Talk:Israel

Long standing issue in lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Byzantine Empire article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The regime of Israel

There are strong disagreements in Israeli society about which institution cause the state not only a risk to its democracy but actually undemocratic I propose to change every mention of democracy in this article from 'is' to 'officially is' until the dispute is resolved and corresponding to the article about North Korea or 'de jure' in the article which is written on Syria, without any qualification if Israel is under authoritarian or totalitarian regimes as in those countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilad1250 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2022

wrong information: the new israeli prime mister is Benjamin Netanyahu and not yair lapid 84.110.99.216 (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2022

change "while the West Bank and Gaza were held by Jordan and Egypt" to "while the West Bank (as the area became known after the 1948 conflict) Gaza and the Eastern part of Jerusalem were held by Jordan and Egypt. Those territories were formally annexed in 1950 ". Ross 02:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think it's necessary to specify this for readability or clarity; prospective readers can read the article linked to for that information. —Sirdog (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Flag of the British empire

The flag of the British Empire should be added in the infobox.

Qplb191 (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Why? Israel is not a part of the British empire. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It is written on the declaration that the State of Israel was freed from the British Empire, therefore there should be a flag of the British Mandate Qplb191 (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qplb191: South Africa doesn't have the Union Jack in the infobox. Where would we even place it? ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Near “ Independence out of British Palestine” and then the British flag. Qplb191 (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@lol1VNIO near “independence out of British Palestine” there should be the British Union Jack flag. Qplb191 (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Independence out of British Palestine
Independence out of British Palestine

@Qplb191: The Manual of Style for icons generally eschews the use of flag icons in infoboxes except for some human geographic articles, where the inclusion is based on editorial consensus. I'm still against inclusion because it would place undue weight to the UK when they have nothing to do with Israel for a long time. If Israel were a Commonwealth nation, then I would've leaned towards neutral. Having the flag sandwich between out and British also makes no sense for text-only browsers. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 16:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@lol1VNIO Israel got its independence from the British Mandate that ruled over it therefore the British flag must be there since Israel belonged to Britain. The flag should be added, by the way, Israel is not a member of the Coomonwelath, but it was controlled by Britain for a long time and Britain's control of Israel is among the most famous, so the British flag must be excellent. Except that before the establishment of the state (1947-1948) the flag of Great Britain was the official flag displayed in the area that was called "Palestine" or the Land of Israel and before the establishment of the state the British flag was used as the local flag Qplb191 (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The example you gave should be in the infobox Qplb191 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qplb191: Other former British colonies that lasted longer than Mandatory Palestine don't include the flag. It's been 74 years since Israel's sovereignty from the UK so its national ties aren't strong as, say, an Olympic athlete. The Union Jack is in my honest opinion simply obsolete and its color gives too much emphasis on the colonial past. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

But we are only talking about the period before the establishment of the state, which was the flag of the area then called Palestine. Qplb191 (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@lol1VNIO but that’s was the flag before The establishment of the state of Israel , it’s should be mentioned. Qplb191 (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qplb191: Back then, yes, the Union Jack was the official flag. But the reign only lasted 20 years out of thousands of years of history, which, per MOS:FLAGCRUFT, would give too much prominence to the United Kingdom for no good reason. You say that "Britain's control of Israel is among the most famous" but untrue both ways: first, there's Hong Kong, Australia, Canada and the US, all of them speak English today, meaning the colonial times of the past had great of influence on the modern state; and second, interpreting it as "among the most famous in Israeli history", again, it can get inflammatory when hanging the flag of the colonial past. Also, why not include the UN flag at Admission to the United Nations – 11 May 1949 in the infobox just a bit below? Reader can click the link and click some more to get to see the flag at Mandatory Palestine. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@lol1VNIO Once again, the flag has no connection between Britain's relations with Israel, we are talking about the fact that Israel was founded by Britain, Britain was the country from which Israel was established and the flag before that is the British flag, so I think it is important to add the previous flag that was the flag of the region before the establishment of the state. Qplb191 (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Israel was not "founded by Britain". Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qplb191: None of the other former British colony articles feature the UK flag in their "independence" section of the infobox. This should also be consistent with this article. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I simply think that for every country freed from British rule the relevant flag should be displayed. Qplb191 (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Israel self declared on part of Palestine mandate territory following Britain's surrender of the Mandate, that is not a country being "freed from British rule" either. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless we don't do formerly apart of anyway in any modern day country infobox, these are only features on historical state articles, Lithuania's for example features no 'Independence from the Soviet Union'. Tweedle (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@selfstudier yes I agree but it was the flag unlike other countries, so why shouldn't it be excellent? Qplb191 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you are confusing 'excellent' with 'excluded' (and shouldn't with should as well), your last sentence does not make sense with the former. Tweedle (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I just meant that because the Union Jack was the flag of this era before the establishment of the state it’s should be mentioned as well Qplb191 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2022

Remove the Arabic text Arabic is not Israel its Palestine and does not belong on Israel article but only the Palestine article 71.241.203.240 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. —Sirdog (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

Israel’s nominal GDP per capita ranks 14th. Qplb191 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done In general, please remember to be specific with regards to the changes you suggest; it makes the reviewer's job a lot easier! Actualcpscm (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Arab countries 'intervened'?

I would argue that the word invaded would be more accurate given that is how it is recorded in its own article. 81.99.198.47 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not the largest city in Israel.

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

Prime Minister Changed

Bibi Is back on business 2001:4DF7:1:5972:0:0:0:1 (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Human rights criticism should be mentioned in lede.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria, as well as country articles in other regions, mention accusations of human rights violations in the lede. Given that Israel is also widely condemned by major human rights organizations for its human rights violations, it seems to make sense to include that in the lede, alongside the "Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state, and as the nation-state of the Jewish people." sentence. Iran and China also define themselves as democratic states, but neither of those country articles are afforded this self-designation, yet the Israel article simply goes with Israel's self-definition without mentioning that major human rights organizations have stated that Israel is undemocratic, as have prominent scholars: [6] [7]. In fact, Wikipedia's article on Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, has a mention of the Basic Law being described as undemocratic by critics. I suggest that criticism of Israel's human rights record (and being called undemocratic) should be mentioned in the lede, as is standard in other country articles, and the Israeli government's self-descriptions should not be given undue weight. JasonMacker (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Think we need some good source analysis on this question, can't just look at one or two and conclude something. Self serving descriptions are not worth much though, needs to be RS, and be balanced by contradictory sourcing, if it exists. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The 'Freedom House' quote may have outlived its usefulness. Also, what a country defines itself as does smack distinctly of a WP:MISSION issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, four points should be highlighted, that Israel: maintains what is now the world's longest military occupation, established an apartheid system, continues illegal settlement expansion, and often uses excessive violence against the Palestinians. These are all well-established and reported by reputable Israeli, Palestinian and international organizations, and failure to mention any of those in the lede is fairly hypocritical to say the least. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I propose adding this to the lede:

Israel has faced increasing international criticism, for maintaining the longest military occupation is modern history, expansion of Israeli settlements despite illegality under international law, and accusations of apartheid over its treatment of the Palestinians. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

:::It seems an unnecessary one-sided POV addition. Lead already mentions the occupation, Palestinian exodus and rejection of settlements by the international community.--Shuvam Koleyri (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What's POV about 'the longest military occupation in modern history'? That's factual (the West Bank was never annexed) and fairly remarkable. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The longest thing would be fine if it is to replace/supplement the existing although imo it is more interesting that the Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine itself is now being questioned and an ICJ opinion about it is being sought. There is the statement yesterday from the US on settlement activity - "The Homesh outpost in the West Bank is illegal. It is illegal even under Israeli Law. Our call to refrain from unilateral steps certainly includes any decision to create a new settlement, to legalize outposts or allowing building of any kind deep in the West Bank, adjacent to Palestinian communities or on private Palestinian land." And of course the apartheid accusations are notable and not going away (this is in the body but not in the lead). Selfstudier (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

These two could be combined: the first line of Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine itself remarks on the length of the occupation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, the legality issue revolves around the idea that an occupation is supposed to be temporary, instead there is the length + lack of evidence of any intent to terminate, instead all the evidence points to permanence, including de facto annexation done and planned. What would be useful is to find one source with all these things in it (they are all interconnected) rather than a bit here and a bit there. I will take a look around, maybe the Amnesty report + secondaries. Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-claimed-some-wins-in-un-vote-but-the-icj-process-is-a-serious-threat/

https://www.ejiltalk.org/un-general-assembly-committee-adopts-resolution-requesting-second-advisory-opinion-from-icj-on-occupied-palestinian-territory/

These two cover all the bases, any more? Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a polite reminder that this is Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that strives to be as objective and trustworthy as possible and is open to all readers, who expect to consume verifiable and neutral content. Wikipedia is not a discussion board, not a platform for activists, not a BDS leaflet, nor anything of the sort. The international community's opinions on the settlements and the present situation of the 1967 territories are already presented in the lead, and this is more than enough. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to advance a political agenda, otherwise, we risk undermining the project's reliability. Tombah (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a polite reminder to comment on content. I know it's hard, try anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It also is not an arm of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and should not be misused to advance nationalist mythologies. nableezy - 22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

On which note, I've opened a separate thread on over-reliance on MFA resources just below at Primary sourcing run amok. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I also support the "longest military occupation" going back in to the lede. It was removed at some point without full discussion. It is one of the key reasons why Israel's human rights record gets so much criticism - military occupations always result in human rights violations, and Israel's has been going on for longer than anyone else's. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I also see some merit in putting 'longest military occupation' in the lede, it's certainly relevant that Israel is in the 7th decade of a military occupation with illegal settlements only increasing. (I could also see some merit in a similar phrase in the lede for both Turkey and Morocco, both of whom also occupy territory illegally for almost as long, though that's outside this discussion). Jeppiz (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jeppiz. Agreed. You raise the comparison to the other ongoing military occupations – that could bring out two further points:

(1) Israel holds the second-largest number of people under occupation in the whole world; only Russia’s occupation of Ukraine is now bigger. On a relative basis – amount of people under occupation versus the size of the occupying country – Israel’s occupation is by far the largest in the world.

(2) Israel’s occupation is the only one with apartheid characteristics, where a group of people in the occupied territories are treated as second-class citizens.

These facts make Israel unique in the world.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I have started an RfC below. In order to avoid a confusing discussion, I have kept it focused on the single topic of the apartheid accusations. The longest military occupation point never faced opposition to my knowledge, so it will be more useful to focus on how community consensus is evolving on the apartheid question. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Syrian Golan Heights

@OuroborosCobra: The Golan Heights is Syrian. That is an indisputable fact. If it was so “inconsequential”, the edit wouldn’t have been reverted twice in an hour. There’s no reason whatsoever not to mention that the Golan Heights is Syrian, given that in the very same sentence the territories are described to be Palestinian. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That they are internationally recognized as Syrian isn't the inconsequential part. That you want some specific form of "consistency" in how that is communicated is what is inconsequential. Both versions call the Golan Heights occupied territory, meaning not Israeli. Clicking on the link to Golan Heights will bring you to an article that says they are internationally recognized as Syrian (worth noting that parts of them are also claimed by Lebanon, which may be why specifically saying "Syrian" was left out in the first place). You aren't edit warring over whether they are Syrian or Israeli, just how it is expressed. That's the inconsequential part. This article is already under discretionary sanctions and you are getting into an edit war over a sentence in the lede. When you were first reverted, you should have come to the talk page to discuss this, but instead just re-reverted. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of an obvious reason why it shouldn't be mentioned that they are Syrian. It may well help readers unfamiliar with the what/where geography. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not stress that it is occupied Syrian territory? What is the problem with that? Every single source mentions that fact. The talk page could have been used by the user who first reverted my edit, who is nowhere to be seen here. You are yet to provide a convincing argument on why "Syrian" should not be included in the very same sentence where the territories are said to be Palestinian. The fact that Shebaa farms are Lebanese is "inconsequential", considering that the overwhelming majority of sources describe the territory to be Syrian. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The infobox says "the annexed Golan Heights" as if it were an approved thing, when it is rather a unilateral annex and the settlements there are just as illegal as those in the WB, per UNSC resolutions. Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Corrected that. nableezy - 16:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

My primary objection to what was happening on this page was that edit warring was happening in an article with discretionary sanctions over not even what is to be presented or what facts are presented, just the how. That was a very silly thing to get into an edit war over rather than coming to this talk page, which is what Makeandtoss should have done when they were first reverted. That said, there is an interesting issue here as to what we should say. The international community overwhelmingly (the United States not withstanding) recognizes the Golan Heights (or at least what Israel controls of it) to be Syrian territory. However, Lebanon claims Shebaa farms, which are within the Israeli controlled area of the Golan Heights, as its own territory, to the point that they claim Israel never fully withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. Certainly, that's not a position shared by the international community (the UN even certified the Israeli withdrawal as complete), but it is a position shared by Syria, which claims that the Shebaa farms are part of Lebanon and not part of Syria. So, it's an odd situation where the international community says that Israel is occupying Syrian territory in the Golan Heights (and only Syrian territory), but Syria themselves claim that only most of the occupied territory is theirs, and that some of it is Lebanese. I'm not sure I know of another example where the international community sides with a country in a border dispute only for that country to disagree with part of that international position. This is all contained in our article on the Golan Heights. So, is it proper to only say that the Golan Heights are Syrian when Syria says they are Syrian and Lebanese? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There are some minor anomalies, including Shebaa and Ghajar, but the language found in most sources is that the Golan, as a whole, are Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Now whether or not the Golan includes Shebaa and all of Ghajar is in some dispute, but not so much that we need to lose the forest for those two trees. Especially in this article, which is Israel and not Golan Heights, which as you note does cover those anomalies. nableezy - 21:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a very minor anomaly that constitutes less than 1% of the area of the Golan Heights - not really the level of detail necessary in lead summaries. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

When the Shebaa farms are mentioned they are mentioned by name rather than being mentioned as Lebanese parts of Golan Heights. It is anyway too insignificant, as 99% of the territory is indisputably legitimately Syrian. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Primary sourcing run amok

A huge volume of content on this page is sourced to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a politically biased government source that would be unreliable at the best of times and on this particular page constitutes a primary source. I've made a minimal dent in this, removing some examples of references that duplicated other citations and tagging others, but help would be appreciated - both to continue this process and find reliable, secondary sourcing for important material that is currently supported solely by this unreliable, primary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

By my count there are still more than two dozen MFA weblinks - a few of which usefully (and neutrally) host historical documents, but many of which don't and instead support factual statements in Wikivoice (either together with other sources or in isolation) - something the MFA is not really reliable for (except for the most rudimentary information about itself). Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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