance than certain individuals. Mawer10 (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, that would be UN employees. A UN official is somebody who is authorized to speak on behalf of the UN or its sub-agencies. nableezy - 19:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I can agree with that. Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials. Mawer10 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think its too much... The current sentence of Israel has been accused of human rights violations is enough. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Anyhow I think the discussion is already over no? There's a summary of RFC below. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Imo, this suggestion is good, but it’s no more succinct or accurate than the subject of the RfC, or if it is, it’s at the expense of precision. I’m certainly not opposed (it definitely bolsters NPOV and improves on the current wording) and I agree in principle that it’s silly to emphasize one crime against humanity over others. But there is some logic to that emphasis here; apartheid has its own subheading in the body, plus MOS says “the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.” Rightly or wrongly, Israel’s apartheid practices have become something of a touchstone; an English Google search yields 40.7m results for “Israel apartheid” and 23.8m for “Israel crimes against humanity”; when you narrow it to Google News, it’s 2m vs. 148k; on JSTOR it’s about 14.8k vs. 14.7k. To be fair, on Google Scholar, it’s ~2:1 the other way, and “Israel war crimes” blows all of these numbers out of the water. I don’t have time to do a full analysis of coverage by RS, but intuitively it does seem like the word “apartheid” should really be represented. What about something like:

Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism, with human rights organizations and United Nations officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid.

The part after the last comma could also be parenthetical. This is actually one word shorter than the suggestion and the RfC proposal, and it's broad enough to encompass Israeli war crimes committed against (e.g.) Lebanon in 2006. The only question my suggestion raises is whether it's strictly correct to describe a Special Rapporteur as a "UN official". WillowCity^(talk) 21:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

We've already the whole comment section above debate the use of the word Apartheid. And again as before, a majority seems to be against this use. Just look above, I also understand a similar commentary was held a year ago with the same result. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Less precision is a virtue precisely because it can deal with WP:NPOV. A suitably vague wording can be interpreted by everyone to support their position. The easiest way to resolve this would be to compromise on such a wording and stop having these RfCs every 6 months. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m not aware of anything in MOS:LEAD or the NPOV policy/guidelines that requires vague/inexact wording when a more specific claim is of particular “importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.” I’m not opposed to compromise, but I also wouldn’t hold my breath that this wording will prevent revolving-door RfCs in the future. WillowCity^(talk) 03:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The crime of apartheid is merely inserted into the sentence out of nowhere, with nothing beyond the occupation to explain the reason for the accusation. The Israeli civil law being "channeled" into the settlements, the expropriation of Palestinian land, and racist laws are context that cannot be included in the text, and without this context, the sentence is simply misleading. The sentence also confines the crime of apartheid solely to the occupied territories, which is not entirely true. Additionally, the next paragraph merely describes Israel as a normal democracy, which, regardless of whether the accusation is included or not, should be changed to provide more informative content about the democracy in the country. So, your proposal is not very accurate at all. Mawer10 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I was just trying to preserve as much of the original suggestion as possible out of courtesy. Other than restriction to the occupied territories, though, I fail to see how any of this is misleading; the allegation is noted and the interested reader can find greater information further down, or in the article on “Israel and apartheid” that will presumably be linked. It's not out of nowhere to mention a specific crime against humanity at the end of a sentence about alleged crimes against humanity. Moreover, this RfC is not about the following paragraph, so that's not really relevant to my suggestion.

But anyway, what about: “Israel's policies and practices within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism, with human rights organizations and United Nations officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity (including the crime of apartheid against Palestinians).” This adds three words to nableezy's suggestion, so we're hardly sacrificing much in the way of concision. WillowCity^(talk) 23:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Look above, editors have voiced against the addition or use of the word apartheid. Try and formulate something without it. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

How about:

Israel's practices, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians.

The paragraph is already very long. Shouldn't be more than a sentence. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The text already notes human rights violations. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

So why add more information about that? Do it in the body then. There's clearly lots of very important info lacking in Israel's lead regarding Israel itself (socialism, Soviet Aliya and more). Homerethegreat (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This thread already explains why. Read it. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment We should be careful using sources from throughout the history of the conflict between Israel and Palestine to support the addition of this edit regarding apartheid specifically. Condemnations about human rights abuses constitute that, condemnations of human rights abuses. Unless they specifically use the word "apartheid," they shouldn't be used to defend the addition to the lead being discussed. At the same time, we should be careful of defenses of Israel that also are not defenses against the accusation of "apartheid." Remember WP:SYNTH. Just because a condemnation (or defense) of Israel meets the accepted definition of "apartheid" does not mean is it an RS in support of this addition. Without mentioning the word "apartheid," such condemnations or defenses (even if meeting the definition) would be synthesis for us to use in the article, and I would argue, in this discussion. We should try to have some objectivity on this (and by objectivity, I also mean following WP policies, regardless of our own feelings or current events or past condemnations/defenses), and I fully admit that is incredibly difficult. As can be seen in this debate, I am definitely guilty of getting heated in this argument. I've largely stayed away from this debate for just that reason, but I am seeing some arguments being made here using sources that don't actually include the word "apartheid," which is what we are discussing. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  The comments you are critiquing are related to a proposal that does not include the word apartheid in it. nableezy - 04:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Can this discussion be split into sections, then? It's very long as it is, and if people are discussion (or "voting") for multiple proposals, it's quite confusing to follow. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agree on this point. This needs to be split up. I saw overall majority vote has gone against the use of the word Apartheid above. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  How about:

  Israel's practices, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians.

  The paragraph is already very long. Shouldn't be more than a sentence. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Why have you re-posted the same comment (x2). Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  People are losing track in this huge huge discussion, wanted to make sure it's seen. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also relevant to both points. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle the mention in introduction of the apartheid accusations, however the wording of the proposal must be changed. "condemnation... including the accusation" just does not make sense. Some of the opposing arguments come from a fantasy world where what Israel does in the occupied territories has not received criticism from UN reports and resolutions. Place Clichy (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  That’s the condemnation part… —OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:LEAD. Accusations of apartheid are sufficiently substantiated in the body to warrant their inclusion in the lead. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)non-ec editors may not participate in RFCs in this topic area
• Support (Summoned by bot). The proposed text is short and neutral, the topic is highly notable and has been extensively covered both by RSs (cited in our dedicated article) and by this article itself, so I believe that inclusion is warranted per MOS:LEAD. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This page does include a very short subsection Israel#Apartheid_accusations. However, based on the content of this section, the accusation is highly questionable at best, and the section is indeed very short. Should this subsection even be included on the page? I doubt. Maybe, but I am not sure. While the entire section on the "Israeli-occupied territories" is very much informative and must be included, the sub-section on the "apartheid accusations" seems to be included only for the sake of making the accusation. It does not say why Israel was accused of this. It only says that such accusation does exist, that it was disputed, and there is no consensus about it among researchers. In my opinion, this does not pass the cutoff for inclusion to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's a reasonable summary of the situation, says the accusations are widespread, links to Israel and apartheid for the detail. Google "Israel" + "apartheid" for 14.8 million hits while the definitive "Israeli apartheid" has 881K and it is clear that this is an entirely leadworthy "prominent controversy". Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree this is a prominent controversy and agree it should be briefly mentioned on the page, perhaps exactly in the way it has been. But I think it is already covered in the lead by the more general statement that Israel "have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians [wikilink]". My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead sentence needs at a minimum, ", including crimes against humanity." added to the end. Apartheid is a crime against humanity, not just a human rights violation, and the facts are that Israel has been accused of nearly all the crimes against humanity (including apartheid) defined in the Rome Statute, in addition to Israeli war crimes and the Palestinian genocide accusation. See here. The existing sentence makes it sound like a minor affair, which it is not. Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there's enough written as it is. It would be far more productive for the Lead to also speak of things other than the conflict. Since one only learns from the lead that Israel is in conflict and war and almost nothing on its culture, economic transition, huge immigration waves... Homerethegreat (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Anything of note needs to be in the lead, includes bad as well as good. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Its not about bad or good, its about weight, importance and validity. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That's what I just said. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at our apartheid article, I can see that Israel was briefly mentioned only in the section Apartheid#International_legal,_political,_and_social_uses_of_the_term. The "apartheid state" is a very serious accusation. A typical reader would think this equates Israel to South Africa at the times of apartheid. But this is not the case as reflected in our pages, and sources [14], [15]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Israel and apartheid is the main article. "Apartheid state" is indeed a serious charge and it is being made by an increasing number of serious people as well as serious organizations. I wouldn't dispute that many would associate the word itself with South Africa but that is not the basis for the accusations, the phrase itself is in some ways irrelevant, what matters more is engagement with specific evidence of the charge, generally avoided by deniers. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  The hatnote at the very top of the apartheid article specifically notes that that article is about South Africa, and directs the reader to a disambiguation page which links to the article referred to above by Selfstudier. And in any case, the two sources you cite (one of which is Israeli and the other of which is an 11-year-old opinion piece) aren't that helpful in rebutting the South Africa comparison. WillowCity^(talk) 18:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, the text suggested in the RfC links to page Crime of apartheid, not Apartheid. They are not exactly same thing. The former page does not mention Israel at all. Well, we do have page Allegations of apartheid by country. Should we mention such allegations in the lead of the page for each contry? All of the allegations are notable and frequently described on separated pages. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  As I said, the main article is Israel and apartheid, that should be the wikilink (if the word apartheid ends up being used in this context), the crime is also covered there. Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  I really don't think we should be looking at Wikipedia articles to check wether or not to include. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and there is no need to base our decision on the basis of Wikipedia articles. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  In this case we shouldn't and either how it doesnt appear relevant to the main arguments presented overall. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  We are not, we are discussing what wikilink to use in a sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with @Mistamystery. I also wanted to point out that many countries' governments discriminate, persecute, harass, and restrict based on religion, see link: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/interactives/religious-restrictions-around-the-world/; and link: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2020/11/10/harassment-of-religious-groups-continues-to-be-reported-in-more-than-90-of-countries/ and yet the Wiki pages for Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt etc. do not have any sentences regarding minority religious discrimination, restrictions, or persecution in their ledes with the exception of Syria.

Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Longevity and direction of travel makes this case rather different. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I did a little more searching on this issue and my stance is Still Oppose:

"In 2023, the US House passed a resolution stating that Israel is not a “racist or apartheid state,” and in recent years, the Biden administration has said it disagreed with human rights analyses that argue that Israel practices apartheid. In January 2023, the European Commission also said that it is “not appropriate” to associate the term apartheid with the Israeli state." https://www.vox.com/23924319/israel-palestine-apartheid-meaning-history-debate The Vox article also cites security concerns - not racism - as one counterargument for "apartheid" policies, a concern which human rights organizations dispute as a valid counterargument. Also, it seems this "apartheid" is occurring in the occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza... I am not sure if apartheid is occurring in Israel?

It seems human rights organizations are the ones accusing Israel of apartheid, while governments like the US and the EU refuse to. As Mistamystery has stated, right now these are just accusations. If governments accuse/condemn Israel of apartheid as well, then maybe there is some merit to featuring this accusation in the lead, but right now it is just human rights organizations and I am not sure how much I trust them given their initial and continued silence on the Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If the US and the EU were on board, we would be discussing facts rather than accusations. Of course, the US and the EU get on board when it suits them, as in the case of Ukraine. The issue remains one of evidence not political opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If this apartheid is occurring in Israel, then I believe it would be a valid accusation. But it seems like it is only in the Palestinian territories, which have real security concerns due to ongoing conflict. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Amnesty says that apartheid is occurring in Israel and cites boatloads of evidence for it. Apartheid in the West Bank has nothing to do with security concerns, among other things, it is settlers subject to Israeli law and Palestinians subject to military law in the same occupied territory. Ever heard of the Nation State law? Anyway, I have had all these discussions over and over here and elsewhere, read the Amnesty report if you really want to know what is going on. This issue is not going to go away. Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Support because the “apartheid” (in quotes because it is still an accusation, not fact as Selfstudier said??) is occurring in Israel and not just Gaza and West Bank per the Nation State Law. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Also my support is with the caveat that the wording gets changed to more neutral language as I have written to Makeandtoss above. The Nation State Law is not close to apartheid but I recognize it is moving towards a more discriminatory direction. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The proposed sentence is a summary of the subsection "Apartheid accusations," but it overlooks the entire context of the broader section "Israeli-occupied territories". Here are some relevant excerpts from the text that contextualize the accusation:

Israel's claim of universal suffrage has been questioned due to its blurred territorial boundaries and its simultaneous extension of voting rights to Israeli settlers in the occupied territories and denial of voting rights to their Palestinian neighbours. The claim has also been challenged due to the alleged ethnocratic nature of the state.

The application of democracy to its Palestinian citizens, and the selective application of Israeli democracy in the Israeli-controlled Palestinian territories, has been criticized.

Israel has been criticized for engaging in systematic and widespread violations of human rights in the occupied territories, including the occupation itself, and war crimes against civilians.

Amnesty International and other NGOs have documented mass arbitrary arrests, torture, unlawful killings, systemic abuses and impunity in tandem with a denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination.

So the key points highlighted here include the application of Israeli law and democracy to settlers in the territories, Jewish ethnocracy, widespread violations of human rights in the occupation and war crimes against civilians, and denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination. We need a sentence or sentences that summarize Israel's relationship with the Palestinians in the occupied territories, and perhaps in Israel proper as well. This also involves a change in the fourth paragraph, which so far only portrays Israel as a fairly normal country. Mawer10 (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we make it less wordy and with more neutral language? I would feel better supporting if it is changed to something like this:

“Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories, the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including the accusation of apartheid.” Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think "violating the human rights of the Palestinians" is enough... There has been ample discussion already on it being relatively Fringe theory... EU, US not recognizing it... Also other countries that have severe discrimination do not have this ascribed to them, which is important regarding consistency. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I am now more confused than ever. I just watched this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFeKwv4GkZI which says the apartheid accusation is false since Gaza is governed by Hamas and West Bank is governed by PA, the governments are different and it’s not just Israel governing them. There is probably discrimination against Arabs within the State of Israel itself but nowhere is it close to apartheid within Israel. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Also I just noticed that video was created by a Jewish media company, so there is bias there. I really wish they would just go to court and have lawyers figure this out. I absolutely have no qualifications to interpret international law. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to interpret international law, just read Israel and apartheid, all the sources anyone would ever need are right there. Selfstudier (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is all this commentary parked at the top of the RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I was asking Makeandtoss if we could change the wording to be more concise and neutral, and then with the responses it waterfalled. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's too late to change it now, let the closer try and make sense out of it, I suggest moving all this lot down to the bottom. Selfstudier (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The theory that it is a fringe theory is a fringe theory. Selfstudier (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Summary of RfC

The current RfC addresses whether to include a specific sentence in the lead section of a Wikipedia article pertaining to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. The proposed sentence asserts that Israel's actions have been condemned for violating Palestinian human rights and have led to accusations of apartheid. Opinions among editors vary significantly.

Proponents of inclusion, advocating for adherence to the Manual of Style (MOS:LEDE), argue that the lead is a summary of the article's body and should encapsulate all significant controversies. They emphasize that the term "apartheid" is a pivotal point of international discourse and, thus, merits mention in the overview.

Opponents counter that such an inclusion may not reflect a universally endorsed perspective and could contravene Wikipedia's neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), potentially imparting undue prominence to a singular standpoint. They voice concerns that the term "apartheid" could be misconstrued or taken as a statement of fact without adequate consensus or legal adjudication. The representation of other nations with analogous allegations on Wikipedia is cited as a comparative benchmark, calling for consistency and impartiality in editorial practices.

The conversation extends to the role of reliable tertiary sources in determining the salience of controversies, as well as the precise language employed by international bodies like the United Nations in their resolutions and criticisms of Israel's practices. The semantics of "apartheid" are dissected, with a range of sources including United Nations documents and human rights reports brought to the fore for consideration.

A key part of the discussion also revolves around refining the proposed sentence to better encapsulate the article's content while aligning with the consensus among reliable sources. Editors propose several rewordings, aiming for a balanced statement that reflects the breadth of coverage without skewing the narrative.

In synthesizing these points, I believe that no definitive agreement has been reached within the scope of this RfC at the time of this summary. – Svenskbygderna (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not an accurate summary. The RFC moved to include the wording that an accusation of apartheid has been made, so the semantics of the word or it's applicability do not really come into it. The only topic is really whether it is a sufficiently notable controversy to merit mention. NPOV is not an issue, because no one is arguing or could argue that the accusation itself has not been made. There is not an alternative perspective on that matter. There are perspectives that the accusation is misinformed or does not apply, but none of these contradict the fact that the accusation has been made. The inability to understand this important distinction is perhaps the main source of confusion here. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree with @Iskandar323, it appears many have voted on not using the word - Apartheid -. Consensus has not been achieved regarding the accusation and quite frankly the discussion grew so huge inside many most have lost themselves in this discussion.

I agree with @Svenskbygderna's assessment.

If there is a wish to include "accusation of apartheid" please open a new topic discussion, so that it can be addressed clearly. Instead of it being lost in the large mess and discussions which also continued after 16 November after @Svenskbygderna conclusion of the RFC. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

If the summary above was meant to be an RFC close then it doesn't appear to have been done correctly. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

With just 1,400 edits and three years on Wikipedia, Svenskbygderna doesn't seem like the kind of guy with the authority to close a RFC anyway. Mawer10 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It does appear to me a summary of the RFC. And his summary says that there appears to be no consensus. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It is well established that RFCs in contentious topic areas should either be closed by exceptionally experienced closers or admins, and I'm not convinced the editor here is either. They don't appear to even know how to properly use the RFC closure templates. Comments struck given clarity below that the summary above was not an attempted close. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, the intention behind the summary provided was not to formally close the RfC but to offer a synopsis of the debate as it stood at the time. Such summaries can be valuable in large discussions to help participants keep track of key points and arguments made. It's important to maintain a collegial atmosphere in these discussions, and as such, personal accusations and insults are unnecessary and unproductive. Let's focus on the content and the policies that guide our editing, and if there is a need to further clarify the process or the status of this RfC, we can address that constructively. Svenskbygderna (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - that is what I had originally thought, but some editors here appeared to think that this was an RFC close. I also saw that the RFID template disappeared, suggesting that someone removed it from the RFC page, but your response here suggests that this was not yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Either how, it is rather unclear. And we must ensure clarity in this topic. I counted 13 Oppose, 8 support. And it appears inner discussions occurred in which more than one editor (including me) has said that inner discussions seemed to be veering off topic and require a new discussion. From what I've seen of the Oppose, its against the usage of the term Apartheid.

What was clear to all editors (I hope) was that the following sentence was proposed to be added: including the accusation that the state is committing the crime of apartheid.

Thus making the sentence like this:

"Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories, the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including the accusation that the state is committing the crime of apartheid."

Since 13 opposed it and 8 supported (if numbers are correct). It appears no outright consensus has been reached, whilst an indication that the term Apartheid should not be used. That's why I've raised concern regarding iskandar323's assessment, especially due to the heavy cloud of confusion that hung about the conversation especially in the latter sections. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not a vote, but I would say there is consensus for some kind of change but you seem to prefer no change at all. Mawer10 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and many pro-Israel editors have been canvassed here; the "voting" is meaningless. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Svenskbygderna: Please note that reaching consensus is based on being conforming with Wikipedia guidelines; reaching an agreement is not a requirement. The editors in favor of the addition have based their arguments accurately based on MOS:LEDE, while the editors opposing have based their arguments in an inaccurate way, claiming that mentioning that "Israel has been accused of apartheid" means that WP is taking a side. By mentioning that Israel has been accused of apartheid, WP is not taking a side and saying that Israel is committing apartheid, but mentioning an indisputable fact that Israel has been accused of this. This is not controversial. Your consideration of this RFC should be strictly based on the weight of each argument and WP policies; not what an agreement is about, while avoiding the fact that many editors opposing to this addition have been canvassed en masse here, as per the warning above shows. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your previous comments. I find this impolite in your following assertion: "many pro-Israel editors have been canvassed here; the "voting" is meaningless". Your suggestion that "Pro-Israeli" editors are canvassing is quite offensive.

This article is in the watchlist of hundreds of editors I imagine. You must realize that your comment can be interpreted as categorizing anyone who opposes this notion as "Pro-Israeli". Furthermore, while this is not a vote, editors have voiced their objections to the idea, your sentence can be interpreted as calling their statements: meaningless. Why are they meaningless? Do you not agree that this terminology can be interpreted as disdainful?

And overall I find it very uncivil the way @Svenskbygderna is being "educated" here. Please assume goodfaith in him/her/they.

Furthermore there has been comments in the overall discussion here on @Svenskbygderna regarding his edit count or his work. I do not think this appropriate. All in all I call for civility and respecting our peers. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Please don't play the victim and please stop throwing false accusations of incivility. I can't be nicer than this. There is evidence that pro-Israel editors have been canvassed here.

Also please don't disrespect fellow editors by manipulating their arguments to make it seem as if it was ad hominem. According to RFC guidelines on WP, non-closing editors have a much higher bar to meet to be able to close RFCs. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) Oppose. The proposal wishes to introduce a contentious label, which (being a non trivial viewpoint) has been correctly granted space in the body, but phrased as such, is a very clear attempt to promote a POV.

There are a bunch of issues with the arguments brought up in favour of inclusion - Some editors, indeed, seem to be treating WP:RECENTISM as a guideline to insert recentism into articles, citing recent uptick in the repetition of such allegations.

There is also an issue with others trying to alter the text at discussion at random in the discussion, which IMO is a poor way of gathering consensus. This RFC should be about the proposed text, not a hodgepodge of trying out everyone's favourite phrasing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is about breaking news or flimsy material. The apartheid accusations against Israel have been ongoing for the best part of half a century and in recent years have been substantiated, in the legal sense, by detailed human rights reports. That essay holds no relevance here. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It is about placing a disproportionate emphasis on recent occurrings that are not significant in the long term. Just because Israel has been criticised more (and indeed, supported more) due to the controversial nature of the conflict, this is not likely to affect the long term discourse. Statements like This is 100% the single-most notable claim and controversy regarding Israel at this point in time do not constitute a valid argument. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

"this is not likely to affect the long term discourse" - so WP: CRYSTAL and WP:OR thinking: thanks for confirmation that your decision is unrelated to policy. Though you're right: the accusation of apartheid does not stand alone as a notable controversy anymore, since it's now facing fierce competition from the accusation of genocide. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I dont know if you are engaging in light hearted trolling or you truly believe that that is what the correct interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR is. If the latter, you may have a lot of learning to do w.r.t. competence especially in contentious areas.
Since you seem to be fighting tooth and nail with almost every editor in the thread that doesnt agree with you, you are quite clearly a lot more invested here than me - If you wish to continue to argue over what is painfully obvious, you may do so, but I cannot guarantee that I will be keeping up with responses.
My point stands, and disregarding your ad hominem, there have been no arguments brought to contest it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't said anything ad hominem, though you obviously now have. My point was that your comment relies on personal opinion-based imaginary projections about the future. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Gratuitously attacking another editor’s “competence”: ad hominem.

Questioning an argument predicated on an unsourced prediction about the future: not ad hominem. WillowCity^(talk) 14:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor Objectivity and Civility

Correct place for this is a user talk page O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would remind all editors that these discussions should be about the article itself, and not be accusations of personal beliefs and attacks against editors, especially when they have clarified their positions. As this is a contentious topic, there will of course be disagreement with other editors, but comments "As I said below, if one believes Israel is a democracy, there is nothing further to be said" and "[If you don't agree that it is a prominent controversy, there is nothing more to say https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&diff=next&oldid=1182162688]" (the latter of which was directly in response to a comment agreeing that this is a prominent controversy) are not at all helpful. These comments show an unwillingness to engage in conversation in good faith, and bring personal attacks into this debate. Can we agree that should not be how this RFC is to be conducted? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Oh the irony... I was just about to warn you for this. Please follow your own advice, thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Happily, though I would request, again, that the accusations made against me before I responded defending myself be stricken. As can be seen in the diffs I've put here, my comments before being attacked were respectful, civil, and about the article and not the editor. Does one only warrant warning if responding to being attacked, and not the one who began the attacks instead of discussing the article? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Are you planning to strike your legal threat? Because the only one who has made accusations of criminal conduct is you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC) What legal threat? I did not use "defame" in a legal sense and did not threaten a lawsuit or say I was contacting a lawyer. It is a word with colloquial usage as well. I did not accuse anyone of criminal conduct, rather, of Wikipedia policy violation. I don't know what threat to strike as I never made a threat, legal or otherwise. I will happily strike everything after the conversation turned to attacking me as an editor and not the article, if the comments made against me and not about the article are stricken in kind, but I made no legal threats. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC) "Whether intentional or not, you have twice now made defamatory comments directed at me." thats clearly the legal sense, this is exactly the sort of situation the legal version would apply to... It isn't the colloquial, you haven't said that a chicken defamed you be squawking loudly or used it in some other situation where the legal sense would not apply... You used it in the literal/legal sense. This whole "I'l do it only if they do it" thing is unconstructive, I will be disengaging. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC) If you can suggest a better word, I'll also strike the word itself and replace it with another one regardless of whether the comments against me are stricken, as I would not want to be misconstrued as making a legal threat. That was never my intention, but I cannot personally think of a different word than the colloquial usage of "defamatory," which is also used in WP:NPA, so I did not think it was a word that shall not be named. But I did not use that word in a legal sense and I honestly don't see how it could be read as such. Hell, for it to be legal, it would have to be intentional. Feel free to bring me to administrative action if you disagree, or suggest a better word for me to use. I will comply with either. Again, though, I did not start this as attacks on editors instead of discussion on content. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the above closure ongoing at User talk:KlayCax#Added Apartheid contrary to RFC to Israel, where more input would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

reverted close, asking for a new one at ANC. nableezy - 14:59, 29 November 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.

Herrenvolk Democracy or Apartheid on the Wikipedia page

while it may be disputed, both the United Nations and Amnesty international have deemed Israel an Apartheid State, The right of return Law grants all Jews automatic rights to Israeli citizenship yet a muslim born in Tel Aviv in 1930 would not have that right to live or have citizenship, this is very reminiscent of some forms of Segregation and Apartheid, but you don't need to hear it from me we have an entire page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid here are the sources: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/ https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/ https://www.btselem.org/publications/202210_not_a_vibrant_democracy_this_is_apartheid https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/06/israel-imposing-apartheid-on-palestinians-says-former-mossad-chief https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2022-01/Israel%27s%20Apartheid%20Against%20Palestinians%20Report%20-%20Amnesty%27s%202022%20report.pdf?VersionId=s0fIB_wt.dMwGiAksB8nnlG_irQIqf67 https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2022-01/Report%20Public%20Q%26A.pdf?VersionId=.fMOTVAJ0AA32bXXsTKOabLlHVsz2XFu https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2022-05/Briefing%20to%20DIT%20on%20UK-Israel%20FTA.pdf?VersionId=RLHFEKXZoeZR8Li9kzuPM2q3yItgwXH_ https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/iiclr/pdf/vol2p221.pdf https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/is-israel-an-apartheid-state/ https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israeli-apartheid-legacy-ongoing-nakba-75-enar https://jacobin.com/2022/02/israeli-apartheid-amnesty-international-report https://www.palquest.org/en/highlight/34924/israel%E2%80%99s-apartheid-regime Gorgonopsi (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Um, this is just a speech, right? Not actually looking to improve or asking for an edit to the article? Most editors here are aware of this already. Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

i was requesting that the government be updeated to include apartheid or herrenvolk democracy rather than it being portrayed as a normal state per se, i don't see how this was so hard to grasp Gorgonopsi (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Read the article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

A dozen other countries have the right to set its own law of return. Law of Return is just the Israeli name. A list of countries with similar laws that promote the return of descendants of a national group: Germany, Ireland, Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Spain (interesting case, I recommend reading about it) and more.

The nationality laws of several countries have special provisions in them to simplify naturalization of favored ethnic groups. The laws in these countries appear to reflect a desire by governments to guarantee a safe haven to diaspora populations, particularly those assumed to be living under precarious conditions. A non-exhaustive list of such countries laws follows.

Every soverign nation has the right to determine it's own migrations laws. Israel, Germany, Ireland, Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Spain all give preferntial migratory rights and some form of automatic citizenship to decendants of national group. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Context is important, this isn't the same as Ireland, Germany etc, someone who's family hasn't set foot in like 2000 years has more right to live in israel due to a belief system than a Palestinian born in Tel Aviv in 1937 per se, it's not the same as any of the countries you mentioned, it would be like if rhodesia granted citizenship to random white Christians who merely identified as rhodesian Gorgonopsi (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Before we get completely off the track, if there is no edit request in the form add, change, delete (something), etc that can be discussed and implemented, this should just stop right here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have permission to request edits.... you might. i don't. Gorgonopsi (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

we should go by what the UN has said, and Amnesty International as they are very reliable. Gorgonopsi (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You do have permission to request edits and shortly this will be the only way that a non EC editor can edit the talk page of CT articles like this one. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I literally don't, you make a new account and try request an edit, and you will see what its like for all of us. Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:RFED Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Spain and Portugal give citizenship to descendants of exiled Jews who haven't lived in Spain since the 15th century. Regarding Germany, that's relevant to German populations who were moved in the 20th century and hadn't lived in Germany for centuries. (Two examples that came to my mind just now)

I understand this may be confusing. But every country has the right to determine to whom it grants citizenship. Granting citizenship based on a national group is very common. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Except this law of return allows anyone who converts to Judaism a right to Israeli citizenship, it's semantics to contest the ruling by multiple higher bodies Gorgonopsi (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gorgonopsi It's actually a rigorous process and not every Jew is granted the Right of Return. There have been cases that this has been rejected. Chavmen (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2023

Few months ago, I felt the sentence, "...and technological center of the country, while its seat..." has a misplaced comma, and should be broken into two different sentences. Then, the now second sentence should either (a) remove while and keep although, or (b) vice versa, as in removing although.

• "...the country. While its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is unrecognized internationally."

'''Israel''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|ɪ|z|r|i|.|ə|l|,_|-|r|eɪ|-}}; {{lang-he|יִשְׂרָאֵל}} {{Transliteration|he|Yisrāʾēl}} {{IPA-he|jisʁaˈʔel|}}; {{lang-ar|إِسْرَائِيل}} {{Transliteration|ar|ʾIsrāʾīl}}), officially the '''State of Israel''' ({{lang|he|מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל}} {{transliteration|he|Medīnat Yisrāʾēl}} {{IPA-he|mediˈnat jisʁaˈʔel|}}; {{Lang|ar|دَوْلَة إِسْرَائِيل}} {{transliteration|ar|Dawlat Isrāʾīl}}), is a country in [[West Asia]]. It is [[Borders of Israel|bordered]] by [[Lebanon]] to the north, by [[Syria]] to the northeast, by [[Jordan]] to the east, by the [[Red Sea]] to the south, by [[Egypt]] to the southwest, by the [[Mediterranean Sea]] to the west, and by the [[Palestinian territories]]{{snd}} the [[West Bank]] along the east and the [[Gaza Strip]] along the southwest. [[Tel Aviv]] is the [[financial center|financial]], [[Economy of Israel|economic]], and [[Science and technology in Israel|technological center]] of the country. While its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of [[Jerusalem]], Israeli sovereignty over [[East Jerusalem]] is [[Status of Jerusalem|unrecognized internationally]].<ref>Akram, Susan M., Michael Dumper, Michael Lynk, and Iain Scobbie, eds. 2010. ''International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Rights-Based Approach to Middle East Peace''. Routledge. p. 119: "UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended the creation of an international zone, or corpus separatum, in Jerusalem to be administered by the UN for a 10-year period, after which there would be a referendum to determine its future. This approach applies equally to West and East Jerusalem and is not affected by the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967. To a large extent it is this approach that still guides the diplomatic behaviour of states and thus has greater force in international law."</ref>{{refn|group=fn|The [[Jerusalem Law]] states that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" and the city serves as the seat of the government, home to the President's residence, government offices, supreme court, and [[Knesset|parliament]]. [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 478]] (20 August 1980; 14–0, U.S. abstaining) declared the Jerusalem Law "null and void" and called on member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from Jerusalem (see {{Harvard citation no brackets|Kellerman|1993|p=140}}). See [[Status of Jerusalem]] for more information.}}

• "...the country. Its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, although Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is unrecognized internationally."

'''Israel''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|ɪ|z|r|i|.|ə|l|,_|-|r|eɪ|-}}; {{lang-he|יִשְׂרָאֵל}} {{Transliteration|he|Yisrāʾēl}} {{IPA-he|jisʁaˈʔel|}}; {{lang-ar|إِسْرَائِيل}} {{Transliteration|ar|ʾIsrāʾīl}}), officially the '''State of Israel''' ({{lang|he|מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל}} {{transliteration|he|Medīnat Yisrāʾēl}} {{IPA-he|mediˈnat jisʁaˈʔel|}}; {{Lang|ar|دَوْلَة إِسْرَائِيل}} {{transliteration|ar|Dawlat Isrāʾīl}}), is a country in [[West Asia]]. It is [[Borders of Israel|bordered]] by [[Lebanon]] to the north, by [[Syria]] to the northeast, by [[Jordan]] to the east, by the [[Red Sea]] to the south, by [[Egypt]] to the southwest, by the [[Mediterranean Sea]] to the west, and by the [[Palestinian territories]]{{snd}} the [[West Bank]] along the east and the [[Gaza Strip]] along the southwest. [[Tel Aviv]] is the [[financial center|financial]], [[Economy of Israel|economic]], and [[Science and technology in Israel|technological center]] of the country. Its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of [[Jerusalem]], although Israeli sovereignty over [[East Jerusalem]] is [[Status of Jerusalem|unrecognized internationally]].<ref>Akram, Susan M., Michael Dumper, Michael Lynk, and Iain Scobbie, eds. 2010. ''International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Rights-Based Approach to Middle East Peace''. Routledge. p. 119: "UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended the creation of an international zone, or corpus separatum, in Jerusalem to be administered by the UN for a 10-year period, after which there would be a referendum to determine its future. This approach applies equally to West and East Jerusalem and is not affected by the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967. To a large extent it is this approach that still guides the diplomatic behaviour of states and thus has greater force in international law."</ref>{{refn|group=fn|The [[Jerusalem Law]] states that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" and the city serves as the seat of the government, home to the President's residence, government offices, supreme court, and [[Knesset|parliament]]. [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 478]] (20 August 1980; 14–0, U.S. abstaining) declared the Jerusalem Law "null and void" and called on member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from Jerusalem (see {{Harvard citation no brackets|Kellerman|1993|p=140}}). See [[Status of Jerusalem]] for more information.}}

P.S. Apologizes for the previous request, which has been removed, as I wasn't aware of edit requests at the time. JumboSizedFish (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done , thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You're welcomed! JumboSizedFish (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel the "only democracy in the middle-east"

So the factoid that "Israel is the only democracy in the middle-east" has been squirted into the lead, which is of course blatantly incorrect as worded, given the existence of Egypt, Iraq and Turkey in the geographical Middle East. If there are further criteria here, such as the only democracy approved of by US and other Western think tanks, then this needs clarifying. The whole thing also needs supporting in the body, where it is entirely absent, per MOS:LEAD. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be a blatant lie, rather than a factoid. Dimadick (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in favour of the statement. It's true that Israel is only country rated "free" in the entire region, but that's not what the claim says (note that Lebanon is rated "partly free" so I'm not advocating changing it to "free". Probably best just to remove it. Jeppiz (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

because 1. Egypt' government in the past was toppled by a coup. 2. Democracies don't rig elections. 3 Democracies don't jail their opponents. as is in the case in Iraq and Turkey. CViB (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed lead overhaul and edit warring

These sweeping changes to the lead, which are now being edit warred in over and over again without any attempt at discussion, clearly need consensus given the volume of alterations. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You all should probably stop edit warring unless you want an admin to freeze the page for three days like on Gaza Strip. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

In what world is attempting to tag team in a set of controversial changes in to the lead of this article an acceptable method of editing? In what world is "In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured territories." an acceptable summary of the occupation of the Palestinian territories? Im tempted to take this to AE right now, but the next editor to attempt to edit-war in controversial disputed changes is going to be reported, I promise that. nableezy - 19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if there was ever a consensus in the first place, but if there was, I think it has changed. There seems to be a critical amount of editors who agree with the new version. The new version gives a much better background such as the holocast, which is crucial to the establishment of Israel, as well as multiple aspects such as economics, demographics, security and technology. I see no reason for the recent revert by Trilltrollet. GidiD (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

By critical amount you mean three editors tag-teaming an entirely new lead that doesnt even use the word "occupied"? Yeah, no, that isnt how consensus works. nableezy - 20:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course the Holocaust is relevant and should be included in the lead. But we must also include the Palestinian exodus, which was essential for the creation of Israel as a Jewish state. And the occupation is probably the most notable aspect of recent Israeli history, so it needs to be included too. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The new lead is better overall. More comprehensive, yet shorter (which is long overdue). Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That is just an assertion. How is it better? It includes literally nothing about the occupation, it doesnt even say that Israeli occupied any territory, just that it "In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured territories". It uses halting and short sentences to string together what would normally be a a single sentence for a chain of related thoughts. It uses POV language like "Israel has confronted severe security threats" (as opposed to causing severe security threats?), and is generally written from a decidedly pro-Israel perspective. It devotes more space to ancient history that has literally nothing to do with the modern state of Israel than it does with material that sources treat as foundational to the topic. nableezy - 02:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what you are referring to. Currently, the lead does not have the sentence "Israel has confronted severe security threats", it does mention " settlements across the occupied territories, actions which were rejected as illegal under international law," and it keeps the wording about the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinian Arabs that you added. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Im talking about the lead that was being tag-teamed in, here. nableezy - 03:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Triggerhippie4 was talking about the current new lead (the one that she worked on). The ancient history is important. In ancient history, the region was populated by Jews, they became a minority, and later the region came under Arab rule. If you delete that portion that Jews also lived in the region (many groups did, not just Jews), that would be 2023 "pro-Palestine" political POV pushing. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I meant the shorter version (I'm a he, btw). But mention of the occupation should be added there. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, I am so sorry Mr. Triggerhippie4! I am really not the most knowledgeable about the occupation history so will defer to the other editors on here about this. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

And for the record, people insist on these long running RFCs for a single sentence change, but edit-warring in an entirely new lead is ok now? Huh. Maybe people should do that with the apartheid sentence? nableezy - 02:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Significant edits have been made to the lead since October 12th, on average 1.74 days have passed between one edit and another since then. I identified around 14 editors who made some edits with some level of relevance to the lead during this period. Here are the most disputed points that I identified in the text:

• Israel's localization: "Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land."

• the armies of five neighboring Arab states ... the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. 'began entering' or 'invaded'? MOS:WEASEL?

• Number of Jews absorbed by Israel after 1948; some suggest that the numbers should not focus on Arab countries particularly and others even suggest adding Jewish immigration from the Soviet Union in the 1990s.

• Israel's violation of Palestinian human rights, which is already being discussed above.

Significant additions to the text since 12th October:

• Israel's challenges in the first years: the integration of hundreds of thousands of holocaust survivors, Jewish refugees and immigrants into Israeli society and Israel transitioning from socialism to a free market economy.

• Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005

• Israel's security threats: While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalized relations with several Arab countries, Israel has faced security threats including acts of terrorism and conflict with organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. Mawer10 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Duvasee: please, stop hiding 'Land of Israel' from list of names in the next sentences ([16] [17]). --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

As said above, there needs to be consensus for edits post the November 19 edit warring ([18]). As for the phrasing in the second paragraph, the name is not hidden, but simply stated to be of Jewish tradition. Duvasee (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Duvasee: You are taking away 'Land of Israel' from the list of names to another sentence, making it read as if the area was historically known by other names, and 'Land of Israel' is just some less important second-rate tradition, which is misleading and biased. You have also removed a relevant wikilink. Please, revert. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

There is just a lot of history pertaining to the Jews: The Holocaust was important but is important enough to be on the Wiki page for Israel? The Jewish diaspora wikilink: is it important? The Jews themselves were expelled from the land of Palestine/Israel , not just once but I believe several times and became a diaspora all around the world. Then comes the Holocaust and then afterwards Britain tells them they can have a land of their own, then they come back to Palestine/Israel and there are now other groups there in their “ancestral homeland” here we are again today fighting over the land that has been fought over since ancient history. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Although technically , I think this particular area was Canaan and both modern day Israelites and Palestinians have Canaan DNA. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

We have discussed the "excess history" before but nothing came of it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Was this back in October? Some of it probably could be trimmed. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

But it would have to be someone who is actually really knowledgeable about Jewish history to trim it. Not nableezy or selfstudier or me or Triggerhippie4 or Iskandar, it would have to be someone like Homerthegreat who actually knows the stuff to do the trimming Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Land of Israel has never been a common English name for the region, so it does not make sense to group it with the common names in English over time. nableezy - 18:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I had to web search for this. Apparently the noun “Israel” occurs 2,507 times in the Torah and Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים‎) appears in the Torah 669 times. There is also the Merneptah Stele.

Palestine also appears in some Egyptian hieroglyphs but I read this somewhere on Wiki and can’t remember where. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel is located in the southern part of the Levant, a region known as Palestine – the biblical Land of Israel or Holy Land. or Israel is located in a region in the southern part of the Levant known as Palestine, in Jewish tradition the area is known as the Land of Israel. Both sentences are better than an arbitrary list with many names as if they all have the same value in historiography. Mawer10 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

There is some discussion that the section is too excessive. Another option would be to trim the extra names out entirely? Initially I would prefer someone who has knowledge of Jewish history to trim the ancient history section, but editing it down seems easy enough:

Israel is located in the Southern Levant. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews were dispersed and became a minority in Palestine. The region then came under Byzantine and Arab rule. In the Middle Ages, it was part of the Islamic Caliphates, the Crusader Kingdom, and the Ottoman Empire. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I could cut the third sentence down even further to: Over the ages, the region was ruled by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, Greeks, and Romans. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe the name Palestine should be used when describing the geographic area where Israel is located because that name appears elsewhere in the lead anyway. Adding an alternative name to add "neutrality" is not so necessary, but if we add it, it would be better to just use the Jewish/Hebrew name like "Israel is located in a region in the southern Levant known as Palestine: the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition". As for cutting the list of empires, I think it's a good idea.

1) In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. Over time, the region was conquered by many regional powers such as the Mesopotamian, Persian, Hellenic empires. During Roman imperial rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine.

2) In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. Over time, the region was conquered by many regional powers before coming under Roman rule, during which Jews became a minority in Palestine. Mawer10 (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Mawer10! I actually tried to change list of empires to “regional powers” but got reverted yesterday. I think the ancient history section is also contentious among Wikipedians, and probably quite a few of them probably like the way it is currently. It would be helpful if Wikipedia had a polling option where you could suggest multiple choice options and then people could vote. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wh15tL3D09N Made a new lead almost identical to the current one from points u guys made . What do u think?

Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Over the age different powers ruled the region. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism, a movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, during which the Jewish people began purchasing land in Palestine. Under the British Mandate placed by the League of Nations after World War I, Jewish immigration to the region increased considerably, leading to tensions between Jews and the Arab majority population. The UN-approved 1947 partition plan triggered a civil war between these two peoples. The British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, and Israel declared independence on the same day. On 15 May 1948, the armies of five neighbouring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. An armistice in 1949 left Israel in control of more territory than the U.N. partition plan had called for;[20] and no new independent Arab state was created as the rest of the former Mandate territory were held by Egypt and Jordan, respectively the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of most of the Palestinian Arabs. [21][fn 6][22] The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, 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 settlementsacross the occupied territories, actions which are deemed illegal under international law. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai Peninsula, and with Jordan, and more recently normalized relations with several Arab countries, though efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded. Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians.Qplb191 (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this captures the major points. I am fine with this version for the second/third paragraphs. I know there are important political and human rights issues going on right now, and Qplb191's version seems to summarize/capture the major points without overwhelming readers with details. I know the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is important, but this is a page about Israel, and the topic and history of Israel is not just limited to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel is the only majorly Jewish nation in the Middle East, and I have heard others say that it is "surrounded by its enemies." Paraphrased from the BBC, "It has been locked in conflict with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours over ownership of land since its creation in 1948... Israel faces hostility from much of the Arab region... Some of the borders remain in dispute." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14628835 I can definitely understand its desire for self-preservation, and I also recognize that certain of its policies have infringed upon human rights and damaged the livelihood of its Palestinian neighbor. Courtesy pinging @Trilletrollet @Nableezy @GidiD @Triggerhippie4 @Mawer10 @Duvasee @Selfstudier @Homerethegreat @Dovidroth @Eladkarmel @M.Bitton for input on this shortened version specific to the second/third paragraph (input is welcome, but not mandatory). Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians" relates to the ongoing RFC, needs to have ", including the crime of apartheid." added to the end of it.

No comment on the rest of it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. It’s chaotic in here, I think now we have even newer proposed paragraphs and it would probably be more efficient for people to just directly edit the article at this point. You may be right about the apartheid. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel only Jewish State in the World + population mentioned in first paragraph

Lead worthy to mention Israel is the only Jewish state in the world, since its a central tenant of the country's character. Also, following other wiki pages on countries. population always appears in the first paragraph. Therefore, it should be mentioned in first paragraph, will help upgrade and raise the quality of the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Also if possible, state if you support or not. I personally Support. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I support this, but as Iskandar323 pointed out, it is probably best practice to put this somewhere in the body paragraphs as well. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I support: “With a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023, Israel is the only country where Jews constitute a majority of the population." Mawer10 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I would support if phrased in just that way. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is an encyclopedic way of phrasing it. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. 05:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Dovidroth (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Added :) Homerethegreat (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose having the only Jewish state statement in the lead per MOS:INTRO and WP:SS, and placement of the population sentence seems fine. We should wait for more editor input before we go ahead and implement the changes. Duvasee (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It is worth noting that if it does not appear in the body yet, that should be the priority, as always. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Added, following one more editor input as requested per your statement. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"More editor input" does not equate to just one editor. This is a major change to the lede and more editors should have the chance to weigh in and voice their opinions on it, no need to rush things. Duvasee (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I support the phrase suggested by Mawer10. Also, I agree with Iskandar323 that the body should reflect this fact. I suggest that we put it in the Demographics section, after the details of the demographics in Israel ( Jewish - 73.6%, Arabs - 21.1%, Other- 5.3%). GidiD (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's constantly being removed which I don't really understand why...

It also appears in the body:

Israel hosts the largest Jewish population in the world and is the only country where Jews comprise the majority of the population. As of 31 December 2022, Israel's population was an estimated 9,656,000. In 2022, the civil government recorded 73.6% of the population as Jews, 21.1% of the population as Arabs, and 5.3% as "Others" (non-Arab Christians and people who have no religion listed). Homerethegreat (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Qplb191 is it possible you can do a partial self rv? Homerethegreat (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes sure I didn’t see the consequence. Qplb191 (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding Security Threat Sentence to 3rd

Following @Mawer10 comment above. It seems very notable to add the following to the lead:

"While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalized relations with several Arab countries, Israel has faced security threats including acts of terrorism and conflict with organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah"

This is a notable inclusion due to its ability to summarize the multiple conflicts and wars Israel has had in recent decades as well as the advancement of peace efforts. Please infer your support for this phrase. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Just making it clear. I support this. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I likewise support adding it. It shows the multiple threats Israel faces. Dovidroth (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget the security threat of Israel's own settler movement [19]. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think maybe some editors are objecting to the words “security threat”? It was Palestinian militant groups that started launching rockets into Israel in September 2005 after the disengagement, but since Israel retaliated shortly afterward, I think analysts consider this to be continued conflict. Maybe something like the below sentence would convey a similar idea without mentioning “security threats”, adding that the conflict was ongoing. Of course, terrorism from either side of conflict is reprehensible.

“While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalized relations with several Arab countries, Israel has faced acts of terrorism and ongoing conflict with organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah" Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It was Palestinian militant groups that started launching rockets into Israel in September 2005 after the disengagement that isnt what happened. Why wouldnt we include Israel has been a threat to international peace and security through its occupation of the Palestinian territories and its violations of international law from bombing Iraq to forcing the displacement of a native population? Why is this framed as Israel is facing something as opposed to Israel has caused these actions through its decades long policies in the occupation? nableezy - 16:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

huh? I think Palestinian militant groups did fire the first rockets after Israel’s disengagement

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2002–2006 Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The Wiki page says,

September 12, 2005

Several hours after Israel withdraws the last of its troops from the Gaza Strip two Qassam rockets are fired by Palestinian militants from the Gaza Strip. The first lands near the Israeli town of Sderot, while the second lands near Kibbutz Yad Mordechai.

Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Rockets started prior to the disengagement with the occupation of Gaza being the reason given for them. nableezy - 16:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your meaning. "Why is this framed as Israel is facing something as opposed to Israel has caused these actions through its decades long policies in the occupation?"

From what I understood from your statement you are suggesting Israel has brought about Hamas, Hezbollah other security threats which threaten Israel.

I imagine it's not your meaning since it seems a bit of conspiracy stuff. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Well yes Israel has played a hand in the emergence of Hamas, but no I mean why would we not include that Israel has repeatedly attacked and invaded other countries and poses a threat to them, eg Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and has carried out assassinations on foreign territory. You keep trying to frame this as poor Israel alone in this world of enemies who threaten its very existence and the leads of other articles you try to skew the lead to monstrous enemies of humanity and all that is good in the world. By themselves either pov push would just be pov pushing, taken together its more blatantly tendentious than just pov pushing. nableezy - 13:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As opposed to countries that don't face security threats, i.e. none? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything controversial about it. Israel does face more serious security threats than most other countries, as in multiple organisations committed to destroying it. It should be easy to find sources for that. The information in the lede should generally summarise the article, so we should first cover the threats in the body of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I think there is no arguing that Israel has faced more wars and security threats than usual for a country in the late 20th and early 21st century. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Drsmoo (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

this isnt a vote? nableezy - 14:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

Lead request ==

Isn't it a bit ridiculous to mention the Jewish immigration from Islamic countries without mentioning other immigrations which were much more important and influential? And anyway, since there were so many immigration waves , it's impossible to mention them in the lead. And besides, isn't it easier to mention : "most of the Palestinian population were expelled or fled" The lead seems complicated and incomprehensible. 地球和风 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that the lead is rather difficult and warrants work. But please try and formulate a proper edit request :). Thank you for taking time to look at the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not an edit request. Please read the template. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Canaanites

@Homerethegreat: You didn't fix anything, you just removed mention of any Canaanite civilization and states; which is elaborated in the article in two paragraphs, enough to garner, at the very minimum, a brief mention in the lede, preceding mention of Jewish states. Please restore, again, at the bare minimum, a mention of these Canaanite civilisations, per MOS:LEDE, which states that the lede is a summary of body. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss please be politer in your intonation. Sentence was very long, shortened and restored prior version. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat: There’s no impoliteness in my message, how you interpreted it is your own responsibility, not mine. Again, you didn’t “shorten” anything, you just removed mention of Canaanite civilization, despite it taking a chunk of the antiquity historical section, and still haven’t provided any legitimate counterarguments. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This page is about Israel - lead is a summary, should directly refer as well as possible to Israel and its history? Therefore, ancient history which cover a 3000 year period should deal mostly with Israel. Ancient kingdoms, destruction, rebellion, destruction, time passes until Zionism and up until 1948 - next chapter. The ancient Israelite and Jewish kingdoms are crucial for understanding modern-day Israel whilst the Canaanite city-states are not. The historical overview should not go over each and every historical period in the history of the region, only those significant for understanding modern-day Israel. This is not an article about the history of the southern Levant...

Here an example of an historical paragraph on Greece:

Greece is considered the cradle of Western civilization, being the birthplace of democracy, Western philosophy, Western literature, historiography, political science, major scientific and mathematical principles, theatre, and the Olympic Games. From the eighth century BC, the Greeks were organised into various independent city-states, known as poleis (singular polis), which spanned the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Philip II of Macedon united most of present-day Greece in the fourth century BC, with his son Alexander the Great rapidly conquering much of the known ancient world, from the eastern Mediterranean to northwestern India. The subsequent Hellenistic period saw the height of Greek culture and influence in antiquity. Greece was annexed by Rome in the second century BC, becoming an integral part of the Roman Empire and its continuation, the Byzantine Empire, which was predominantly Greek in culture and language. The Greek Orthodox Church, which emerged in the first century AD, helped shape modern Greek identity and transmitted Greek traditions to the wider Orthodox world. After the Fourth Crusade in 1204, Latin possessions were established in parts of the Greek peninsula, but most of the area fell under Ottoman rule in the mid-15th century. Greece emerged as a modern nation state in 1830, following a war of independence.

It is focused on Greece, not on the pre Doric populations in Greece.

Here an example on France

Metropolitan France was settled during the Iron Age by Celtic tribes known as Gauls before Rome annexed the area in 51 BC, leading to a distinct Gallo-Roman culture. In the Early Middle Ages, the Germanic Franks formed the Kingdom of Francia, which became the heartland of the Carolingian Empire. The Treaty of Verdun of 843 partitioned the empire, with West Francia evolving into the Kingdom of France. In the High Middle Ages, France was a powerful but decentralized feudal kingdom, but from the mid-14th to the mid-15th centuries, France was plunged into a dynastic conflict with England known as the Hundred Years' War. In the 16th century, the French Renaissance saw culture flourish and a French colonial empire rise. Internally, France was dominated by the conflict with the House of Habsburg and the French Wars of Religion between Catholics and Huguenots. France was successful in the Thirty Years' War and further increased its influence during the reign of Louis XIV.

Many French see themselves as descended from the Gauls, note Nicolas Sarkozy's comment "Nos ancêtres les Gaulois"

Shall I continue? Not everything is due in the lead. The lead should focus on Israel and important historical periods and processes crucial for understanding the modern-day country. Do you not agree?

The lead is a summary of the article's body, but should not list every single item mentioned in the body, only the most relevant and significant details regarding the article's context. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEAD: Lede is a summary of the body. Mention of Canaanite civilization will be eventually put back, so please put forward the phrasing that is acceptable to you. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Different versions of the lead do mention Canaan or Canaanite kingdoms. Don’t want to put too much extra emphasis on them because there were then a whole bunch of regional powers. Also Makeandtoss used the word “please” which is polite, although sometimes his words do hit you like a bomb. He was pretty polite this time. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between mentioning that the region was called Canaan; and that a Canaanite civilization/states existed and then there were Jewish kingdoms. Your criteria to inclusion of information in the lede contradicts MOS:LEDE completely, which states that the lede is a summary of body; there are two paragraphs on Canaanite civilization; and two paragraphs on Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. I'm not even arguing for proportionate highlighting; but the bare minimum: a mention. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I hear you but I think there’s actually 1.5 paragraphs on the Canaanites not two. Also it seems around that time the area was actually controlled by Egypt: “large parts of Canaan formed vassal states paying tribute to the New Kingdom of Egypt. As a result of the Late Bronze Age collapse, Canaan fell into chaos, and Egyptian control over the region collapsed completely.”

Also welcome back Makeandtoss!! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not a history of the Jewish people in the territory Israel occupies. And much of the history you want included took place outside of Israel and in the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 20:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It did? I was under a different impression based on the current sentence “Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, Greeks, and Romans.” Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I think you’re wrong Nableezy, if you read the body paragraphs on the history it talks about each of the powers conquering the Israeli kingdom. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Wh15tL3D09N

Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. (Directly related)

In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. (ancient Jewish kingdoms of the Jewish people that later founded Israel)

Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, Greeks, and Romans. (Different powers that ruled the region)

During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. (What happened to the Jewish people that had Jewish kingdoms and later founded Israel)

The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. In the Middle Ages, it was part of the Islamic Caliphates, the Crusader Kingdom, and the Ottoman Empire. (Different powers that ruled the region)

The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism, a movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, during which the Jewish people began purchasing land in Palestine. (Explanation regarding the movement that would come to found Israel)

Under the British Mandate placed by the League of Nations after World War I, Jewish immigration to the region increased considerably, leading to tensions between Jews and the Arab majority population. (Context before independence in region)

The UN-approved 1947 partition plan triggered a civil war between these two peoples. The British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, and Israel declared independence on the same day. (UN 1947 partition...)

Following this breakdown, it appears it's all the most relevant info to history of Israel.

(I personally think we should include a bit more info regarding the Jewish Roman wars or some of the Jewish uprisings that came later (in my opinion there is some info lacking there) but in all that's what it is). Homerethegreat (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

honestly I think no one average reader really care about different powers ruled the region thousands of years ago also it does not improve the lead instead it could be simply written “ruled by different powers” Qplb191 (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

“Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Over the age different powers ruled the region. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule.”

isn’t much more understandable? Qplb191 (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No. We’re not omitting 2,000 years of history. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I changed my previous view on that. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, Greeks, and Romans are all mentioned in the body paragraphs, as well as the Canaanites. I see no harm in mentioning all of them by name once. I think previously I tried to shorten it was because some editors thought the ancient history was unnecessary or that it took up too many paragraphs, but it is important since it is in the body paragraphs and does cover thousands of years as Makeandtoss says. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We could probably try to shorten the names for the region, Definitely we would want to keep Palestine and Land of Israel. (there is archaeological evidence for both of these). I feel maybe, we could drop Canaan from the list of regional names IF we decide to add mention of the Canaanite civilization. I think it is appropriate to have some form of the word Canaan appear once in the lead but not more. They do not appear to be a very much of a regional power if they paid vassals to an Egyptian Kingdom so again I don’t want to mention the, more than once. It’s so interesting there was an Egyptian kingdom! But it makes some sense if you go to the Wiki page for the Merneptah Stele, it says Canaan was part of Egypt’s possessions. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the mentioning of the land being known as Canaan is enough. I'm not certain we want to mention city states that existed prior to Jewish kingdoms that directly related to the topic. I for one would like the lead to be focused and follow the examples of articles such as Greece or France as mentioned above. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat "Canaan" is a name that was known as the name of the region in ancient times, in the Middle Ages and in modern times the most common name for the region is "Palestine" or "Syria-Palestina" and the Holy Land.

“Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. “ what do you think about that? Qplb191 (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

" Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. "

Is a bit inaccurate and I don't see why omit Assyrian rule (which destroyed the kingdom of Israel) and the region later came under Crusader rule (Which is a big famous story) and the Ottomans as well. I would not mention brief Sassanian rule... Homerethegreat (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I Agree my bad I believe that one is better what do you think? @Homerethegreat

The region referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition is located in the Southern Levant, and is also known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea. Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. In the Middle Ages, it was part of the Islamic Caliphates, the Crusader Kingdom, and the Ottoman Empire Qplb191 (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The region referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition is located in the Southern Levant, and is also known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea. Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. In the Middle Ages, it was part of the Islamic Caliphates, the Crusader Kingdom, and the Ottoman Empire.

It's not too different from the current one :). Overall I agree on the formatting. The Achaemenids were the ones who allowed the Jews to return to Israel from exile. In truth I think the current section is very optimal in describing 3000 years of history :).

Can you explain what you think needs changing? I just want to better understand your request. Sorry if I'm a bit unclear. I appreciate your effort to improve of course :). Homerethegreat (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Homerethegreat Yes, of course, at first I thought that mentioning the different empires was a bit unnecessary, but in other hand it is true that it is a history of 3000 years and it is important, I have suggested below some minor changes that I think can make the lead more understandable and less complicated for the average reader, you are welcome to take a look:) Qplb191 (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@ Wh15tL3D09N what do you think about that?

“Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as , Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the, Babylonians,, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. “

as I said I believe mentioning the different powers is unnecessary but if you insist we could mention the most important ones that influenced the most such as Babylonians , Romans and Greek. Qplb191 (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Tagging @Makeandtoss because he may want to add a small mention of the Canaan civilization. Also @Andrevan because he may also want the Assyrians, etc. I am fine either way with caveats as I have stated above but it’s not my decision. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Duvasee:, you have been reverting some edits to the lead recently. here, here, here, and here. Instead of just reversing, shouldn't you participate more in the discussion about this to help reach a consensus? Could you comment on whether the Canaanites should be mentioned in the text, for example. Mawer10 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed minor changes in the lead

Hey , could you please vote for minor changes that some have requested. “Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Over the age different powers ruled the region. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism, a movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, during which the Jewish people began purchasing land in Palestine. Under the British Mandate placed by the League of Nations after World War I, Jewish immigration to the region increased considerably, leading to tensions between Jews and the Arab majority population. The UN-approved 1947 partition plan triggered a civil war between these two peoples. The British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, and Israel declared independence on the same day. On 15 May 1948, the armies of five neighbouring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. An armistice in 1949 left Israel in control of more territory than the U.N. partition plan had called for;[20] and no new independent Arab state was created as the rest of the former Mandate territory were held by Egypt and Jordan, respectively the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of most of the Palestinian Arabs. [21][fn 6][22] The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, 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 across the occupied territories, actions which are deemed illegal under international law. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai Peninsula, and with Jordan, and more recently normalized relations with several Arab countries, though efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded. Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians. Qplb191 (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried this before, here. Perhaps discussing the pieces of text that are specifically being disputed at a time is the best strategy. Anyway, could you highlight what is different about this 'new' lead? Mawer10 (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10It’s not really different only a bit shorter and in my eyes more understandable , it’s minor changes, I believe that can make the lead more understandable to the majority of people. I think also that most of the editors agreed that there is no need to mention the various empires that ruled the region thousands of years ago, many also commented on the population numbers and the Jewish immigration from Islamic countries. Qplb191 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10 do you support proposed changes?

(Without Jewish immigration from Islamic countries and omitting some of the empires that ruled the region) Qplb191 (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. As I said before I don't like the first sentence, but I like the version that Triggerhippie4 inserted into the article recently although I think it would be better to remove the names Canaan and Holy Land. And I support the inclusion of the Canaanites in the text, which is being discussed above. And I also support another wording for the part of the text about Israel's actions in the occupied Palestinian territories. As for the numbers of expelled Palestinians, this needs to be discussed, there are other alternatives. Overall, I prefer this version:

“ The region referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition is located in the Southern Levant, and is also known as Palestine. In antiquity, the Canaanite civilization emerged in the region and later, their successors established several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea. [Over time] the region was conquered by many regional powers before coming under Roman rule, during which Jews became a minority in Palestine. In the Middle Ages, the Arab conquest established caliphal rule. The region was conquered by the Crusades, but later returned to Muslim control and remained so until the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In the late 19th century emerged Zionism, a movement advocating for the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland, prompting waves of Jewish immigrants to Palestine. Under the British Mandate placed by the League of Nations after World War I, Jewish immigration increased considerably, leading to tensions between Jews and the Arab majority population. After World War II and the Holocaust, the United Nations approved a plan recommending the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states, sparking a civil war between the two peoples. The British ended the Mandate on 14 May 1948, and on the same day Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence.

On 15 May, the armies of neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. An armistice in 1949 concluded the war leaving Israel in control of more territory than the U.N. partition plan had called for; and no new independent Arab state was created as the rest of the former Mandate territory were held by Egypt and Jordan, respectively the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs from Israeli territory to neighboring countries, leaving fewer than 150,000 within Israel. Over the next two decades, Israel absorbed approximately one million Jews who fled or emigrated, primarily from the Arab world. Despite a rapid population increase, Israel managed to survive and consolidate its territory and economy. The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. Israel has established settlements in the occupied territories and annexed both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, actions which are illegal under international law. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai, and with Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved as peace efforts have failed. Israel's actions in the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations.

”

Mawer10 (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

i think most editors agreed it is problematic to mention the Jewish immigration from Islamic countries. Many editors claimed that it can not be mentioned while there were more important immigration didn’t mention(like the imagination from Soviet Union ) and also for the average reader it make the lead a not understandable. What do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The exodus of Jews from Islamic countries was a direct consequence of the establishment of Israel, so I think it should be mentioned. As for immigration after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I don't think it's that important. Mawer10 (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure about the wording “the Canaanite civilization emerged in the region and later, their successors established several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms”. I think it introduces ambiguity because it makes it sound like Israelites directly descended from the Canaanite civilization, which is not accurate according to Britannica: “The Israelites occupied and conquered Palestine, or Canaan, beginning in the late 2nd millennium BCE, or perhaps earlier”. https://www.britannica.com/place/Canaan-historical-region-Middle-East Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The biblical narrative about the origins of the Israelites is a fairy tale. Modern archeology indicates that the Israelites are descendants of the Canaanites. Mawer10 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Got the quote from Britannica, not the Bible. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The article about the Israelites says: "Modern archaeology suggests that the Israelites branched out from the Canaanites through the development of Yahwism, a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centred on the national god Yahweh." I know Wikipedia is not reliable, but take a look at the sources that provided this information. I'ts very interesting. Anyway, you don't need to believe that the Israelites are descendants of the Canaanites to understand that they are successors of the Canaanites. Mawer10 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s interesting. Yes, I have seen Wikipedia editors go around correcting other editors misrepresentation of sources, or correcting factua. I definitely appreciate those editors!l numerical misrepresentation Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. I am on an iPad. It completely messed up my response. Basically I appreciate editors who fact check. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10 From a logical point of view, Jewish immigration from Islamic countries has nothing to do with the existence of the State of Israel or its establishment. There were previous immigrations that had a much greater impact on the establishment of the state and the Israeli-Arab conflict or on the State of Israel. It is completely unnecessary to mention Jewish immigration from Islamic countries, and many have mentioned it. Qplb191 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The creation of Israel led to anti-Jewish sentiment in Muslim countries; about half of Israeli Jews are Jews from Muslim countries. Furthermore, this text specifying Muslim countries has been in the introduction for a long time. The "many" editors you refer to are not that many. Mawer10 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10 If you look, you will see that the early immigrants from Eastern Europe would have had an impact on the conflict and on the shaping of the future of Israel, (most of the Prime Ministers of Israel come from these immigration ) In addition, this is also mentioned in the body of the article, in my opinion it is unnecessary Qplb191 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10what I meant to say it could be confusing to the average reader because non Jewish immigration is mentioned , only the this one . Qplb191 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

How about: The first Arab Israeli War resulted in the expulsion and flights of Jews and Palestinians leading to a population exchange between the Muslim world and Israel.

Regarding the second sentence I think it's too much... Overall there is still no mention of Israel's transition from Socialism to Free Market. Or the reintroduction of Hebrew as a modern language which is incredibly important in Israel's society and culture. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Changing from Name -> Ethymology

I think it's the standard in Wikipedia to have etymology and not Name. Upon a quick look on random wiki articles of countries, etymology seems more common and also it was the terminology used until very recently.

Spain, Poland, Portugal, Mexico...

Either how, the name Israel does warrant an etymological explanation. There is a very interesting story regarding the word.

Don't see in opening an RFC on this. I think a nice discussion could do work out the section title :). Homerethegreat (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"violating the human rights of Palestinians."? Too contentious to be included in the lead.

I think that sentence should read more neutral, something along the lines of: "Israel's practices in the longest military occupation in modern history have drawn international condemnation."

Something like that that would surely suffice, without being too inflammatory. Wiki editors know about balance, bias, and such things, so no need for lectures, and debates. There already is a link for the "international condemnation" page provided in the lead. Michael0986 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

About human right violations it reached consensus and I think it should be mentioned.

but it think both of your alternatives are great ,

I personally prefer “most of the Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled” Qplb191 (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I use the Germany page as an example of a featured article with a simple lead; all the atrocities of the Holocaust, the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis against not only the Jews, but also the Romani etc, and yet the lead for Germany is incredibly concise (perhaps a bit too concise), and not overly descriptive or detailed in these barbaric matters, just a link to the Jewish Holocaust page. I'm not sure what is expected of a good lead. Maybe because Nazi Germany is now in the past, and this issue is very much in the present, emotions are strong, and it's a different matter altogether. Michael0986 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should be shorter and the summary of the existing lead is quite complicated to understand . But regarding Germany it happened in the past and today the conflict is in the present so it is quite relevant to note.

as I said I support both of the changes you suggested but not on the human right violation that reached full consensus Qplb191 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we just say Just say: As a result of the war, Jews and Palestinians fled or were expelled . Otherwise we have to list everything... Homerethegreat (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a place to mention the conflict, however I do think that the lead deals too much with it and not enough about Israel itself, not its culture (a country of refugees from the Middle East, Ethiopia, Europe... all adapting and learning a new language - Hebrew). Not enough about the economy (Transition from Socialism to Free market). Not enough about the Aliya (immigration) waves. The Soviet Aliya is not mentioned (1 million people immigrated to a 4.7 million person country if I'm not wrong)... Regarding human rights violations, it ought to be kept since there is also consensus but I think the rest needs to deal with Israel. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The more I read over the lead, the more I feel the entire sentence that reads: "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians" should be removed entirely. It may as well read: "The bad oppressing occupiers, Israel, are committing crimes against the Palestinian civilians." More or less, that seems to be what it insinuates. I'm not here to say Israel are evil, neither are you.

Should the viewpoint of the Israeli's on the matter, of why they feel the occupation is necessary also be in the lead? Where would it end? This is why, and you agree, the lead should be much more concise. Yes, it is current and hotly debated, but Wiki should always remain impartial. Michael0986 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It reached full consensus and i believe it should stay that way, but I do believe most editors will agree with your alternatives you suggested Qplb191 (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats absurd, Israel is not Germany, and the conflict with the Palestinians is among the most widely discussed topics related to Israel in the world, and as both a matter of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV it is required to be in the lead. Notable controversies about a subject belong in the lead. We also are not to say Israel is the light unto the world and cover up all the things that sources focus on. There is nothing inflammatory about the sentence except to those pretending that Israel is this flawless beacon for all humanity and anything negative about it is unwarranted hatred. Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have been repeatedly condemned by the international community. It has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity repeatedly, by the UNSC, by the UNGA, by literally all of the world's leading human rights organizations, by countless scholars. Scholars have documented its sustained violations of international law for decades. It is a defining trait of the state of Israel. And covering it up is a blatant POV-push. nableezy - 01:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The example of Germany could be a reason for eliminating the exact numbers of Palestinians expelled in 1948. Unlike current crimes and controversies, old controversies do not seem to be written in as much detail in the introduction of country articles. Particularly, I have nothing against the numbers but since everyone here wants the shortness of the text this could very well be rewritten to "The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of most of the Palestinian Arabs from Israeli territory", since most is a word that represents something between 60 and 90%. Mawer10 (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree that the human right violations need to be mentioned .

Second , since 80-90% of the Palestinians were expelled it’s need to be written “The conflict resulted the expulsion or flight of most Palestinians Arabs from Israeli territory” I believe it’s just make the lead shorter and more understandable also the way I see it , it impossible to cover only one Jewish immigration (from Islamic countries) without mention any other immigrations (which is impossible because they were so many from 1882-till now) Qplb191 (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The number of Palestinians expelled directly led to a Jewish majority in Israel, I would object to downplaying that to most. nableezy - 01:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

“most of the Palestinians were expelled or fled which lead to Jewish majority in the Israeli territories” it’s also an option , what do you think about mentioning the Jewish imagination from Islamic countries? Qplb191 (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• “The conflict resulted the expulsion or fled of most of the Palestinians which lead to Jewish majority in the Israeli territories”

• erasing the Jewish immigration from Islamic countries because some people can think that the only immigration of Jews was from Islamic countries (it’s impossible to cover only one immigration out of many in my eyes )

what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Zionism led more Jews immigrate to Palestine. Under the British, Jewish immigration increased much more, leading to tensions with the Arab majority. The UN approved a plan to divide the territory between both peoples, prompting a civil war. Israel declared independence at the end of the Mandate. In the next day, neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandate, leading to war. The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of most of the Palestinian Arabs from Israeli territory. Following its independence, Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews, primarily from Muslim countries. This seems like a pretty easy narrative to understand without numbers. Mawer10 (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, @Mawer10

It’s much more understandable . Qplb191 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitely easier to read, not so many numbers hitting the reader. Michael0986 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Think that is quite poorly written. You go from prompting a civil war to leading to war (war was already happening?) Also the sentence structure is very halting. It may be easier to understand but this isnt the Simple English Wikipedia. nableezy - 20:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The text was not supposed to be included in the article, it is just a summary of what is already present in the lead to prove my point that the numbers are not as necessary as you say they are. Mawer10 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The first Arab Israeli War resulted in the expulsion and flights of Jews and Palestinians leading to a population exchange between the Muslim world and Israel.

I think that sums it well. Following this sentence you can add that waves of aliya from Europe and Ethiopia followed in the following decades. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable summary. It doesn't cover all the details, but it's impossible to do it in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 11:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense, there were barely any expulsions of Jews, and yet you lead with that lol. nableezy - 20:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Jewish exodus from the Muslim world CViB (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Some people clearly don't like this, but both the expulsion and the contemporary human rights violations of Palestinians by Israel are due to include in the lead in the same way human rights violations are discussed in the lead of the North Korea article. To not do so would be a failure to have a neutral point of view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that North Korea is a good example, since it's consistently ranked as having one of the worst human rights situation. On the other hand, Israel is usually ranked somewhere in the middle (see here, for example), higher than many of its neighbours (e.g., Egypt of Saudi Arabia). So while we should mention human violations we should do it in a proportionate manner. Alaexis_¿question? 11:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  To take Turkey as an example, the lede mentions the genocides committed in the early 20th century but doesn't mention plenty of other problems, like the human rights violations against the Kurds or the ongoing occupations of parts of Syria and Cyprus. Alaexis_¿question? 12:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Israel consistently ranks among the worst human rights abusers in the occupied territories. Making your comparison facile.nableezy - 20:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Can you show such a ranking? Alaexis_¿question? 22:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Freedom House discussing "Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank entails onerous physical barriers and constraints on movement, demolition of homes and other physical infrastructure, restrictions on political rights and civil liberties, and expanding Jewish settlements that are widely considered to constitute a violation of international law". 23/100, including the partial jurisdiction of the PNA. Gaza: The political rights and civil liberties of Gaza Strip residents are severely constrained. Israel’s de facto blockade of the territory, periodic military incursions, and rule-of-law violations have imposed serious hardship on the civilian population. 11/100, includes the Hamas government. Along with the human rights organizations saying Israel is actively committing a crime against humanity and several war crimes. That do it for you? nableezy - 22:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there is substantial place to change the lead so that it follows the usual wiki norm in other pages. Do you have suggestions? Homerethegreat (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat hey, the way I see it I believe that the lead should be defiantly shorter , I think the existing lead can be a little difficult to digest and understand for an average person who is not familiar with the subject.

for example I didn’t see lead where almost half of it is about different empire ruled the region in the past. I think that @Michael0986 gave a good example about the ancient history. Qplb191 (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think its best we follow precedents of other wiki pages of countries. Also look at other countries such as the UK or France and see how much weight is given to controversial issues. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Are either of those engaged in a military occupation for decades and accused of ongoing crimes against humanity by the world's leading human rights organizations? Didnt think so. nableezy - 20:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There are at least 7 countries that are engaged in a military occupation. Also, a country can perfectly well commit atrocities within its own territory (e.g., Uighur genocide), so being an occupier doesn't automatically mean that they are the worst. Alaexis_¿question? 22:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Military occupation of territory which is considered either disputed or occupied in international law? Homerethegreat (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we must mention the topic, however there a lot of other topics just as important that need to be mentioned in a lead of a country. The Revival of Hebrew, Socialism -> Free Market, the Great Aliyah from the former USSR, the emergence of a globalized high-tech centered economy... Homerethegreat (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

We had a much wider consensus on including the number of Palestinians expelled. Ive trimmed it slightly, but the number should remain because that number directly led to the Jewish majority in Israel proper. nableezy - 20:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Mawer10 why did you restore the contested edit? nableezy - 21:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Which one? The numbers of Jews from the Arab world or the Jewish population in the first paragraph? Mawer10 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The numbers on the expulsion of Palestinians and that entire paragraph. You didnt just revert one edit in your revert, you re-reverted my revert as well. Also why did you remove several wikilinks and change the wording in this edit? nableezy - 21:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I misread the diff. nableezy - 21:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

But also, that 650k is misleading in the context. 650k is the total number of Jews Israel absorbed total. See the source, From 1952–68 about 600,000 Jews arrived in Israel, three quarters of whom were from Arab countries and the remaining immigrants were largely from Eastern Europe. nableezy - 21:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, in addition to the source used in the article, other sources influenced my writing, I mixed everything up. The number of Jews who immigrated to Israel was about 600,000 within a period of 5 decades, not two.

1. Basri, Carole. 'The Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: An Examination of Legal Rights - A Case Study of the Human Rights Violations of Iraqi Jews.' 2002: In 1945 there were about 900,000 Jews living in the Arab world." Jews constituted a stable and historic community in these countries, dating back at least 2,500 years, centuries before the time of Muhammad. Yet, between 1948 and 1997, this Jewish population dispersed: 608,799 Jews relocated to Israel, and an additional 260,000 Jewish refugees fled to Europe and the Americas.
2. Article Jewish exodus from the Muslim world: In the 20th century, approximately 900,000 Jews migrated, fled, or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries throughout Africa and Asia. Primarily a consequence of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, the mass movement mainly transpired from 1948 to the early 1970s, with one final exodus of Iranian Jews occurring shortly after the Islamic Revolution in 1979–1980. An estimated 650,000 (72%) of these Jews resettled in Israel. Mawer10 (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Iran isnt among the Arab countries however. And you have one paragraph that talks about 1948 and the immediate expulsions, then include 50 years of immigration next to it? That makes no sense at all. nableezy - 00:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Iran is a part of the Muslim world Homerethegreat (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Im aware? Did you read the the sentence? Here, Ill help: Over the next two decades after its independence, the majority of Jews from the Arab world emigrated, fled, or were expelled, with Israel absorbing approximately 650,000 of them. Do you see the problem? And do you see the timeframe? nableezy - 16:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The source for this is probably Beker's The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees From Arab Countries which says the nine hundred thousand Jews who were forced out of Arab countries have not been refugees for many years. Most of them, about 650,000, went to Israel because it was the only country that would admit them. I don't see the contradiction. Alaexis_¿question? 22:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well pointed @Alaexis Homerethegreat (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That is a single source that doesnt cite any of its sources and conflicts with many more sources that put the number from the Arab countries much lower. And it doesnt even give a time range, so your two decades claim isnt part of that anyway. So still a contradiction, even if we were to accept this source that conflict with many more sources on numbers. nableezy - 16:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Just putting it out here that between 1948 - 1952 around 750,000 immigrated into Israel. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Not just from the muslim world but also from Europe. If we're listing populations than we should mention it as well. Many immigrants were holocaust survivors, many even fought in the first Israel-Arab war. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

In total if I'm not mistaken around 3 million Jews immigrated to Israel. Major peaks were late 1940s, early 1950s and the 1990s after the fall of the USSR. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There were too many wikilinks, a person who reads the lead can access the article Israeli settlements and find all the details about it there and eventually access the article Israeli settlements and international law. There is a recommendation on Wikipedia, at least I saw it on Portuguese Wikipedia, which recommends avoiding too many links in the introduction: especially those links that are not important for understanding the subject of the article or those links that can be accessed within the articles already linked. Mawer10 (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

A lot of editors have complained about the population numbers, maybe it's better to just state "most of the palestinians were expleted or fled which led to jewish majority in israel territory"? Qplb191 (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We had consensus for that inclusion, removing it will require a consensus for that. nableezy - 00:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That's too simple an explanation. I really think we should give more space and effort for other items of interest just as important - Socialsm -> Free market. Or revival of Hebrew language or the Great Aliya from the former USSR. These things are just as important for a reader to understand Israel. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead reading: "The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism..."

Is it necessary to describe what Zionism is in the lead? The link to Zionism page explains in the first sentence. I'm more for something along the lines of "Due to rising anti-Semitism in Europe, the late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism, during which the Jewish people began purchasing land in Palestine."

Or keep it short and sweet, "The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in which the Jewish people began purchasing land in Palestine."

Thoughts? Michael0986 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you're being too picky with this one. Personally, I would appreciate the brief explanation for the rise of Zionism, and would not want to click on the Zionism page to read more... :) Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Zionism isn't just the result of anti-Semitism... Homerethegreat (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the current version isn't too long (The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism, a movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, during which the Jewish people began purchasing land in Palestine.). The explanation is probably helpful for the general reader. Your version omits the establishment of a homeland, which has been an integral part of most strands of the Zionist ideology. Alaexis_¿question? 12:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed the concept of returning to the ansectral homeland of the Jewish People is a central tenant. The name Zionism actually derives from the name Zion, which is another name for Jerusalem or for the Land of Israel as a whole. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

population number

Hey , some editors have complained about the population number. “The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs from Israeli territory to neighboring countries, over eighty percent of the total. Over the next two decades after its independence, the majority of Jews from the Arab world emigrated, fled, or were expelled, with Israel absorbing approximately 650,000 of them.”

It can be replace with “The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of most of Palestinian which led to Jewish majority in Israeli territory”

Also about Jewish immigrants from Islamic countries I think it quite absurd to cover only one immigration out of many, I also read that most of immigrants in that years wasn’t from Islamic countries they were mostly European immigrant and also from South America.

@Mawer10 @Wh15tL3D09N

@Michael0986

@Homerethegreat

What do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with omitting the numbers. Person who you may have to convince is nableezy. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The second number is incorrect, thats the problem with that sentence. But the number of Palestinians expelled I think should stay. Its that number that gave a Jewish majority, allowed for the absorption of so many immigrants, set the stage for decades of conflict, remains one of the largest issues in a resolution of that conflict. I dont really get the reason why people want to remove the number. nableezy - 15:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@nableezy first of all, you are right, the numbers of the Jewish immigration from Islamic countries are not exactly accurate, and beyond that, various sources show that there was Jewish immigration in larger numbers in these years from Eastern , Western Europe and South American countries, and beyond that, as I said, it is not possible to specify just one immigration out of many. Secondly, I think that the numbers of Palestinians who were expelled does not necessarily allow the reader to understand that as a result a Jewish majority was created, therefore in my opinion it would be correct to present "the conflict resulted the expulsion or fled of most of the Palestinians which led to Jewish majority in Israel territory" Qplb191 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The emigration/flight/expulsion of Jews from Arab and Muslim countries was influenced by the 1948-1949 war and also followed it chronologically so it makes sense to mention it in that context. The other waves of emigration are mentioned in the lede as well. I have no opinion regarding the inclusion of numbers. What makes you think that the 650k number is incorrect? Alaexis_¿question? 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources say thats the total from the Muslim world, not the Arab world. nableezy - 22:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition to that, Nableezy is right, chronologically it is a bit strange to mention the deportation of the Palestinians and then mention the Jewish immigration from Muslim countries , I also don’t think that the number are actually makes the average reader to understand that a Jewish majority was created . Qplb191 (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

But it’s impossible to cover only one immigration out of many ,the immigration that had much more influence for example Second Aliyah which led to riots and the aggravation of the conflict, beyond that a reader who is not familiar with the subject may think that the only immigration was from the islamic countries because no other immigration is specified. Qplb191 (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should not mention numbers since we will be getting into lengthy sentences etc when the body should be the one providing numbers: I therefore propose: As a result of the war, Jews and Palestinians fled or were expelled. I think that's enough. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

“In the late 19th century emerged Zionism, a movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, [prompting waves of Jewish immigrants to Palestine]. Under the British Mandate placed by the League of Nations after World War I, Jewish immigration increased considerably, leading to tensions between Jews and the Arab majority population.” We don't need to mention specific aliyahs here, Jewish immigration during the mandate is definitely the most important to Israel's creation.

@Mawer10 I think that we simply should not mention specifically the immigration from Islamic countries, as Nableezy said, the numbers are not accurate and besides, it is not possible to mention only one Jewish immigration among many, it is subject to dispute whether that Jewish immigration from Muslim country is the most important and also chronologically it does not work out. I think an appropriate wording the anyone can understand and agree on could be "the conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of most of the Palestinians which led to Jewish majority in Israel territory" what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10 @Nableezy

@Michael0986 do you support changing to “most Palestinians were expelled or fled which led to Jewish majority in Israel territory “ ? Qplb191 (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

One can easily say that what led to a Jewish majority was the migration of 1 million Jews during those years... I'm sorry, I don't think that's a good explanation since there are multiple factors :) . Hope you're not offended, I know we're all trying to do our best here, so well done for the effort! Homerethegreat (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Until 1948 there was an Arab majority in the territories of Israel, after the war there was a Jewish majority regardless of the various Aliyahs and immigration . Qplb191 (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Homerethegreat Do you support deleting the population numbers of Palestinians and Jews from Muslim countries? Qplb191 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I support the following: As a result of the war, Jews and Palestinians fled or were expelled

The various Aliyahs are integral to modern Israeli history and should be mentioned. We must focus on Israel related content. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The Soviet Aliyah should be mentioned, but not right after the sentence of 1948 but later in the paragraph. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong but as much as I understood, @Mawer10 ,@Homerethegreat@Michael0986 and @Wh15tL3D09N agreed to omitting the population number . I think that we maybe can agree on “as a result of the conflict most of the Palestinians were expelled or fled, Israel absorbed Jewish immigrants which led to Jewish majority in Israel territory” Qplb191 (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me explain: First Israel-Arab war led to expulsion and flights of Jews from Muslim world and Palestinians from Israel/Palestine/Holy Land region. Therefore simply: As a result of the war, Jews and Palestinians fled or were expelled

If you simply state that Israel absorbed Jewish immigrants it may make people think it was just immigration and not that they were refugees, holocaust survivors... etc. The 1990s Soviet Aliyah should be included later on in the paragraph. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a good and short answer. What do you think about it @Qplb191? Homerethegreat (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a bit problematic to mix two different things, In my opinion, we should mention about the Palestinians and then about the Jewish imagination. Or mention only about the Palestinians because the lead is way too long. From an objective point of view, the first and second immigration or the Soviet immigration of a million people into a country of a total of 5 million people are more important, but the lead in my opinion should be short and effective. Qplb191 (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That is a truly absurd equivalence. Palestinians were largely expelled, a much smaller number of Jews left, not expelled, from a much wider area over a much longer time. But this sentence gives preference to the much smaller number over much longer time that fled over the much larger number over a much smaller area and much shorter time that were largely expelled. No, the first Arab-Israel war did not lead to either of those things. The expulsion of the Palestinians from Palestine largely took place prior to May 1948, during the "civil war" phase, more like an offensive by the one well-armed faction as the British looked on but whatever, not as a result of the Arab-Israeli war. That is a. completely ahistorical, and b. absurd in its weighting. nableezy - 16:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with omitting those numbers from the lead. Maybe the numbers can be migrated to the body, if they aren’t already there? Mostly though my view is based on readability because currently we have the 700,000 Palestinians expelled and then the 260,000 Jews emigrated/expelled… reading these two juxtaposed just makes me really frustrated… is the author trying to make me do math?? I know some people are good at calculating numbers quickly in their heads, but I need my calculator and will get really frustrated. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree I don’t think that the numbers help with something only confusing. does the immigration from Muslim countries help ? I don’t think so, we maybe can just state “ most of the Palestinians were expelled or fled which led to Jewish majority” @Wh15tL3D09N at the end the lead should be short and include only the important things , the Jewish immigration from Muslim countries and all other immigration already mentioned in the body. Qplb191 (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Who said the lead should be shorter than it already is? nableezy - 23:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that most editors in here agreed that the lead should be short and effective, also that the numbers does not really helpful and could be a bit confusing.

maybe we can agree on “the conflict resulted the explosion or fled of most of the Palestinians” what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Michael0986 @Wh15tL3D09N what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I said very early on I do not. nableezy - 20:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Mawer10 do you agree with “the conflict resulted the explosion or fled of most of the Palestinians” instead of the crunnet version?Qplb191 (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I am indifferent, I have no problems with omitting numbers, I agree that they are not that important. Consensus is needed to exclude the numbers of Palestinians and Jews together, not just one of them. I oppose the following proposals:

1) “The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of most of Palestinian which led to Jewish majority in Israeli territory” 2) '"as a result of the conflict most of the Palestinians were expelled or fled, Israel absorbed Jewish immigrants which led to Jewish majority in Israel territory" And I have no problem with specifying Jewish immigration from Arab countries after mentioning the expulsion or flight of Palestinians. The current phrase in the lead is correct now, with the number 600,000. Mawer10 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10I agree with you, most of the editors here agreed that the numbers are not that important and it is better to omit them, could you please give a suggestion to a better version ? Qplb191 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10 what do you think about: “ “The conflict resulted the explosion of flight of most Palestinians,Later Israel absorbed Jewish immigrants and refugees primarily from Muslim countries” Qplb191 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Canaan

I propose the addition of Canaan to the lede in the following way, for now at least: "In antiquity, it was home to Canaanite city states, and later, Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea,".

This is a good summary of body, as a lede should do. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with this, plus it’s not too wordy. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is above in Canaanites section. And the same concept holds. And for correction there were city states not states which were most likely for quite some time vassals of the Egyptian Empire. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way if you guys are interested in history here's a picture, it's in French so if you need help translating than feel free to ask.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CarteCanaanAuBronzeR%C3%A9cent.jpg

Hope you guys enjoy :). Always important to do something positive for people we're in contact with :). Homerethegreat (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I have found a possible source for “city states” https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-51695-0_49. This will be needed to added to the body text. Right now the body just says “vassal states”. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Updated my proposal above. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I do not think it merits inclusion here. There are for more pressing issues that are relevant to the State of Israel that ought to be mentioned in lead which are not.

In regards to the specific inclusion of Canaanite city states, I think it is not vital in understanding the State of Israel. In the page on Greece, there is no mention of the Cycladic civilization on the islands of the Aegean Sea at around 3200 BC, the Minoan civilization in Crete (2700–1500 BC), or the Mycenaean civilization.

What is mentioned is the Greek Polis, the classical period etc... Which is most relevant to understand modern Greece.

Similarly on the page of France, the lead does not mention groups that existed prior to the Gauls from which some of the French see themselves as descending from.

Of course it is interesting to learn about Canaanite city states and the Egyptian control of the southern Levant as well as their wars against the Hittites' empire. However, we must keep in light that this page is on the State of Israel. In the page on Palestine (region), I think it is definitely due to mention this. However here it is less due. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I like @Makeandtoss’ version, mostly because I appreciate the historical and written precision that these populations were city-states! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What is your opinion however regarding the assessment I wrote? Its just I think it's undue in the lead itself. Especially since there is 3000 years of history that needs to be covered. I'd rather we add more info regarding the Babylonian Exile and the first return to Zion or add info on the Jewish Roman wars and the Roman exile of the Jews from Judea. Or add cultural info which is truly lacking in the lead, the most crucial one that must be stated is the revival of the Hebrew language.

I just think that we need to focus on Israel and its history. Just like on other wiki pages of countries it speaks of the country/people/nation 's history/culture/society/economy. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You do have a point, sorry sometimes I don’t read everything. A lot of words!! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel is a very young country, with only 75 years of history. The events that led to the establishment of the country date back only to the 19th century. While it is true that Israelite and Jewish history in the region (1200 B.C. — 200 A.D.) played a significant role in Jewish nationalism, resulting in the creation of Israel, focusing solely on this period while overlooking centuries of Christian and Muslim rule in the region or even a simple mention of the Canaanites would bias the introduction. Furthermore, unlike France or Greece, there is no direct historical and political continuity between ancient Israel and modern Israel, only cultural and religious continuity. Mawer10 (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your second statement.

Modern Greece is not a continuum from the Greek Polis. about 1900 years divide Greek independence and Macedonian Empire. Between France and the Frankish Empire there are 500 years.

Israel is an interesting case of an ancient people that reestablished sovereignty.

So why is the ancient history included? Since it's the history of the people. Of the French, of the Greeks, of the Jewish people who founded Israel. But you'll notice ancient history is very focused and directly related to the topic at hand. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry fixing statement. I meant between Frankish kingdom and the Gauls Homerethegreat (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that it warrants inclusion here. The lead already mentions the Canaanites and it is excessive in an article about the State of Israel to mention it twice. Dovidroth (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's better this way: “In antiquity, the Canaanite civilization emerged in the region and later, their successors established several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea.” Mawer10 (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Canaan is already mentioned in the lead -" Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. . It is unclear why a second mention of Canaan is necessary within the very limited space in a four-paragraph lead section ? Marokwitz (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This sentence is not good; the version Triggerhippie4 inserted into the article is much better. You just need to remove the names Canaan and Holy Land, and maybe make some other small adjustments: "The region referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition is located in the Southern Levant, and is also known as Palestine." The sentence introduces the region initially using the Jewish/Hebrew name, providing a perspective on the country in question in this article. Then, it geographically locates the region in the Southern Levant and subsequently mentions that the region is also known as Palestine, acknowledging a more relevant historical and geographical term. This phrasing is a balanced approach without the need for an arbitrary list of names associated with the region over time, instead highlighting relevant terms here. Mawer10 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I just reread the history section, and it seems there were both Canaanite city states and vassal states. So I would change my proposal above to "In antiquity, it was home to Canaanite states, and later, Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea,".

Since lede is a summary of body, we have to summarize the etymology section which states that the region was also called Canaan (already present); and we have to summarize the history section, which states that there were Canaanite city states and vassal states. Lede follows the body per manual of style. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer having either referencing that the region was called Canaan or that there were Canaanite states, but not both; however, my reasoning is just preference based on writing style. I would just find reading “Canaan” and then “Canaanites” repetitive and boring when the reason as a reader for coming to the page is I want to read about Israel.. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, lede is a summary of body, mentioning region was also called Canaan is a summary of the etymology section, and mentioning that there were Canaanite states is a summary of the antiquity section. It is not repetitive since it is considered different things. Most literature when talking about how Jewish kingdoms were established, starts with talking how the Israelite conquered Canaan, including the Hebrew Bible. And then of course mentions of Israelite-Canaanite confrontations, a huge part of the Hebrew bible. Again lede is a summary of body; but also Canaan is not outside the realm of Israelite history, on the contrary a huge part of it. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

We're not saying its not in body. But again we have to be selective in deciding what's in the Lead. And the weight and importance and relevance to Israel is vital in deciding what ought to be there. We won't mention an Israeli theatre company or Falafel in the lead right? So we must decide what is due or not. I expressed above the issue. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the history paragraph, which summarizes the history section, the article's largest section, so naturally it won't contain information on falafel. This is barely a one word mention. Selectivity goes against WP:POV. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your meaning. I realize you believe it is due to mention. I've already explained above why it is not due etc... Homerethegreat (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP: Summary, Wikipedia articles cover topics at several levels of detail: the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points, and each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article. The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. Wikipedia articles cannot be of indefinite length as very long articles would cause problems and should be split.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It is located at the beginning of the article, before the table of contents and the first heading. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.

The immediate above explains why we must on place the most important items. The somewhere above long section that I wrote on reasoning including France, Greece... explains the historical context. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

RFCBefore following No Consensus RFC

In the recently closed RFC the closer says that "During the rfc, Nableezy laid forth another proposal that focuses on crimes against humanity in general, rather than apartheid specifically. This proposal attracted interest from participants on both sides of the discussion, but no wording concrete enough to attain consensus was achieved. I suggest interested editors continue working on this idea in light of the arguments presented at this rfc."

A previous attempt to do this last April asked the question "Should that [the lead] include the sentence Human rights organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity?" did not go anywhere.

So let's try again. The existing lead sentence: "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians." to be replaced with @Nableezy: proposal:

Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials.

@Mawer10: version:

Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.

Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with all three versions: the original, nableezy’s, and Mawer10’s, although I think I prefer “Israel’s practices” over “Israel’s actions”. Nableezy’s sentence is a little long; may need a comma in there. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I just noticed there may be something logically wrong with the sentence structures of the new versions that include war crimes. Because the beginning of the sentence is referring to occupation… war crimes aren’t really related to practices and policies in occupation. War crimes are related to actions in war. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

War crimes are related to actions in war. Not quite. Rather than just "war", referring to "armed conflict" (and the use of force) is more usual, international humanitarian law is aka the law of armed conflict but war crimes are as well defined in treaties and customary law. Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I prefer Mawer10’s version then. Regarding its occupation, those are set practices but regarding war crimes those are actions that have a lot of variability.

But I would want to put war crimes after crimes against humanity in the sentence.

“Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, along with accusations that it has committed crimes against humanity and war crimes by human rights organizations and UN officials.”

I am also fine with the original sentence. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should have simply: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN

Otherwise there is too much lead space given, when there are other items that are vital for understanding Israel that are not present in the lead. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The nableezy and Mawer10 proposals are both good imo. I would propose wording along the following lines: Israel's policies and practices within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, with human rights organizations and United Nations officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. My reasoning:

- the practices are a result of policies which are themselves subject to criticism;

- the allegations are not limited to the Occupied Territories but include Israel proper and neighbouring states, like Lebanon in 2006.

But I would support either of the above proposals even if this wording doesn't get traction. WillowCity^(talk) 16:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think your version should be included in a future RfC. But this should be probably "on the occupied Palestinian territories" rather than "in its occupation of the Palestinian territories". Also, the RfC must include an option when the current phrase ("Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history...") would be simply deleted. This is because such option has been recently debated on this talk page above. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I support @Homerethegreat proposal: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN. Too much space in lead is already given to conflict. Sorry to repeat myself, but look at Japan, Germany; featured articles that don't overly dwell on atrocities like the Holocaust, or the Rape of Nanjing. "Japan invaded China in 1937" is all that is noted in the lead. So what do we do? You know well this sentence is going to always cause debate, and issue. There must be compromises on both sides of the issue. Michael0986 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The comparison to Axis powers is misguided, given that Israeli atrocities are (or are alleged to be) ongoing as well as historical. North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela are better examples of articles whose leads dedicate significant space to human rights issues. Or is that sort of language reserved for countries that aren't aligned with Western powers?

The idea that we should be watering down this aspect of the lead is, no offence, absurd. The last RfC found extensive (but ultimately insufficient) support for including allegations of a specific crime against humanity. The criteria is notability and NPOV, not whether a given wording offends certain sensibilities. WillowCity^(talk) 00:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead examples I used are featured articles, those ones are very subpar and rambling. I still think compromise is the key to improving this article on both sides. I could pick any sentence in the lead, for example the sentence beginning: "On 15 May 1948, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War." Really, no background of what initiated the invasion? Wouldn't this read better: "Refusing to accept Israel’s independence, on 15 May 1948 the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. So, what do we do, who do we offend, and not offend here? Are we here to paint Israel as the villain, which perhaps they very well are, or do we try and improve this page? Michael0986 (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The Cuba article is the same class as this article (B). Japan has existed as a national entity for over a thousand years, whereas the State of Israel (which this article is ostensibly about) was invented 75 years ago, and its entire history has been defined by conflict. That conflict is notable and canvassed extensively in the body with citations to RS. So I don't see how the proposed "compromise" would "improve this page"; it would result in a lead that fails to adequately summarize the body. WillowCity^(talk) 04:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to take into account Wikipedia:BALASP without creating false balance. Therefore I think if we are to highlight accusations of war crimes due to Israel’s practices, we need to incorporate Israel’s POV, which are the security issues some editors were wanting to add to the sentence before the RFC one. One example of an Israeli policy that is infringing on human rights is the West Bank barrier. But this barrier was initially built in response to terrorist attacks. One source that does a good job of balancing aspects without creating false balance, while analyzing this particular situation is this one https://fluxirr.mcgill.ca/article/download/55/46 Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

None of those are about active military occupations or conflicts or war crimes or crimes against humanity, and they dont take up a a preponderance of space in stories discussing those countries histories either. Which makes, as usual, the comparison that is sought to be made here facile and inapplicable. nableezy - 04:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, We can also look at the article of France, Netherlands, UK and other powers. Their leads are far more broad in their scope. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue here is not what is in other leads, it is what needs to be in the lead here. This is an RFC prep to see what the RFC should say following the no consensus close. It is not intended to be a rerun of that no consensus close. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think main issue is not the lead, but a significant overlap of content in two sections: Israel#State_of_Israel and Israel#Israeli-occupied_territories. Both sections describe the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the "Palestinian territories" are a part of it. I think these sections could be merged, and then it would be more clear how to summarize them in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC) After looking more carefully, I think it was bad idea (these are related but separate subjects). My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Summarize them right here and put up your proposed wording for the RFC, that would be best. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I would suggest the following. Instead of sub-sections Israel#International_opinion and Israel#Apartheid_accusations make one more general section on human rights in Israel and briefly summarize content of Human rights in Israel in this section. Then summarize content of the new "Human rights in Israel" section in the lead. I can not suggest anything for the lead right now because one should start from fixing this in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Think we are still at cross purposes. We are not looking for suggestions as to summarizing the article body, we are looking at what question to pose in an RFC? If you object to those so far suggested, say that or else suggest something else. Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  OK. I think the phrase should use the lead of page Human rights in Israel, i.e. In the Palestinian territories, successive Israeli governments have been subject to international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians. It also says that Israel is seen as being more politically free and democratic than neighboring countries in the Middle East, so that might be also added somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, so basically, pretty much the same as it is now? Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Similar, but not the same. It does not say "in the longest military occupation in modern history" (is that a fact? why is it needed?) and uses "criticism" rather than "condemnation". My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Probably the RFC should have a no change option, if there are others with that sort of view. Selfstudier (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, every RfC should have a "no change" option, along with other versions suggested during discussion (such as my version just above), and I would also suggest a "delete the phrase" option per another thread above on this talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

OT

*:::::::I was confused too. I think it is referring to occupation of the West Bank and maybe it’s settlements. It’s occupation of Gaza is debatable, but it is fact that it occupies West Bank. It’s really confusing because the PA also governs West Bank. Also Israel’s West Bank settlements are illegal and disputed, and it’s building of the West Bank barrier was controversial, “many international humanitarian voices and voices within Israel have supported the wall's construction only if it was along the Green Line (Cohen 2006, 685).” …”had the barrier been built along the Green Line, Israel would have had to evacuate some of its settlements from the West Bank, potentially leading to more fruitful negotiations and establishing an independent Palestinian state.” https://fluxirr.mcgill.ca/article/download/55/46 Also the Oslo Accords failed to establish a Palestinian state, the PA was largely ineffective and didn't have much control over it’s own people (the 2005 Gaza disengagement was a mess), with the exception of Hamas, which is able to better exert control except they are also very violent. Historians have voiced that the next step is that there needs to a Palestinian state. Israel itself may be democratic and free, but its illegal settlements, and with the West Bank barrier’s route, Palestinians are definitely not free. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Um, what has that to do with preparing an RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC) I am responding to My Very Best Wishes questions at 19:59 and his/her comment at 19:43 Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC) That's off topic for this discussion, open some other section if you want to discuss that. Selfstudier (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Haha I see you made a short summary :). Regarding the West Bank you can say this is what happened in short over the past 500 years: Ottoman (Turkish) control -> British Control -Jordan conquers West Bank> Jordan Control -Israel conquers West Bank> Israeli Control -Oslo, Israel grants autonomy to parts of West Bank to Palestinians> Partial Palestinian autonomy + Israeli control. Important notes: A) West Bank hosted Jewish communities prior to whole situation, which were expelled by Arab forces during 1948 war, also famous pogrom against Jews of Hebron in 1929. B) Israel first to grant autonomy to Palestinians C) Some settlements are also considered illegal under Israeli law and are routinely uprooted by Israeli police D) Extremist Settler Violence is an ongoing issue, routinely condemned in Israel and by Israeli military (They actually hinder Israeli military forces) E) 3 Areas in West Bank -> A) Full autonomy, B) Civil autonomy, Israeli military control, C) Full Israeli control. Most Palestinians live in either A or B. F) C is largest part, much of it is the border between Israel and Jordan which Israel maintains it must control for security reasons. Rest is border land between Israel and West Bank (At it's thinnest Israel is 10 kilometers wide) which it controls it maintains to buffer security in case of an intrusion of Palestinian militants (like what happened in 7/10). By the way, almost all Israeli settlements are in Area C. G) Israelis refer to region as Judea and Samaria, after the ancient Jewish kingdoms that sat there. Another interesting people that sat in the region since ancient times is the Samaritan people. Very interesting, recommended read. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wh15tL3D09N and Homerethegreat. Thank you, guys! I read your comments above, and they are not completely off-topic.My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

You're very welcome :). Homerethegreat (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

To get things back on track, it seems from comments so far that the principal issue is the use of the expressions war crimes and crimes against humanity (and possibly occupation as well) so a possible RFC could just ask whether or not those two expressions should be included in some sentence in the lead? Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Occupation is well covered in the article, war crimes are mentioned in this section while presently there is no mention of crimes against humanity, only human rights violations. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Apartheid is a crime against humanity with a dedicated subsection. I think that’s partially what inspired this suggestion in the last RfC—more general language to avoid the particularly thorny and sensitive apartheid issue in the lead.

As for the above, I think that’s a good way to frame the RfC, but the occupation has been pretty stable in the lead from what I can see so I’m not sure whether the advocates for exclusion should start a separate RfC on that to see if consensus has changed. WillowCity^(talk) 12:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't notice that there was a wikilink to crimes against humanity in the apartheid section. Not in the article are United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (the Gaza War (2008–2009)) which said Israel "committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity" and the 2018–2019 Gaza border protests, where UN investigators said "These serious human rights and humanitarian law violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity." with the current war producing similar accusations. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we need this sentence: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN

We need to focus on other issues which have not been represented in the body that are just as important to understand Israel. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That suggestion is already taken into account above. Other issues can be discussed separately, they have nothing to do with the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but is the suggestion in seriousness being considered? @Wh15tL3D09N makes a good point above: "One example of an Israeli policy that is infringing on human rights is the West Bank barrier. But this barrier was initially built in response to terrorist attacks." If I'm a first-time visitor to this page, and I read the sentence: "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians." I'm going to assume Israel are the violent oppressor's, and this conflict is black and white. End of story. I'm honestly not going to care about their innovations and technical achievements in the following paragraph, if I read words like "violating" and "human rights" in the previous sentence. Michael0986 (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

was initially built in response to terrorist attacks is untrue, with Ariel Sharon from the earliest saying it was a demographic fence and sources remarking it was routed in a way to effectively annex settlements to Israel. I dont know why you think the point of the article is to boost Israel's reputation but it isnt. Israel's practices have drawn widespread condemnation, the encyclopedia article on it needs to address that. nableezy - 01:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

“The government decided to start the construction in the northern part of the West Bank, near Jenin, Nablus, and Tulkarem, because these were the major centers of terrorist operations and the Israeli towns close to the Green Line, like Netanya and Hadera, were the most vulnerable to suicide bombings (Frisch 2007, 10).” Source: https://fluxirr.mcgill.ca/article/download/55/46

“Israel begins building a security barrier in the West Bank to protect Israeli cities and towns from terrorist attacks.”

Source: https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/conflict/israeli-palestinian-conflict-timeline

If you have sources that say the barrier was not built due to suicide bombings, then this may be a case of Wikipedia:SOURCESDIFFER. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is another one from JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/stable/48701120 saying that the Israeli government began building the barrier in order to prevent suicide bombing attacks Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Morland, Paul (2016). Demographic Engineering: Population Strategies in Ethnic Conflict. Routledge. p. 132-133. ISBN 978-1-317-15292-7. The construction of the Security Fence was primarily a response to terrorist attacks from the West Bank on Israel's civilian population during the Second Intifada in which over 1,000 Israelis were killed. Its route did not stick strictly to the 1949 Armistice Line with Jordan but rather skirted around to incorporate some Israeli settlements. Whilst this can be seen as pragmatic, it can also be seen as an attempt to implement a demographically-based partition. Israeli governments have consistently denied this, insisting that the route of the fence should not be regarded as a future border. However it is significant that the fence was first suggested by Arnon Soffer. He suggested that the fence should be seen as part of his plan for disengagement from the Territories and as a means not only to delineate the territory on demographic grounds but also to prevent Arabs moving across the Green Line into Israel (Seliktar 2009, p. 86). A poll at the time of the start of the fence's construction found that 63 per cent of Israelis supported building the fence in such a way that it would include the smallest Palestinian population possible (Jacoby 2007, p. 41).
• B'tselem: In June 2002, the Israeli cabinet decided to construct the Separation Barrier. The decision was made following a long string of attacks perpetrated by Palestinians against Israelis. The declared objective was preventing Palestinians without permits from entering Israel from the West Bank. However, the establishment of the barrier was also intended to serve other, undeclared aims. A key factor in determining the barrier’s route was the location of settlements, thereby laying the groundwork for the de facto annexation of most of the settlements and much land for their future expansion. The barrier thus became a major political instrument for furthering Israeli annexationist goals. It serves for Israeli takeover of almost 10% of the West Bank, to minimize the number of Palestinians living in the confines of the area between the barrier and the Green Line [the boundary between Israel’s sovereign territory and the West Bank], and also inflicts collateral damage on Palestinian communities living east of the barrier which, in effect, cuts them off from their land.

nableezy - 02:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I kind of touched on this with the quotes under the OT section up there. “many international humanitarian voices and voices within Israel have supported the wall's construction only if it was along the Green Line (Cohen 2006, 685).” …”had the barrier been built along the Green Line, Israel would have had to evacuate some of its settlements from the West Bank, potentially leading to more fruitful negotiations and establishing an independent Palestinian state.”

Selfstudier is going to have so much fun reading this tomorrow. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The wall was built after/during the intifada in response to terror attacks on Israel. The security reasoning stands. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That's your view, Morland and B'tselem (cited above) would disagree, and the ICJ notes that it's a violation of international law regardless of any alleged justification. WillowCity^(talk) 15:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You're raising important points. The propositions to over extend the sentence is overdoing it. The Lead most be to the point and be as imformative as possible. 2-3 sentences on the same thing is just too much. There's already 1 long sentence on population exchanges*flights*persecutions in 1948, and there shouldn't be another 2-3 sentences on that. It would be much better to add info on Socialism -> Free Market, or Revival of Hebrew or Soviet Aliyah Homerethegreat (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The Wall decision is a landmark in the jurisprudence of the ICJ. Not only does it rule decisively against the legality of the Wall, it provides clear guidance on the applicability of both international humanitarian law and human rights law in assessments of the situation in occupied Palestine. Confirming the situation, regardless of why it was built.

Reasons to object to something/anything in the lead can be given in the upcoming RFC. If there are no more useful contributions to the RFC prep we may as well proceed with the RFC proper.Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I prefer my version. I replaced "in its occupation of the Palestinian territories" with "on the occupied Palestinian territories." I also left open the possibility of including "for violating the human rights of Palestinians" because this additional information would give readers the specific aspect of Israel's actions that prompted the criticisms. I'm not sure if it's better to use "Israel's practices", "Israel's actions", or the combination of both "Israel's policies and actions".

Israel's actions on the occupied [Palestinian] territories have drawn international criticism [for violating the human rights of Palestinians], along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.

I also liked WillowCity's version, but I would change it a little:

Israel's policies and actions within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, with human rights organizations and UN officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

These two texts should be the basis of the future RFC. Mawer10 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please prepare a draft like that below so that editors may decide which draft they prefer. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok Mawer10 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed draft RFCs

Draft RFC (selfstudier version)

Should the existing lead sentence "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians." be amended?

Option 1 Include a linked references to war crimes.

(Example "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians. criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes."

Option 2 Include linked references to war crimes and crimes against humanity

(Example "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians. criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity"

Option 3 No change to existing wording.

This draft assumes that the existing wording has consensus. Comments on the draft? Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 is better, but 'the longest military occupation in modern history' is a disposable detail in all three options. This detail would be better utilized in a sentence like "Israel's status as a democracy has been questioned due to its military occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is the longest in modern history", which is one that I would support including in the fourth paragraph. Mawer10 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to keep everyone focused. Would you be open to adding my above proposal (Israel's policies and practices within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism, with human rights organizations and United Nations officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity) as a fourth option? Understandable if you're concerned about WP:RFCBRIEF, though.

I would also change options 1 and 2 to "sustained international criticism" which was in nableezy's initial suggestion but seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Mawer10's suggestions below are good, but I think we should focus on amending this sentence and then see about migrating the occupation part to a later paragraph.

I can post my own draft RfC but having seen the chaos that unfolded in the above thread, I'm cautious of doing so. WillowCity^(talk) 16:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What I am hoping is that between possibly several drafts and comments on them, there may be a combined draft that would garner a level of support that we could go forward with. You are right that we should try to ensure that any RFC does not produce yet another no consensus as that would mean doing the whole over again. Editors can still interpose their favored views as part of any !vote even if it does not specifically appear in given options. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, I've added a proposal below that I think accommodates the existing options to some extent. WillowCity^(talk) 16:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier Why did you not put up my version?? Which says simply that we should have this instead of the Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians.:

Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN Homerethegreat (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That version is a non consensus version, in other words it dilutes the existing consensus ie what is in the lead already. It or any other version can still be called for in a !vote. Also see my revised draft version 2, that provides additional options, for example an editor can vote 2 and select none of abcd which would in effect be a call for deletion of the existing sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

We are voting on propositions for a new RFC phrase, so I'm also proposing my phrase.

Every proposition that I saw, you put forward includes the addition of wording of either adding War Crimes or Crimes Against Humanity. And I'm proposing a version which states simply: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN

Instead of the sentence: Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians Homerethegreat (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Atm, we are not voting on anything, we are discussing various draft RFCs. No RFC is going to include every sentence proposed by every editor. It is best to start from where we left off at the last RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I like Homerethegreat’s version. It should certainly be one of the options on any RfC. Dovidroth (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Or, specifically, you could !vote for option 2ab of Selfstudier's Draft 2, which would be (almost) exactly what you're describing (human rights organizations would be the only addition). WillowCity^(talk) 13:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it actually adds wording of crimes against humanity etc... And I've already said I propose a different version. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing prevents your opening an RFC for that version. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought we were working on figuring out which version to propose for RFC no? Homerethegreat (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft RFC (Mawer10 version)

Opttions:

1) mention the Palestinian territories and human rights violations

(Israel's policies and actions on the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.

2) Mention the Palestinian territories, and no mention human rights violations

(Israel's policies and actions on the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.

3) No mention of the Palestinian territories and human rights violations

(Israel's policies and actions on the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.

4) actions in and outside the territories, no mention of human rights violation

(Israel's policies and actions within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, with human rights organizations and UN officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The options assume that there is consensus to include the mention of accusations of both war crimes and crimes against humanity, and attribution of the accusations to UN officials and human rights organizations. Mawer10 (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft RfC (WillowCity version)

Should the existing lead sentence "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians." be amended?

Option 1) no change to the existing wording.

Option 2) mention the occupation, actions, and accusations of war crimes:

Israel's actions, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn sustained international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians. criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes.

Option 3) mention actions and accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, with attribution:

Israel's actions in the longest military occupation in modern history have drawn sustained international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.

Option 4) mention the practices, policies, and accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, noting the occupation, with attribution:

Israel's policies and practices within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism, with human rights organizations and UN officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

(this is an attempt to synthesize the two drafts above, with the aim of encouraging further development and synthesis. Focused comments welcome as always.) WillowCity^(talk) 16:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 should be excluded because it's vague. It mentions criticism without specifying the place (Israel itself/occupied territories) or the victims of the crimes (Palestinians/others). Mawer10 (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Your option 4 is the same as my option 4, with the only difference being that my sentence omits "sustained" and uses "actions" instead of "practices". Mawer10 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft RFC (selfstudier version 2)

Should the existing lead sentence "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians." be amended?

Option 1 No change to existing wording.

Option 2 Yes (select the parts a, b, c, d of the sentence "(a)Israel's policies have drawn international criticism,(b) with accusations by human rights organizations and UN officials(c) that it has committed war crimes (d) and crimes against humanity.")

Example: A !vote of 2bd would signify a sentence similar to "Israel is accused by human rights organizations and UN officials of crimes against humanity." Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This is clever! I support a clause-by-clause breakdown for the RfC; I'd imagine that would make it easier for the closer to assess which aspects have consensus (e.g., “there is overwhelming support for 2b, and a clear consensus for 2d, hence…”). The only question is the omission of the occupation, but that may well be too many variables (I already count something like 15 possible outcomes).

That said, it seems there may be some comprehension issues with this. Also, what if, e.g., only 2b achieves consensus? That would yield something silly and vague like "Human rights organizations and UN officials have made accusations against Israel." But maybe we just need to roll the dice and trust the process. WillowCity^(talk) 15:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This is too convoluted to result in a change. If you want an RFC, do it like this: Should the sentence Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians. be changed to any of the following options:

• Option 1 - no change
• Option 2 - Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that is has commited war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials.
• Option 3 - Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN
• Option 4 - Israel's policies and actions on the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials. (or whichever version Mawer actually support)
• Option 5 - whatever else has some support on this page so far.

If Mawer10 or WillowCity wants to propose a (singular) sentence to include in the options they should do so. If anybody else does, they should do so. But make this a choice between the options, and not some competing rfc proposal set. The question is how should this sentence change. The options are all of the options that have some serious chance at gaining consensus. Thats how you start an rfc that actually is focused and has better than a snowball's chance in not ending in no consensus. nableezy - 17:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No notes or proposed additions, this wording looks good to me as is. WillowCity^(talk) 17:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

We've been here before. Accusations are not convictions. Appropriate for body. Not appropriate for lede. Mistamystery (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You are free to make that argument, but there clearly are people who disagree with you and the next step is to see where consensus lies. nableezy - 02:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Mistamystery is voting for Options 1 & 3. Options 1 & 3 omit the accusations. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That's what the RfC will be for, and this is not the RfC. No one is !voting yet, we're trying to figure out what editors will be voting on when the RfC opens. Option 2 is a valid option. WillowCity^(talk) 02:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Homerethegreat (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 5 - Israel's policies and actions in the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians.

Option 6 - Israel's policies and actions in the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians. United Nations officials and human rights organizations have accused Israel of war crimes. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wh15tL3D09N Thank you for putting up more options. I'm for option 5 , I don't mind however adding that the criticism is from the UN. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

For option 3 - - Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN Homerethegreat (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead balance

Original heading: In light of the UN taking two months to acknowledge the crimes committed upon Israeli civilians..

I think we better rethink what message is being conveyed in the lead, in regards to one side "violating human rights", and committing "war crimes", while no mention of the crimes committed by the other side.

I think a can of worms is being opened up in the lead guys, seriously. Because then we must present Israel's POV, and then, which side is right, which side is worse, atrocities have been committed on both sides. So my suggestion is, shorten the sentence to: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN, or we must also present Israel's POV in the lead. Because it cannot be left simply as it is. Michael0986 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The UN said Hamas committed war crimes within a day of October 7th. And of course Israel's POV on these issues would be included, namely that it denies the accusations. nableezy - 00:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

But it's only now that the mass rapes, sexual violence and mutilations are finally being acknowledged by the UN and other organizations. So it's not just one side that has committed war crimes, and crimes against humanity. That one sentence throws the balance of the lead on its head, everything else is quite neutral in the lead. Michael0986 (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The article on Hamas includes that it has launched indiscriminate rocket attacks and killed civilians, even massacred civilians. You seem to think that but they do it too should be included as a justification for war crimes. Is that what you actually think? nableezy - 04:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to compare the Wiki lead of Israel, a sovereign country with Hamas, a militant organization or political party. You need to compare it with other countries, who have been done or are accused of colonialism meaning - France, UK, Spain, Morroco, Netherlands. All of the 4 countries still control territories outside of their home sphere. France has fully integrated French Guiana (Which is in South America) into France since 1946. So let's compare Israel with the leads of such European countries. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Both are accused of ongoing war crimes whereas France and those other countries you keep pretending like this compares to is not. Sorry, but no I do not need to accept your chosen framing in which you can fill the lead of Hamas with all sorts of hysteria but decline to include soberly written facts in this one. nableezy - 12:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right that there are multiple issues in the Lead. I think one sentence is enough. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The existing and proposed are one sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we better rethink what message is being conveyed in the lead, in regards to one side "violating human rights", and committing "war crimes", while no mention of the crimes committed by the other side. There will be an opportunity for editors to opine on this in an upcoming RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Including a sentence in the lead, covering the pogroms, persecution and Aliyah

I started a topic a week ago, but really, I put my point across very poorly. Homer noted: "Zionism isn't just the result of anti-Semitism," which is true, but it certainly was the events in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe, which were the catalyst for modern Zionist organization in the latter 19th century, and implementing action for the actual Jewish immigration to Palestine that followed. Catalyst is the key word.

What do you guys think? I'm not quite sure how to word it, but I feel it's relevant enough to Israel's history to warrant mention in the lead. It's just how to compress the pogroms, persecutions, five waves of immigration (first Aliyah is of course most relevant here) into one sentence, which is difficult. Michael0986 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Pogroms, persecutions and antisemitism would basically be the same things in a very short sentence, I also don't think it's important to highlight any Aliyah in particular. To give context to the Zionist movement, perhaps you find the rise of nationalism during this period relevant. Mawer10 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Tough one. In essence the same, sure, but different kinds of persecution throughout Europe. Not all persecutions were violent like the "pogroms" in Russian Empire, Ukraine. I would like something like, as very rough examples: "the pogroms (or persecutions) sparked modern Zionism", or "hastened the acceptance of Zionism among many Jews," or "among Jewish intellectuals" Very rough obviously. I'm not a fan of the sentence: "The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism....", there should either be a preceding sentence, or a preceding line in the same sentence on what led or forced Zionism to implement their wish for an "establishment of a Jewish homeland". Here's a quick example in a paragraph on what I'm trying to get across: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1455350 Yeah, I very much find the rise of Nationalism during this period relevant, it seems slightly downplayed in this article. Michael0986 (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)