Talk:Israel

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)

Homerethegreat, if you yet insist on the changes, I suggest starting a WP:RFC as per here and the above. Duvasee (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note that it appears that every editor other than you seems to have indicated support for the inclusion of the following: With a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023, Israel is the only country where Jews constitute a majority of the population. Please read WP:RFC which says:

RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC.

As it seems there is consensus for inclusion (all editors who expressed their voice have supported except thee), I do not see why there should be an RFC. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:24, 18 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)

I support: “With a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023, . (Date not needed - in infobox) Israel is the only country where Jews constitute the majority of inhabitants."Moxy- 20:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Worthy to remind everyone here that Wikipedia is not a democracy and we do not insert content by head counting; lede are summaries of the body, and what is considered to be Israel is a matter of dispute (does it include occupied territory and its illegal settlements; yes according to maps by Israel's prime minister and other state media). The recent addition to the lede is not representative of the body and ignores the realities which I am not sure if are discussed by any other better source than i24news. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, please read above, there is clear consensus, and there are other sources than i24. Why remove the content? It seems a bit drastic a measure. Also I guess it's makeandtoss because you removed it but you forgot to sign your message. Also please take time to read the discussion in which 8 editors have voiced and supported the phrase. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

If you can self rv that could do well, but please note that now there is no mention of the population of Israel in lead. Whilst in most countries' leads, population is mentioned. See UK for example. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Also I'm a bit uncertain what is meant by ignores realities. Israel is the only country with a Jewish majority. I really don't understand why this is such an issue, especially after having garnered consensus. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

What is even Israel? In theory, there is no definition of Israel, as the country does not have a constitution. In practice, Netanyahu, the country's prime minister, thinks Israel is all of Mandatory Palestine; which would mean, no, Jews are a minority there. Let's avoid this contentious characterization, which is not even mentioned in body, going against MOS:LEDE. Consensus is achieved through taking editors concerns based on WP guidelines into consideration; it is not achieved through a head count. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

A constitution is a legal document. Not every country has a constitution, the UK and Canada don't also have.[1] Israel is guided by the declaration of independence and basic laws. Also Israel did not decide it controls the Mandate of Palestine. Israel formally annexed the Goldan, Jerusalem not West Bank and Gaza Strip. Eladkarmel (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Not every has an occupation either, so your analogy is not fitting to this situation. Israel's declaration of independence nor basic laws define its borders. See? You say Golan and East Jerusalem are part of Israel; Netanyahu says everything is Israel; Israel says nothing about what is Israel; so what really is Israel for us to make a statement that it is a majority Jewish state? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Makeandtoss: "Israel hosts the largest Jewish population in the world and is the only country where Jews comprise the majority of the population" — article's body, section Demographics. Mawer10 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Mediocre source. What is even Israel? Because you will get a dozen different answers if you ask four Israelis. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I don't understand how the last sentence is relevant to encyclopedia. Now getting to encyclopedia, What I understand is that you want a different source to i24 which you feel is more trustworthy? Homerethegreat (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

[2] I added here Yedioth Ahronot, you can google translate. If one includes all of historic Palestine it's 52% Jews, if one takes out Gaza Strip then its 60% majority Jews, if one takes out the West Bank it's about 80-75%. Again I do not see the reason to enter hypothetical boundaries since it is clear that is Israel has only officially annexed Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (of course and 1967 Green line Israel).

I hope this sorts it out... Homerethegreat (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Jews are a 47% minority in all of historic Palestine [3], which casts further doubt on the source you mentioned, which I would already not use anyway, as independent secondary RS would be required for this claim. I think the definition of Israel and the nature of the conflict is too controversial for us to make such claims, better to be avoided all together. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Makeandtoss we're not talking about historic Palestine that's another article. This is an article on the state of Israel. It's not up to us to decide what Israel is or to ask 4 random Israelis as you said. But to act according to source. Makeandtoss I think 8 or 9 editors have supported the sentence. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Again WP is not a democracy so please stop mentioning that. It is you who mentioned historic Palestine in your comment: "If one includes all of historic Palestine it's 52% Jews", to which I responded that it is in fact a 47% minority. We need better sources for this claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

WP acts by consensus, this article is not about historic Palestine but about the state of Israel! (Again), Makeandtoss I realize you may see Israel as encompassing all of historic Palestine but according to sources and Israel itself it has officially incorporated into it's territory only the Jerusalem area and the Golan heights. It feels like you may filibustering. Please note (again) that if I'm not mistaken 11 editors have participated in this discussion and 9 have supported. On a positive note, Happy New Year :). Homerethegreat (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes by consensus, which means taking into consideration arguments made based on WP guidelines. It's not me who is saying that Israel is not just 1948 Israel, but a wider one; it is Netanyahu, his government, and the settlements. I am sorry you feel that way; I have already proved this is an Israeli view and not mine, and proved how the 52% figure is factually wrong and thus casting doubt on the mediocre source. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry Makeandtoss but though I don't feel I can explain this to you, I'll try again... Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005 (here is a source for thought) [4]. And here is another source regarding legal framework overall. [5]. Again, Israel formally annexed Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. For clarity a Vietnamese government minister can say Vietnam should rule Cambodia, but it doesn't mean it does and suddenly there is no Vietnamese majority in the country. (Weird example, just tried to think of a random place, hope you liked the metaphor). Hope I managed to clear this up. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a government minister, it is the country's prime minister for the past 20 years. It is the Israeli state itself. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

A) One man is not the entire state. B) He has not been PM for the last 20 years, he hasn't even been PM for the all of the last 15 years, and was not PM between 15 and 20 years ago at all. C) A "statement" from a PM is not law in this (or most) contexts, period. Was it a bill passed by the Knesset? I am unaware of such a law passed by the Knesset annexing the Gaza Strip or the West Bank (outside of Jerusalem). There is the Jerusalem Law passed by the Knesset regarding Jerusalem., and the similar Golan Heights Law regarding the Golan Heights, but there are not similar laws passed by the Knesset regarding the Gaza Strip or West Bank outside of Jerusalem. That includes Israeli settlements in the West Bank outside of Jerusalem; they have not been legally annexed by the Israeli government/State, and not personal statements by any prime minister changes that fact according to Israeli law. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

One man is the embodiment of the executive powers and the most important position in the state, who has been PM on and off for most of the past 20+ years. Was a bill passed by Knesset defining Israel in 1948 borders? This is your opinion that Israel=1948+annexed territories. Many RS simply disagree. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try again to explain. You're suggesting that when Yair Lapid and Netanyahu switched as prime ministers, Israel's borders changed. I hope you can see why it doesn't make sense and take no offense. I think @OuroborosCobra's explanation also well explained. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

As shown by the Jerusalem and Golan Heights Laws, annexation is a legislative and not an executive power, so your argument that the PM represents the executive powers of the state is moot. We are not discussing the 1948 borders (which weren’t set in 1948, but in 1949, see our articles on that and the legal process therein), that is moving the goal post. RS disagree? Well, those same RS that disagree would entirely disagree with your position of including the entirety of Gaza and the West Bank as “Israel,” so that’s very much a losing argument for you. There is no RS providing for a legal description of their annexation. If there is, provide one. Lastly, no one would say that Biden has been the “US president for the last 5 years,” I even if it is the majority of that time, as it’s silly. He hasn’t been. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We are not going to keep talking about what is de jure truths while ignoring de facto truths on the ground, namely the illegal settlements. The burden is on you to provide high quality reliable independent sources to support your argument and insert it in the article properly, not mine. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not the one who started us down this path with “what even is Israel” and then started only presented patently moot claims. If you are ok dropping this stick, then so be it. Sources have been presented below my comment. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Israel country profile in BBC: "A country on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, Israel is the only state in the world with a majority Jewish population."

Encyclopedia Britannica: "The State of Israel is the only Jewish nation in the modern period"

Pew Research Center: "Israel is the only country with a Jewish majority".

DW: "Israel... is the only state in the world with a majority Jewish population." Mawer10 (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This is from country profiles which do not discuss the topic at length. We have a reality in which the Israeli state (which this WP article is supposed to talk about) controls both Israel and the occupied territories, and thus rules over an Arab majority. This is best summarized in this HRW report:

“ Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them. [6] ”

We are not going to use this piece of information without giving due context on how Israeli state also rules the occupied territories and maintains a regime of apartheid - knowing that when we proposed an RFC a few months ago to include a short sentence to give that context, it was rejected without regard to WP guidelines, namely WP:LEDE which states that the lede is a summary of body, including any prominent controversies, of which apartheid is certainly one. A controversy which takes up an entire section, and not a short sentence in the demography section. Including this piece of information on Israel being a Jewish majority state without elaboration on the rule over the Israeli occupied territories and thus the apartheid charge in the lede will be completely misleading and will not be acceptable. I would be willing to support the inclusion of this sentence only if apartheid is mentioned in the lede, giving the full picture, not a misleading one. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is not occupied territories, but about the State of Israel. When the Republic of Artsakh still existed, the article on Armenia did not include it in its statistics. The article about Russia does not include the occupied populations of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, and only includes Crimea in so far as the official Russian census does, but then includes the Russian population without Crimea as well. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If this is, as you say, an article about the State of Israel, then it is proper to include information about the State of Israel, including the Jewish majority within it. The occupied territories are, by virtually any RS, not considered a part of the State of Israel. The statement in question isn't about who "controls" or "governs" whom, which is also a more complicated question then you make it out to be (Area A, Area B, Area C, for example). Furthermore, I'd like to remind you of a few policies. First, as you asked for, reliable sources were prevented. Your rejection of them should not be based on Trying to Right Great Wrongs. If RS reports the State of Israel as majority Jewish, it is not up to Wikipedia to reject that because of other political realities extending beyond the borders (whether they include Jerusalem and the Golan Heights or not) of the State of Israel. We can provide further context in the article itself, and link to that context from the lede, but it isn't our place to right some great wrong that you feel the reliable sources are misreporting. Furthermore, it is worth remembering WP:OWN. I don't think you are violating that policy yet, but I do think with this line of discussion, you are getting close to it. You seem only willing to accept an article status that meets with your personal view of what it should contain and how it should be phrased, as opposed to consensus among editors, which overwhelmingly appears to disagree with your demands. That this is supported with some strange claims or questions ("what even is Israel?" "Netanyahu IS the State of Israel" and a few others), it's bordering on WP:OWN, or if not, maybe over emotional investment in this topic that detracts from an ability to achieve consensus with other editors. I get that, this is a topic that rightly and greatly brings out people's personal feelings; I think we all would not be human if that wasn't the case. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making false equivalencies. The case of Israel is unique with regards to: being the longest military occupation in modern times at 56 years; a Jewish minority of 47% ruling over an Arab majority; the existence of settlements that have torn the occupied territories; the geographic reality in which you can cross from the river to the sea by car in less than an hour; and in which one state controls everything: Israel.

This article is about the State of Israel, and the State of Israel has been charged with maintaining control over the occupied territories (including its population) in a system of apartheid according to RS which are included in the body already.

Avoiding mention of this reality in the lede while including half truths about the State of Israel being a Jewish majority country contradicts MOS:LEDE completely, and is a disproportionate and selective summarization of the body.

I would like to remind you that WP is not a democracy and that decisions are made by consensus, which is defined as taking all editors legitimate concerns based on WP guidelines.

I base my arguments on MOS:LEDE and I have opened dozens of constructive talk page discussions on this article over the past ten years and I reject the misrepresentation of my position into “overemotional investment” and a sense of “ownership”, which are meant to distract from the main topic here. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There is clearly a consensus to add this. Think best all move on. Moxy- 21:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't find a consensus, you achieve one. No one has yet responded to the legitimate concerns that have been made. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss it's alright if you don't agree, but I really do think there is a consensus to include the sentence...

I've put the sentence before and it was removed is it ok if I restore the sentence or is it best to wait for another editor to restore it? Homerethegreat (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Any comment? Homerethegreat (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a summary of the body, and is a half truth, considering the refusal to include a summary of the apartheid section in the lede, despite the lede being a summary of the body. Legitimate concerns have not been addressed, not by a single initiative. I have proposed a compromise which would see both sides represented in the lede, but I am yet to see a single compromise on this issue. Consensus is achieved by taking editor's legitimate concerns into consideration, and not by a headcount. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss this discussion is not on apartheid. Your concerns were addressed above by several editors. From what you wrote above I infer you believe Israel emcompasses or should emcompass all of historic Palestine. Sources say otherwise. Either way even that is irrelevant to the discussion.

The discussion is on the population of Israel, if CIA world factbook, BBC and other RS say Israel's population is near 10 million and is majority Jewish than so be it. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, can you post your suggested compromised sentence? Wafflefrites (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Should be restore as per this talk and our lone editor should Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Its clear we have a WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 Moxy- 18:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think @Moxy explained well. Should I restore the sentence? I'm not certain if it would be considered edit warring or not, since I've restored the sentence prior and it's been removed by Makeandtoss. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Please allow me to elaborate my concerns in a new section, as this is part of a bigger problem. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't need my permission. But please lets avoid going over things again and again... Either way, I think this Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass applies in this case as explained above. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC on human rights language in lead

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 it has committed 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 United Nations.
• 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.
• Option 5 - remove entirely

nableezy - 17:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 2 - as discussed in the RFC above on including accusations of apartheid in the lead, the current version of the sentence undersells the controversy by a considerable amount, and the addition of any singular charge, be it forced displacement, indiscriminate attacks, the illegality of Israeli settlements, collective punishment or indeed apartheid, is not really encompassing the width and breadth of the charges. The sentence in Option 2 is as succinct and clear as possible, and it is exceedingly well sourced. UN Officials such as Volker Turk (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, not a part of the Human Rights Council) and various Special Rapporteurs have said Israel has committed a number of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the United Nations Security Council has denounced acts by Israel as being violations of the laws of war as early as 1968 through 2016, the United Nations General Assembly has denounced Israeli actions as violations war crimes from as early as 1969 and yearly for at least the last 15 years on settlements and the attempted changes in status of East Jerusalem. 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 accusations of crimes against humanity by human rights organizations include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'tselem, among others. And these accusations have been widely covered; these are just some of the sources covering just Amnesty's accusation against Israel regarding apartheid: AP, NPR, The Guardian, Reuters, Politico, al Jazeera. There isnt any dispute on the factual accuracy of the sentence. As far as WP policy, WP:LEAD says that prominent controversies should be included in the lead. The fact that Israel has been repeatedly accused of ongoing war crimes and crimes against humanity is the most prominent controversy about the topic of Israel. It is without doubt one of the most noted controversies in reliable sources about any country period. Even the briefest perusal of news reports or scholarly articles about Israel will show that this controversy has an immense amount of weight given to it in the sources. The controversy has spawned its own controversies, with calls for boycott and sanctions, with countries recalling ambassadors or refusing to recognize Israel. There is simply no basis for claiming that this is not accurate, that it is not a notable controversy regarding the subject of this article, that it does not have weight in sources for inclusion. People will point to France for example and say well that doesnt include the crimes of the French in Algeria and its other colonies, neglecting the difference in sourcing and the sustained criticism. They will say Canada ethnically cleansed its native population and that is not in its lead, ignoring that these sources are discussing ongoing actions and, more pertinently for us, it simply does not matter if another article is poorly written, that the failing of some other article has no bearing on this one. The weight of the sources and our policies are in agreement on the inclusion of such material in the lead, and there is no policy basis for exclusion. nableezy - 17:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Id like to add in response to some of the arguments about other articles and supposed consistency. None of those articles have as its subject a state that has been so consistently accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. And you can try to pretend like it is bias that leads to these accusations and not the military occupation and subjugation of a people for 56 years, but the sources are what matter here, and the sourcing here, from academic scholars in international law (here is now sitting Israeli Supreme Court justice Daphne Barak-Erez writing The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation. about Israeli settlements for example) to widely respected human rights organizations, to UN officials, to UN agencies, to the UNGA and UNSC. People are arguing that the sources should not matter, that their personal views should count for more, and as a rule on Wikipedia that argument is worthless and should be ignored. Also, Id like to note that a wide scale email canvassing campaign has taken place asking people to vote for option 3 or 5 on 12 December. Any closer should be aware of this effort to corrupt our consensus process. nableezy - 14:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Source for the claim about canvassing? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Evidence[7] Blocked canvassers: [8][9][10][11][12] O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ive forwarded the evidence to the arbitration committee. But much the same as the emails referenced by O3000. nableezy - 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  A serious accusation. The evidence you showed in [20] is from October. And another from early December on a vote of another page. Do you have other evidence of this issue in respect to this vote? I saw you added links to blocked users, I did not see one that participated in this RFC (they don't seem to be ECs). I think it is much more likely that since Israel pg has 2800 watchers and one of the more watched pages in Wikipedia, it would make sense many users would take note of the RFC, especially one as contentious as this one. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  The blocked users were socks who canvassed via Wikipedia emails. One of the emails specifically links to this page. They are all related to Israel, the subject of this page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  The email is from October no? This RFC was started a few days ago in December. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  Like I said, I forwarded the evidence to the arbitration committee, but there were emails sent out for this RFC on 12 December. nableezy - 14:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  Then ArbCom should be the one to tell the closer the relevance of the evidence. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  The other completely bogus argument here is that Israel cannot have material that does not appear in other country articles. It is saying that if Wikipedia existed during the Apartheid era South Africa that we could not mention the international condemnation for that regime because some other country that was not subject to such condemnation didn’t mention something similar. Israel is unique in this regard, and the comparisons are completely bogus. And the sourcing shows it, something completely ignored by the 3 and 5 voters. nableezy - 01:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I would be hesitant to include references to criticism from the UN without putting it in context of the bias in the UN against Israel, as it presents a misleading picture that would be contrary to WP:NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, therefore there should be a link, linking to the Bias in the UN, or add - which has been accused of bias against Israel. Although I do not like the idea of over explaining again and again in the lead Homerethegreat (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  That would be absurd, the only people claiming a UN bias against Israel are highly partisan sources. That isnt context, that is gaslighting. nableezy - 01:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Even the Secretary General has said the UN has issued "disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel".

  Although, it should be obvious - unless you believe Israel is more worthy of condemnation than the rest of the world put together? BilledMammal (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Israel is a creation of the UN, the UN is responsible for the result of that creation, including the expulsion of the Palestinians from Palestine, so yes it gets the focus of the UN. The only people claiming a bias against Israel are highly partisan sources. It is gaslighting, an attempt to shield criticism by claiming to be the victim. nableezy - 11:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Even the UN Secretary General has explicitly said there is bias against Israel - while he did later retract the statement, the fact that he could say and think it at all demonstrates that it's not the highly partisan position you believe it is.

  In general, dismissing hundreds of sources saying there is bias against Israel at the UN on the grounds that they are all "highly partisan sources", while also arguing that it is reasonable for Israel to be condemned more than Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey, Northern Cyprus, China, Sudan, Myanmar, Yemen, Eritrea, the Central African Republic - not to mention the rest of the world - put together, is an odd position to take. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  So you’re saying the UN secretary general said there is no bias? Cool cool. The section you linked to is filled with garbage sources like UN Watch, and you want to pretend like it should be treated as objective fact. Again, gaslighting, the abuser claims to be the victim to make you disbelieve anything said against them. Next you’ll tell me Btselem is antisemitic too. nableezy - 13:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Girl. Zanahary (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Im sorry what? nableezy - 19:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Collapsing off topic bickering

*:::::::Was definitely a bit odd to see things like So you’re saying the UN secretary general said there is no bias? which is the exact opposite of what BM actually said. JM (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Not sure why youre responding to something from 6 weeks ago, but do you know what "retract" means? Some synonyms are abjure, forswear, recant, and renounce. nableezy - 18:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Because this is an RfC which is still open. I don't know why if you dislike me responding to something from 6 weeks ago that you also respond; the meaning of "retract" is irrelevant because it doesn't retroactively change the fact that he physically said it. As BM said, the fact that he could say and think it at all demonstrates that it's not the highly partisan position you believe it is. JM (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC) It does however mean he disclaimed it, which means he denied it. Which is what I said, making your question to me dumbfounding. Feel free to the last word, I dont intend to engage with you further. And who said it was still open? There hasnt been an RFC tag on this section for multiple weeks now. People who have never been here keep showing up though, for reasons unknown. nableezy - 22:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Considering I ended up here through the page that lists all RfCs and it's not been closed, seems open to me. Anyway, you claimed BM said that the UN secretary general said that there was no bias against Israel, when what they actually said was that the UN secretary general said that there was bias against Israel and then retracted it, meaning your rhetorical comment was a mischaracterization. JM (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA06/20230622/116138/HHRG-118-FA06-Wstate-NeuerH-20230622.pdf Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I just realized this source is from UN Watch, which has partisan ties. Nonetheless I have not heard good things about the current United Nations. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that there are better sources than the UN on this subject. Also the several choices listed for the RfC all rest on the weasel-worded "has drawn ..." when clearly there are sources to which the concerns and judgments can be attributed. A poll such as this one should give us choices among validly worded WP article text sans weasel. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  That section is full of OR and not particularly neutral. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with BilledMammal's comments. JM (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 without attribution - "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that is has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people". Between State and Non-State: Politics and Society in Kurdistan-Iraq and Palestine (2017) "There have also been many accusations of Israeli crimes against humanity and war crimes..." written before recent events that have served only to multiply said accusations. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2, with or without attribution, but 4 is also good (I like the reference to policies as well as practices). Option 5 should be an absolute non-starter (it would result in the omission of a significant portion of the body from summary in the lead), and Option 3 is a significant understatement. Agree with nableezy that whataboutism is no answer to clear WP policies, and that war crimes and crimes against humanity are exceptionally notable, well-sourced controversies regarding Israel. WillowCity^(talk) 18:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. (Summoned by bot) --Andreas JN466 18:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 - It is representing the major controversies as WP:LEAD demands inclusion. Moreover, it is well-sourced and is much clearer that the current "have drawn international condemnation" in the lead. The reliable sources tend to reflect that things out there are beyond a simple "international condemnation". --Mhhossein ^talk 19:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, with or without attribution. This option is better for presenting the accusations against Israel. The option 2, while still conveying a similar message, is slightly more wordy and may be considered less clear. The use of "practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories" introduces unnecessary complexity compared to the more direct language in Option 4. The phrase "against the Palestinian people" is redundant, as the accusations are inherently linked to Israel's actions on the occupied Palestinian territories. And, there are Palestinians in Israel proper that are not victims of such crimes. In contrast, Option 4 is more concise, clear, and and direct in conveying the message. Mawer10 (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 4 per nableezy. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the United Nations.

Per WP:Summary style, lead is summary and body is place for explanations per (Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section).)

WP:NPOV which dictates: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Topic is controversial specifically war crimes / crimes against humanity which is not widely supported, there is consensus on Israel being criticized internationally, especially by the United Nations, therefore WP:NPOV dictates to be as loyal to neutrality as possible.

WP:NPOV, Prefer nonjudgmental language. Overemphasizing controversial non consensus by world on Israel commiting war crimes and crimes against humanity violates further dictate. If there is included per WP:NPOV we must Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This will make it too long whilst Lead needs to be summary, therefore best elaborate in body. Per WP:Summary style, the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points.

Furthermore lead is should be summary of article. Lead currently lacks mention of vital important information - Israel's transition from Socialism to Free Market economy. Another vital lack of detail is regarding culture - The Revival of the Hebrew language. Therefore, clearly the topic is notable and should be short and to the point in order to give space to other important info as well as follows WP:NPOV and WP:Summary style. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose option 3. It misleads the reader into believing that the UN is the main source of criticism of Israel, and that other sources of criticism either don't exist or are not noteworthy, and I can't emphasize how false that is. VR _talk 05:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So Option 3 without the UN part is ok? That's plausible. By the way the UN is the most significant organization doing this. I don't mind removing the UN bit. The UN is considered biased by some. By the way all considering Option 3 is still most valid. Furthermore I referred to the UN once, and once to point out since the United Nations is the most notable critic per Weight. Furthermore, please note most of my arguments do not deal with the UN so please refer to my actual arguments. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Since you've !voted below, would you mind removing bold from you comment in order not to mislead other editors and the closer? Alaexis_¿question? 10:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3, without "its occupation of", which is repetitive, not useful for the reader, even burdensome. Should have voted option 5, but in the sake of reaching some type of agreement, this can work. TaBaZzz (talk)
• Option 3 - This seems the most reasonable option. No other country in Wikipedia has accusations of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" in the introduction, not even Russia. Dovidroth (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  The leads of Sudan, Cambodia, Rwanda etc all mention genocide (which is definitely a war crime). VR _talk 05:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 5. Come on, man—Russia, Saudi, Syria, North Korea—all these countries have gentler language in the lede than some of these suggestions for Israel.Zanahary (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Did you actually read the leads of these articles? Here's what the one on North Korea says:

  North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship with a comprehensive cult of personality around the Kim family. The country is widely considered to have the worst human rights record in the world. Officially, North Korea is an "independent socialist state"which holds democratic elections; however, independent observers have described the elections as sham elections. VR _talk 05:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3. Other options use language that is stronger than that used for other countries, which have worse human rights record: Israel proper: 77/100, West Bank 22/100, Gaza 11/100 (largely due to the Hamas government), compared to Egypt 18/100, Vietnam 19/100, China 9/100, United Arab Emirates 18/100, Azerbaijan 9/100, etc. I'm using Freedom House ratings since this is what u:Nableezy (the initiator of the RfC) used himself - happy to consider other ratings. Singling out Israel is a violation of WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 10:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Did you read the source on Gaza Strip? It primarily blames Israel, and then secondarily blames Hamas: Israel’s de facto blockade of the territory, along with its periodic military incursions and rule of law violations, has imposed serious hardship on the civilian population, as has Egypt’s tight control over the southern border.[13]

  But, more importantly, freedom house ratings are not intended to illuminate war crimes. VR _talk 05:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  It appears @Alaexis is attempting to show the disparity and dissonance in respect to usage of language whilst recognizing that Israel is a democracy and considered Free. The user seems to be pointing at the rankings of various countries in order to illustrate the potential disparity options 4,2 would present in contrast to the actual sourced rankings in respect to freedom. It seems a valid argument. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's a straw an argument since the proposed text is not about what Israel is doing inside Israel proper but what it's doing inside the occupied Palestinian territories, meaning West Bank and Gaza Strip. VR _talk 23:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  First, the Freedom House score takes into account civil liberties, and nearly all war crimes infringe on these liberties in some way.

  Still, if you think it's not good, please provide another source which ranks or rates countries according to the number and severity of war crimes committed by them. I promise you, if Israel is ranked worse than Turkey (occupiers of land in Syria and Cyprus), Russia, Saudi Arabia or China, I'll reconsider my !vote. Alaexis_¿question? 10:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

What does policy say? Whether to include something in the lead is WP:DUE-ness issue, and DUE-ness is determined based on "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. This means that if reliable sources devote more attention to Israel, then we should too. There can be various metrics for this, here is one: how many articles per country are in State Crime Journal (by International State Crime Initiative).

Number of articles in State Crime Journal'

Country	Number of articles	Comments
Israel	52	The first few articles are on "Settler Colonialism", "Evicting Palestine", [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/statecrime.5.1.0051 Apartheid against Palestinians, "This special issue is devoted not only to Israel’s state crimes...", "Child arrest in Occupied East Jerusalem" etc
Turkey	28	At least some of the articles are on EU crimes against migrants transiting through Turkey.
Russia	22
Saudi Arabia	9
China	39	At least 2 of the articles are on Japanese war crimes against the Chinese

VR _talk 03:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I searched for <country> "war crimes" in the three largest news agencies[14] (and which are regarded as reliable per WP:RSP), and here is the breakdown by country:

Number of news articles on war crimes and a country

Country	Associated Press	Reuters	Agence France-Presse
Israel	2,890	50,600	340
Saudi Arabia	512	13,700	94
Russia	2,360	25,900	293
Turkey	743	14,500	54

Israel seems most discussed by RS when it comes to war crimes. But I've also started a proposal to mention war crimes in the lead of Russia as it comes close second.VR _talk 03:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

How do you know if these are crimes against Israel or not? your search cannot be indicative at all. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The top links in the table above are about Israel accused of war crimes. Maybe this metric will convince you: "Israeli war crimes" is much more common to appear in books published after 1990 than "Russian war crimes", "Turkish war crimes" etc.[15] It is difficult to believe that "Israeli war crimes" is a term that can be used for war crimes against Israel.

Ngram views of Israeli war crimes vs Russian war crimes etc

VR _talk 15:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this data, but I believe that this is a flawed approach that is not in line with the letter and spirit of WP:DUE. The number of articles can depend on any number of things, like researchers' interests or the availability of data in Israel vs Congo or Ethiopia.

A much better approach is to use reference works and other sources which discuss this topic in general and check what weight a given country is given there. WP:TERTIARY sources are particularly helpful: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

In our case, the Encylopedia of War Crimes and Genocide (published by Facts on File) dedicates a page and a half to Palestine, of which a part deals with *Palestinian* war crimes. This is similar to many other countries which have been mentioned previously (Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Russia, etc.). Alaexis_¿question? 08:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that considering academic journals and highly reliable news agencies is irrelevant to WP:DUE.

As for the Encylopedia of War Crimes and Genocide it also gives exactly a page and a half to War criminals of Japan - and imperial Japan was one of the worst war criminals in human history. Of course, certain attention is given to Japan outside of its official entry - likewise attention is given to Israel outside of its entry: one page to Sabra and Shatila massacre; 1/2 page of the "human shields" discusses Israel use of Palestinian civilians as human shields; 1/2 page at entry "collective punishment" is devoted to "scathing criticism" against Israel; the entry on "deportations" accuses Israel of ethnically cleansing Palestinians; the entry on Jordan again mentions forcible expulsion of Palestinians during nakba; the entry on ICJ discusses cases against Israel; the entry on "humanitarian aid, barring of" accuses Israel of "excessive delays" of aid, etc. And this encyclopedia is just one source.

Do you have any objections to the google books ngrams I presented? VR _talk 04:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3. Nableezy gives a strong argument, but it is severely undermined by BilledMammal, Homerethegreat, and Dovidroth, Zanahary and Alaexis. François Robere (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 - This is well documented, has affected over decades and continues to affect to this day millions of people, and relates directly to the existence of Israel, the subject of this article. The past histories of other countries belong in other articles. Claiming that we are "singling out" a country because of the content of other articles is not a valid argument. That argument could be used on other articles, like North Korea, to prevent changes to them. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4. I don't support the specific wording or agree entirely with it (forgot to check this talk until now) but it's the best compromise on a practical level for the article and is a base for further additions. Option 3 is better if we're just considering article text, but it is going to result in indefinite cycles of argumentation that'll eventually result in an extreme proposal being adopted. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 5 There isn't a single other country in which war crimes accusations or rights issues are given this much attention (if any) in the lede. Serious WP:UNDUE. Its documentation or supposed attestation is secondary to the fact that accusations most especially have no place in a lede.Mistamystery (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  False. Lead of Sudan: Between 1989 and 2019, a 30-year-long military dictatorship led by Omar al-Bashir ruled Sudan and committed 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. VR _talk 05:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3. Personal opinions aside, (difficult, considering what we see on the news every hour), this is for the sake of the article. Are we here to push an agenda out to the world, is WP taking a moral stance? Difficult to tell in this case. Regardless if the conflict is ongoing, or happened in the distant past, you look at featured articles of countries and there is without doubt a euphemistic tone in the leads. Is it relevant to Israel, perhaps not, but they are examples to follow. I don't believe in watering down, but I believe in compromise and 3 is the only choice really that is a compromise on both sides, for now. Michael0986 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 4 with or without attribution, per Nableezy and Selfstudier. Nableezy has provided reliable sources for factual accuracy of the addition, and the position in the lead is warranted per WP:LEAD (inclusion of major controversies), MOS:LEADREL, and WP:DUE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wracking (talk • contribs) 22:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 4, preferably without attribution as the list of critics of Israel is too long to list in the lead. Per reasons given by nableezy. VR _talk 05:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 5 No double standards, please. Specifically, One cannot use language stronger than that employed for other countries/nationalities, even those that commit significantly worse war crimes and are much worse at protecting human rights. GidiD (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. Criticism of Israel is a complicated topic: some countries criticize Israel and some don't, the critique by different sources is sometimes very different, and the entire topic is very time dependent (pro Israeli heads of countries will say different things than pro Palestinian ones). Therefore, just saying that there is international criticism against Israel is problematic, because it's complicated and the lead (which should be relatively short) can't neutrally discuss this issue. However, the case of UN criticism of Israel is more simple since it is almost not time dependent, and very consistent - therefore fits better with WP:NPOV. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 I think option 3 is the best choice. It should be unbiased and show the common view that Israel is criticized. Countries like the EU, US, Canada, and Australia don't accuse Israel of crimes against humanity, which would be a controversial point. So, a better choice is a sentence showing the general opinion that Israel is criticized. The UN and its groups are the main critics, giving credibility to this view. Controversial points can be added later in the article. Option 3 gives important information without making the reader work too hard. It also avoids biased descriptions of Israeli actions. According to WP:SS, sections of long articles should be short and to the point. WP:SS also says that different readers need different amounts of information. Some might want a brief summary (like option 3), while others might want more details (found in longer, linked articles). We shouldn't overload readers with too much detail. Option 3 is good because it's simple but still covers the important points without diving into complex criticisms that might be biased. Option 3 is also more balanced and uses neutral language, avoiding strong terms like 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity', but it still acknowledges the criticism. Eladkarmel (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, I want to mention that I discussed with my friend, ChatGPT, what he thinks is the most neutral choice. I showed him the 5 options and ChatGPT suggested that option 3 is the most unbiased.[16] Eladkarmel (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  🤣🤣🤣 Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  But while the chatbots have proved extremely popular, they do not generate new knowledge and are prone to confabulation, leading to answers that, in keeping with the best pub bores, are fluent and plausible but badly flawed Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 or Option 5. The Wikipedia page on Iran lacks mentioning on crimes and human rights violations in the lead, focusing instead on a diplomatically framed "alleged sponsorship of terrorism" ("Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran"). Similarly, the Wikipedia page on Russia does not state that it is recognized as a terrorist country in the lead, and there is no mention of war crimes ("Russian war crimes"). Surprisingly, even the terrorist organization Hamas does not include the words "crime" or "human rights violations" in its lead. On the contrary, we are highlighting in the lead on Hamas that the UN did not condemn Hamas for acts of terror. And all know that the diverse composition of the UN voting pool, with 48 Muslim countries and one Jewish country, raises concerns about unbiased outcomes. Yet, there is an attempt here to indirectly label Israel as a terrorist state, especially when Hamas is not classified as such. I believe we deserve a more unbiased lead in the article about Israel. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  48 Muslim countries and one Jewish country. There are 193 member states in the UN. Please don't use arguments like that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Lead of Hamas:

  The foundational charter of Hamas, published in 1988, articulated its ideology as a struggle against Jews, calling for the destruction of Israel to establish an Islamic Palestinian state in its place.

  [...]

  The organization has carried out attacks against Israeli civilians, including suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks.[78] These actions have led Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Paraguay, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union to designate Hamas a terrorist organization.

  IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC) IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Did we intentionally select a designated terrorist organization rather than other countries to use as a basis for comparison in an attempt to alter the article's introduction on Israel? :) The crux of my argument is quite evident – even Hamas doesn't feature terms like "violating human rights," "war crimes," and "crimes against humanity" in its introduction. Nevertheless, there are efforts underway to incorporate these terms into the Israel article. It's worth noting that the Arabic Wikipedia is way more neutral and doesn't include such language in Israel's lead, despite the push to add it here. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Because they haven’t been accused of such by human rights organizations and the UN for decades. Hamas has recently been accused of crimes against humanity and has previously been accused of war crimes but less consistently than Israel. Sorry that Israel’s record over the course of decades is worse than an organization that several countries have designated as terrorist, but it is. But here you go. nableezy - 22:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  You are the one who mentioned the Hamas article as a comparison.

  You say "Even [the lead of] Hamas doesn't feature terms like "violating human rights," "war crimes," and "crimes against humanity"", yet it describes their "calling for the destruction of Israel" and that they are a terrorist organization which carries out "attacks against Israeli civilians, including suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks."

  IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. I wanted to see if out of the countries mentioned above someone will choose Hamas as an excuse and it indeed was chosen. I hope you understand the mistake is such comparison. :) With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  It’s a mistake to compare the country under discussion to the government it’s at war with? Unless making comparisons in general is the mistake, in which case the “argument” of the overwhelming majority of Option 3/Option 5 voters unravels completely… if your point is that comparisons are facile and obfuscate the actual point of this discussion, then yes, I would unreservedly agree that the mistake is such comparison. WillowCity^(talk) 02:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  When the US had a war with terror I do not believe the many have compared US to a terrorist organization. :) With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 as the most concise. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 18:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. We have limited space in the lead to describe aspects ranging from history and geography to culture and economy. It is essential to keep the wording concise. I would also be ok with a version of #3 that says both "United Nations and human rights organizations". Marokwitz (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 5 per Oleg Yunakov Option 3 is indeed the most concise as pointed out above, but the most optimal solution is to dispense with it entirely in the lead, so as to avoid holding Israel to a higher standard than, say, Iran. Coretheapple (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 4 per Nableezy. The current phrasing does undersell the sources by a good bit. Loki (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2, then 4 without "internationally" and attribution. Where the criticism and accusations are coming from is a more complicated detail. Comparing with other countries leads can be informative. But at the same time, the Palestinian matter is very unique. The occupation is comparable in size and population to Israel proper, especially if Israeli Arabs and Muslims are excluded. It was crucial to the country's formation and continues to play an important role today, spanning the modern nation's entire history. Senorangel (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hey :), just a small check up. The occupation refers to 1967 - Today (Israel was founded in 1948, so it's not the entire history). And I'm not sure why there is need to exclude Israeli Arabs since they are an important part of Israeli society and I think about 87% wish to continue living in Israel, also some do military service etc... That's that. Sorry if I seemed rude, hopefully I did not accidentally offend you. Lovely day! Homerethegreat (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  There's some people that consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine since 1948 and don't recognize it as a legitimate state. It would definitely be WP:FRINGE to include that in the lede though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1, then 5 The current phrasing is the only one that is factual and consistent with the neutral approach of Wikipedia. Otherwise, just exclude this phrase that seems to be blaming one side, very far from Wikipedia approach Agmonsnir (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  If not 1 or 5, then 3. Thanks! Agmonsnir (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 4 should do it Abo Yemen✉ 10:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• I prefer Option 1, as it is the most concise and factual, written in the proper Wikipedia voice, and without heated and controversial details, as is recommended for lede sections. If not, then Option 3, but I'd prefer to omit "from the United Nations" sufix; "international criticism" is enough. If not, then Option 5. Other options are non-neutral, not appropriate for the lead, and contain controversial and biased description and wording. Noon (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 is the most concise and reads the best. The other options kind of turn into word salad. Nemov (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 as per Nableezy's extremely comprehensive vote. Nothing really to add to that. Parabolist (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 with or without "United Nations." It is more consistent with WP:NPOV and simply states the fact. Path2space (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 5 It most WP:NPOV option also its most consistent with other countries lead --Shrike (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 5 per Oleg Y, Alaexis, Davidroth, homerethegreat, etc. Additionally, I agree with BilledMammal that mention of UN bias against Israel should be included. The comments comparing the Israeli proposed leads and the leads of countries like Iran and terror groups like Hamas were interesting. JM (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, alternatively 5, particularly considering that significant amounts of the origins of the criticism has been accused of bias (either based on ethnicity or geopolitical) and to maintain consistency with other pages, as discussed by others above FortunateSons (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: - noticed that votes on this AfD by active Hebrew Wikipedia editors (more than 250 edits there) are currently 7-0 in favour of Option 3 (1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7) and if you add in sporadic he.wiki editors (less than 30 edits there) it is 11-3 in favour of Option 3. (8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / against 1 / 2 / 3) Of the 11 in favour of Option 3, there are 5 in favour of Option 5, and 2 of these 5 are also in favour of Option 1. May update later on. starship.paint (RUN) 14:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

i really don't understand what hebrew wiki has to do here Abo Yemen✉ 15:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING, see the ArbCom motion linked earlier. nableezy - 17:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be an ongoing problem. Is this being dealt with by administrators or ArbCom anywhere? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: Canvassing is persisting in this topic area. Well-intentioned editors are struggling to deal with this growing issue. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The evidence that formed part of the ARBCOM PIA Canvassing case included canvassing to an RfC on this page in October. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the canvassing has persisted. But there's no evidence of canvassing to this RfC is there? Anyone who received canvassing emails should make that public and forward them to ARBCOM. Why wouldn't they want to do that to help the community? I wonder if the closer will take the ARBCOM PIA Canvassing case into consideration. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked close enough but there are worrying signs, and as you mentioned, the precedent here has been considered enough to raise some eyebrows. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If the closer uses the canvassing case about another previous RfC to devalue votes in this different RfC, wouldn't that be antithetical to WP:AGF, part of a pillar? JM (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If the closer does that, then argue with them about it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The evidence, going back over a decade indicates to me at least, that a more effective pillar in ARBPIA would be 'assume nothing, including good faith'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Except this RFC also had canvassing confirmed by ArbCom? nableezy - 15:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going off of what Sean.hoyland just said above, which was that there was no canvassing, so if there is an ArbCom case confirming it, neither of us have seen it. JM (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on the evidence received by the Committee, the following discussions have been targeted: ... Talk:Israel#RFC on human rights language in lead nableezy - 16:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

JM, there was irrefutable evidence of canvassing. There is no reason to believe it has stopped. Again, evidence that formed part of the ARBCOM PIA Canvassing case included canvassing to an RfC on this page in October, Request for Comment on apartheid charges. I don't know what evidence ArbCom has of canvassing to this RFC on human rights language in lead. My "But there's no evidence of canvassing to this RfC is there?" was a question that Nableezy has kindly answered. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Unless you're arguing that there's canvassing on the Hebrew Wikipedia itself (got a link?), you're basically using someone's linguistic knowledge to discredit their !votes. I don't think that's really appropriate. It's an ad hominem attack at best, and one which can also be made for many of the people here (such as yourself or the creator of this RfC) who have edited the Arabic Wikipedia and seem to take the opposite view. At worst, you're using "Hebrew Wikipedian" to mean "Hebrews that are also Wikipedians" which is even more of a personal attack. I don't think this analysis contributes anything to the RfC and you might want to consider removing it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

His message is very clear that your at worst scenario is not accurate and adding it here serves no purpose other than to imply a racist intent in the message. Which is, obviously, highly inappropriate. nableezy - 20:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Attacking other editors based on their knowledge of Hebrew isn't explicitly listed in WP:NPA but I'm pretty sure it isn't allowed, because language is often a proxy for nationality and Hebrew is spoken by mostly Israelis and Jewish people. There's been no actual evidence presented of this Hebrew (language) conspiracy beyond Hebrew speakers supporting a more pro-Israel viewpoint. This is not necessarily surprising but for the purpose of civility that's not something we want to bring up in discussions. Imagine if every article related to the other IPA (India-Pakistan) had editors looking at editing patterns to Hindi/Urdu Wikipedias and just tallying it up in the background.

If it's not intended as racist, it still disproportionately singles out editors likely to be of a certain nationality or religion, so that's the effect. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There has been numerous documented cases of canvassing by editors slanting towards the Israeli point of view in the past few months, which have disrupted dozens of discussions, and led to them being indefinitely topic sanctioned. Other editors here have every reason to be worried of this phenomena when they see similar signs. Please avoid trying to shift attention from the issue by claims of discrimination. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The canvassing has singled out editors based on the selection criteria of an obsessional, dishonest, ultra-nationalist, racist Israel supporter who has created and operated hundreds of sockpuppet accounts. There's nothing disproportionate about it because he's not doing random population sampling. It's targeted, albeit not very precisely. That would by why concerns about canvassing will tend to disproportionately single out editors based on estimates of the probability of having been canvassed. When there has been extensive canvassing why would a rational person blindly assume good faith? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chess: - I do not intend to remove it. I said "he.wiki editors" and "Hebrew Wikipedia editors". That means editors of the Hebrew language Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, because any race and any ethnicity can speak Hebrew, and speaking Hebrew is absolutely not a problem. Sure, you can consider my total of one edit on Arabic Wikipedia when I swapped a picture. I am just documenting a phenomenon and that is for the closer to intepret, certainly one possible intepretation is what you wrote, Chess: Hebrew speakers supporting a more pro-Israel viewpoint. That has nothing to do with race or racism. starship.paint (RUN) 06:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Chess above. Making a public note of the voting tendencies of Hebrew Wikipedia editors seems to have a discriminatory effect ("an act or failure to act that is otherwise that has the effect, regardless of intent, of ... discriminating on the basis of a protected classification"). This is because although technically anyone can speak modern Hebrew, it is a revived language with a strong link to Zionism, Judaism, and the Israeli people, and I can't find any significant number of non-Israeli and/or non-Jewish speakers. Now your comment isn't an issue unless it's made to try to devalue the votes of such editors, which others are effectively doing by alleging canvassing without evidence. JM (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I am simply presenting a pattern. There is nothing inherently wrong from a person speaking Hebrew, or being a Zionist, or being Jewish, or being Israeli, and my observation should not be intepreted thus. The demographics of Hebrew speakers are not within my control, it is what it is. starship.paint (RUN) 13:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

+1, all this attempt to turn this into some kind of antisemitism allegation is complete nonsense. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Quite funny; maybe some journalist will read this discussion in the future and write about it, in which we end up incorporating the discussion into Weaponization of antisemitism article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think I'm "weaponizing antisemitism" for calling out users complaining about how Hebrew speakers are !voting, you can try making that case to someone, but I have doubts that it would succeed. JM (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a complete distortion of what was being discussed. No one is seriously meaning that nor will anyone play within this frame and shame game either. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a distortion at all as far as I understand it. JM (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you concerned about the impact of canvassing on this RfC and do you have any suggestions for ways to address it? For example, do you agree that anyone who has received an email directing them to this RfC should make that public and forward the email to ArbCom? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not racist, I'm simply presenting a pattern is an interesting way to justify it. Should we start designating editors with some sort of symbol like triple parentheses if they contribute to the Hebrew Wikipedia? The creators of the Chrome extension which highlighted people with certain linguistic patterns (of German origin) in their last name called it a "coincidence detector".[17] Perhaps you are also only in the business of detecting coincidences by singling out Hebraic editors.

You can't just say "I'm just identifying patterns" when anyone can tell that your analysis singles out people that are likely to be Jewish or Israeli. I'm not even directly accusing you of anti-Semitism though. What I would like, is to hear your interpretation of the evidence since it's your burden to explain exactly what the pattern you've recognized is proof of. Otherwise your comment is meaningless to the closer since it's just random data unlinked to the issue at hand. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument, just sayin. As for UN bias, it would be as well not to cherry pick quotes from ex SG Ban final speech in 2016 which says "Decades of political maneuverings have created a disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel [just that italicized bit is frequently quoted by partisans] In many cases, rather than helping the Palestinian cause, this reality has hampered the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively. At the same time, Israel must realize that the reality in which a democratic state, governed by the rule of law, keeps the Palestinian people under military occupation will continue to generate criticism and calls for accountability." and a lot else besides. Oh, and the discussion is down here, not up there. Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay; sometimes it is useful to let other articles guide us as to what is appropriate, particularly for a topic with highly partisan editors like this one - if topics with less partisanship do something one way, it’s probably a good idea to do the same in topics with more partisanship in order to avoid that partisanship causing NPOV issues.

As for the full quote, I’m not sure what you think it proves? It doesn’t change the meaning or otherwise moderate the section I quoted. BilledMammal (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Can @BilledMammal move his comment and replies to here and make his vote up there? nableezy - 14:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay on the deletion policy, here WP:Some stuff exists for a reason is much more relevant. Alaexis_¿question? 18:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Just blowin a hole in the favorite non argument. Followed by OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST as the second favorite. Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment To keep the survey section relatively trim, here is my comment addressing some of the arguments I've seen, and why I believe those arguments are insufficient.

Homerethegreat's reference to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is not a strong argument to shorten a sentence by about 20 words, especially when that removed text is disputed. More relevant policies/guidelines for this issue would be MOS:LEADREL and MOS:LEADLENGTH, neither of which support removal simply for the sake of it.

Homerethegreat's use of WP:NPOV fundamentally misunderstands what it means to state an opinion as fact. The "seriously contested assertion" is "Israel has committed war crimes"; the fact (as Nableezy has established) is "human rights organizations and UN officials accuse Israel of committing war crimes". The solution here, as described at WP:NPOV, is to provide in-text attribution. (Though, per MOS:WEASEL, unattributed assertions can be put in the lead to be later attributed in the body.) The solution is not to simply remove all contested assertions.

Whataboutism (WP:OTHERCONTENT), an argument used by several !voters for Option 3, is also not a strong argument. It is not driven by reliable sources, policy, or the actual claims of the sentence. WP:DUE refers to content within an article, not content amongst articles. If you think it's wrong that Russia doesn't list war crimes accusations, go to Talk:Russia.

Alaexis' citation of Israel's Freedom House score is irrelevant. The claim we are !voting on is not really related to human rights in "Israel proper" at all, but accusations about Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Wracking ^talk! 22:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not a good faith response. First, the consistency argument is driven by WP:NPOV: we should not give undue weight to a certain aspect of the subject. The essay WP:OTHERCONTENT actually says While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.

Going to the talk pages of Russia and dozens of countries having worse human rights record than Israel isn't feasible. Have *you* tried adding this information to other countries articles? Alaexis_¿question? 10:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV means respecting sources and option 3 doesn't, end of. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing in the above that even remotely suggests bad faith. Freedom House (in addition to being extensively funded by the US State Department) assesses issues like civil liberties and democracy; it's not a surrogate for a country's human rights record writ large. An ostensibly democratic country can still commit (or, more to the point for this RfC, be accused of committing) war crimes and crimes against humanity. WillowCity^(talk) 12:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, the initiator of the RfC brought up the Freedom House ratings, that's why I used them in my argument. You can look at Swedish-Canadian CIRIGHTS Data Project [18] which also shows that Israel is better than all of its neighbours (a very low bar indeed) and many other countries in Asia, Europe and Africa. Alaexis_¿question? 13:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the scoring guide for CIRIGHTS, it notes: The primary data source is the US State Department (USSD) Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. But again, all of this is neither here nor there because we're talking about this article and what should go in the lead of this article. "XYZ country is worse!" is really just smoke and mirrors. I can't say it any better than Wracking: If you think it's wrong that Russia doesn't list war crimes accusations, go to Talk:Russia. WillowCity^(talk) 14:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So CIRIGHTS gives Israel the second worst of seven ratings. But what does a rating of Israel relative to its neighbors have to do with the RfC options anyhow? When a kid is scolded by a parent, a common response is my brother did X. And you may disagree with Wracking's response -- but it is wrong to call it not a good faith response. WP:AGF O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Freedom House is about ranking freedom, not about war crimes and crimes against humanity. You asked for rankings showing that the Israeli occupation is consistently ranked among the worst human rights abusers and I gave that. But this proposal is about war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not respect for freedom of speech or the press or any of the other things Freedom House looks at. And it is incredibly bad faith to accuse others of bad faith while you are so blatantly misrepresenting the proposal and its basis. nableezy - 14:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2023

In the section Real Estate, it says "Housing prices in Israel are listed in the top third, with an average of 150 salaries required to buy an apartment." Just saying "top third" is confusing, it should be changed to "top third of all countries" (as the source claims) or something similar. I can do stuff! (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

21st Century history section Edit Request

Could someone add Israel's governments and elections over the last 20 years so as to include information outside of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I want the inclusion of the 2018-2022 Israeli political crisis in the 21st history section.

Currently, the final paragraph of the section says this:

By the 2010s, the increasing regional cooperation between Israel and Arab League countries have been established, culminating in the signing of the Abraham Accords. The Israeli security situation shifted from the traditional Arab–Israeli conflict towards the Iran–Israel proxy conflict and direct confrontation with Iran during the Syrian civil war. On 7 October 2023, Palestinian militant groups from Gaza, led by Hamas, launched a series of coordinated attacks on Israel, leading to the start of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. On that day, approximately 1300 Israelis, predominantly civilians, were killed in communities near the Gaza Strip border and during a music festival. Over 200 hostages, including elders, women, and children as young as 9 months, were kidnapped and taken to the Gaza Strip.

I would like it to be changed to say this:

By the 2010s, the increasing regional cooperation between Israel and Arab League countries have been established, culminating in the signing of the Abraham Accords. The Israeli security situation shifted from the traditional Arab–Israeli conflict towards the Iran–Israel proxy conflict and direct confrontation with Iran during the Syrian civil war. From 2018 to 2022 there was a political crisis in Israel which resulted in 5 snap elections in the Knesset being held in less than 4 years. Eventually the crisis ended when the Likud led right wing bloc were able to form a coalition government in December 2022. On 7 October 2023, Palestinian militant groups from Gaza, led by Hamas, launched a series of coordinated attacks on Israel, leading to the start of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. On that day, approximately 1300 Israelis, predominantly civilians, were killed in communities near the Gaza Strip border and during a music festival. Over 200 hostages, including elders, women, and children as young as 9 months, were kidnapped and taken to the Gaza Strip.

I hope this is more clear. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Error in ‘Religion’ pie chart

The pie chart of religious groups does not correlate with the figures given below it, nor the pie chart given in the source material. 2A00:23C6:4937:5F01:CDB:6B80:E1CD:2D2E (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"Israhell" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Israhell has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 26 § Israhell until a consensus is reached. NotAGenious (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Add German an official language

DNFTT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Nachrichten 199.119.233.205 (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)  Not done The existence of a German-language newspaper does not indicate that German is an official language. In fact it is not. Zerotalk 12:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Indeed, especially one that has been out of business for 11 years. Seriously, what is it with this weird attempt to add German as an official language? Why do I have a feeling this is some sort of closeted antisemitism? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC) @OuroborosCobra: Please read WP:AGF and refrain from personal attacks. Parham wiki (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC) It is difficult to have good faith when it comes to this patently absurd claim that has been continually re-added to this talk page. Additionally, the idea that Jews in Israel are all just Europeans, especially German or Russian speaking, is a very very common antisemitic trope. Possibly going back to the idea that many of the earliest members of the Zionist movement were German speaking or from the former Russian empire. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Additionally, this same IP editor seems to believe that an out of print German language Israeli newspaper controls a large amount of global media and media outside of Israel, which is most definitely an antisemitic trope. Sometimes a spade is a spade, and sometimes its antisemitism. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Mention of the ongoing war in the lede

I added this sentence to the lede. If someone has a problem with its wording, feel free to change it, and if you dispute that the war should be mentioned in the lede at all, please discuss it here.

However, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded, with an ongoing war against Palestinian militant groups in the Gaza Strip occurring since 2023.

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please note another editor ( Qplb191) has removed the sentence. I personally do not support its inclusion since I do not think its appropriate to include the current war at this time. The sentence presented also is very misleading since the war is not only in the Gaza strip but also in Lebanon and against Hezbollah which is not Palestinian. As well as proxy fighting against Iran. If anything a sentence should be of this formulation: an ongoing conflict against Iranian proxies. Short, concise and covers all major groups Israel is currently fighting (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis...). I still do not support its inclusion and recommend you remove the sentence until consensus is reached. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording "against Iranian proxies." We have no evidence or source that Iran encouraged Hamas to make the October 7 attack, which is implied by describing the war in terms of being against Iran and its allies. I believe that sentence would lend undue weight to the Iran-Israel proxy conflict when generally speaking the current war is mostly described in the context of Palestine itself- even with the additional conflicts between Hezbollah and the Houthis, both of which have fought Israel on the basis of supporting Palestine. How would you feel about a sentence like this:

"However, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded, with an ongoing war against Palestinian militant groups, along with their international allies occurring since 2023. "?

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t support adding this sentence at all. The lead should be short and concise. We did not add on most of the wars not even the last one (2006,2014,2021). Qplb191 (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The recent war has been the bloodiest and most brutal since the Yom Kippur War. Many outlets are calling it the longest and most significant war between Israelis and Palestinians since 1948. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Also the 1956 war is not mentioned and it was a major international event involving France, Britain... Neither is the war of attrition or the 1982 first Lebanon war. Whilst this war is the bloodiest since the Yom Kippur war, other wars were against actors relatively far more powerful (the Egyptian army or Hezbollah). Whilst I understand @HadesTTW reasoning I do not think it outweighs the reasons against at this time. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @HadesTTW personally I do not have an opinion in the topic . but you can’t put controversial thing related to conflict and the war

without getting any consensus on talk page. There are also some editors that are opposing that. Qplb191 (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. While you are indeed allowed to revert my addition to the article and I should avoid re-inserting it until consensus has been reached to include it in the article, bold edits and new additions to contentious articles are encouraged as per WP:BRD. Previously I restored the sentence to the article as nobody voiced any objections at that time, now that someone above has commented in opposition, we can have a discussion first. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Which English?

Which English do most Israeli pages use? British English? American English? Both? Is one preferred? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This page is written in American English. See the note at the top of this page. In general, variety of English is decided on a per article, not per topic basis. See MOS:ENGVAR. Jahaza (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jahaza: The note at the top of this page was subsequently added by the original poster of this thread, after your reply. The article actually has a "Use British English" tag on top of it, to which I've just fixed the date because it was added by Ficaia in October 2022, not 2020 as it said on the tag. I have no opinion on which variant of English this article should use and am only passing by after dealing with disruption from the original poster. Graham87 (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Article was started in British English, as can be seen from the early page history. But my bad on the date. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87: By note, if you meant the {{AmE}} tag, it was added on Jan 22, before Jahaza's reply which was on Jan 23. Jay 💬 17:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jay: Oops, thanks, I meant "*before* your reply" rather than "after your reply". Graham87 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

From my reading of Israeli English language newspapers, American English is what is considerably more commonly used there. So the article should follow that. nableezy - 17:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. I will NOT be the one to add back an AmE tag if it is decided that one should be added back (I wrongly added one the first time around without first gaining a large consensus), but I think either AmE or BrE ought to be recommended for readers on a high traffic page such as Israel. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

An article's English variety can indeed be changed with a consensus decision. Graham87 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing space

Since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai Peninsula, and with Jordan, and more recently normalized relations with several Arab countries. However, 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.

succeeded.Israel's practices

Need a space after "succeeded." 675930s (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

Baleteesman (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to request an edit to this arcticle

What do you plan to edit in? CRBoyer 05:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

instead of Arabic, Add German to the recognized languages of Israel, Israel's name must be writed out in German on the infobar Baleteesman (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Israel in German is Israel. And do you have proof that is one of its spoken languages?!CRBoyer 14:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

What is Israel that the scope of this article deals with?

I see a recurring problem in this article. What is Israel? We have four possible options:

Israel #1: Israel in its 1948 borders

Israel #2: 1948 Israel + annexed territories of East Jerusalem and Golan Heights

Israel #3 1948 Israel + annexed territories + Israeli settlements where Israeli law is applied

Israel #4: 1948 Israel + the occupied/annexed territories

The article currently seems to be defining Israel arbitrarily:

a- Demographics section defines Israel as Israel #3, which gives the population figure of 10 million people, including Israeli settlers (10%) and annexed territories.

b- Geography section defines Israel as Israel #2, since it says the total area is 22,072 square kilometers, which includes East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, but not the settlements.

c- Economy section defines Israel as Israel #3, since it says Israeli settlements, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights are included in the economic data

d- Religion section defines Israel as Israel #4 by mentioning Aqsa mosque, and holy sites in West Bank such as Rachel's tomb and Cave of Patriarchs.

e- Infobox map defines Israel as Israel #1, in its 1948-1967 borders.

This is not necessarily due to editors' bias, as editors, most likely acting in good faith, are merely reflecting what reliable sources have been saying, in an inconsistent manner however.

Israel itself has created this problem due to self-serving interests: when it wants to appear large geographically it cites 4; when it wants to appear large demographically and mostly Jewish it cites 3; when it wants to appear semi-conforming with international law it cites 2; when it wants to appear democratic and not an apartheid state it cites 1.

This is reflecting terribly on the accuracy of this article, especially with regards to the latest edits, in which the lede (supposed to summarize the body) wants to claim Israel is a Jewish majority country, while the apartheid section is completely ignored and not even mentioned by a single word.

This status quo is highly misleading, and the first step to solving this situation is reaching a consensus on what exactly is Israel. Most reliable sources define Israel as Israel #1 but with explicit and delineated explanations on its connections to everything within Israel #4. We should do the same and stop the inconsistency. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably needs an explanatory section under Demographics. Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I think going by current, modern maps of Israel, #2 is the closest definition. I don’t think it should be #4 because that would include all of Gaza: Israeli citizens haven’t live there since 2005, and Gaza has never been a part of Israel or the united Kingdom of Israel. The religion section doesn’t define Israel as #4, it just mentions that some of the historical, religious, and patriarchal sites significant to Jews are in West Bank. West Bank is not part of modern day Israel, although it was part of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea, and Bethlehem did once belong to a place that was once was called Judea.

Modern day Israel is probably best defined by its modern map, which does not include #3 (illegal settlements) or Golan Heights. A sentence could be added to the lead that some of Israel’s borders are disputed. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

#2 is disputed so that's not a definition of Israel, except according to Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Golan Heights are disputed. There probably should be an option #5 for whatever the current map borders are. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ej annex is disputed, same as Golan. As far as world at large is concerned, both are occupied territory and annex is not recognized. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I wrote, “A sentence could be added to the lead that some of Israel’s borders are disputed.” And this would also need to be in the body if it’s not there already. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it has already been written many times in the economic demographic and geographic section that the data covers the occupied territories of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem (since these are territories that Israel has declared to have annexed). Therefore, in my opinion, there is no need to write this again. In the lead this is mentioned a large number of times. In my opinion, the holy places in the West Bank should be erased. And I also object to adding "the majority of the population is Jewish" while about 30% of the country's residents belong to various minorities. Qplb191 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I see the reasoning in this too, to focus the article on option Israel #2 and keep it consistent throughout the article. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You are probably choosing Israel #2 because Israel applies its laws in the annexed territories, correct? But Israel is also applying its laws in the settlements Israel #3. And Israel #2 is unrecognized by the international community. So it should be Israel #1 and with clear elaboration on its connection to the expanded definitions of it. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know. It’s too confusing for me and I have to spend lots of time thinking about it and the laws and applications of laws so I give up and will let other editors decide. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Mostly I chose #2 because I think that’s what the maps look like? Corresponding with the geography section. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Well the map in the infobox is actually very clear: "Israel within internationally recognized borders shown in dark green; Israeli-occupied territories shown in light green", i.e. Israel #1. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait I got confused I thought #1 was for the partition plan but the partition plan was 1947 not 1948. Wafflefrites (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

[19] here’s a link . I think it should be 1949 to 1967, not 1948. Wafflefrites (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think most RS agree that Israel is its 1948-1967 borders, which are internationally recognized (Israel #1). So if we can agree on that as basis, and then make clear and explicit delineation with everything beyond that, is the way forward. This would entail changes to most sections, as demonstrated above. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away. Many countries' de jure and de facto borders are not the same and often important things happen outside of the de jure borders. Just as we have an article about the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and mention it in the main article about Turkey (Obviously, TRNC is much less important for Turkey than East Jerusalem is for Israel). Political divisions of Russia mentions the regions annexed from Ukraine while making it clear that the annexation has not been recognised by the majority of other countries.

I'm in two minds regarding the sentence about the holy places in the West Bank. On one hand they are clearly outside of the Israeli borders. On the other hand, this sentence is in the Religion subsection, which is supposed to give an overview of the religion in Israel, and these sites are extremely important to religious Jewish Israelis. Alaexis_¿question? 11:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure but they are not in Israel. The Vatican is important to Christianity but we don't go round mentioning it in every country article where there are Christians. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The Vatican (do you mean Holy See?) is important to Catholics. Several geographical regions link to Holy See including Albania, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic Special:WhatLinksHere/Holy See Wafflefrites (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Huh? TRNC is neither mentioned in the Turkey article, not even once; nor is TRNC put within the territorial map of Turkey on WP.

Also Uman in Ukraine is extremely important to religious Jewish Israelis, even more than Rachel's tomb. Should we mention that in this section as well? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is mentioned twice in Turkey article, and it has a much lower symbolic value for Turkey. Perhaps Crimea, through which Christianity came to Rus' and which is associated with the glory of Russian arms, would be a better example.

As I said, I wouldn't fight tooth and nail for keeping Rachel's tomb in the article, but the religious sites of the West Bank, unlike Uman, are more ancient, are venerated by most strands of Judaism and are a factor in the IP conflict. Alaexis_¿question? 20:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, @Selfstudier, @Alaexis, if we limit the article to #1 of the 1949 map, does this mean we will drop apartheid in the occupied territories from the article as well? Wafflefrites (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The state of Israel is committing apartheid, that fact wouldn’t change whatever definition we choose. As I mentioned earlier, choosing Israel #1 means explicit delineation with everything beyond it. Thus we would never say Israel’s population is 10 million without clarifying this includes settlers. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of the occupied territories contain settlements. Israelis in those settlements are subject to Israeli law, while Palestinians in the same territory are subject to Israeli military law. What would you call that? Selfstudier (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems we don’t want #1. We want #4. That way we can include all the things that are related to Israel. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I changed my mind I pick #4. Bethlehem is mentioned in Britannica’s Israel page under Tourism and Bethlehem is in West Bank. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, there is option #5, where we use a basic definition Israel #1, and whenever we go beyond that, we clearly and explicitly make say so. Example: we don't say Israel's population is 10 million, we say Israel's population is 9 million; or Israel's population is 10 million, but includes 1 million settlers. You get my point. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally do not support specifying in the lead the population number at all, since it already appears in the infobox. I think it is appropriate to delete the holy sites in the West Bank, and in the parts of geography, economy, demography, note that this includes the territories of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem, which are not recognised by the international community. Qplb191 (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

So if you don't want to specify the population number, then for consistency, that means you are with taking Israel #2 as a basic definition, which directly contradicts the map of Israel #1 in the infobox. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Qplb191 is right. As it reads now in this particular article, the mention of population seems tacked on at the end of an unrelated sentence. Unless there is additional information for mentioning the population number, it seems pointless in the lede as it is. The mention in the infobox will suffice in this case. Michael0986 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I support this, but if I'm not mistaken it already appears in the different sections, doesn't it? Qplb191 (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

But if we do not specify every time this is mentioned then that would be misleading. Plus, the population is an example. This about the entire scope of the article as a whole and has wide-ranging implications, and not exactly about the population figures. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the whole matter is terribly confusing and of course not the fault of the various editors but the fault of the Israeli government. That is, if you say that there are a million settlers, you will also include the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem or the Syrian residents of the Golan Heights in the definition, which would be a complete distortion of reality. The big problem is that the Israeli government created this problem since the country has no clear borders (as long as the conflict is not resolved). And that is why there is confusion. As I said, in my opinion, the best way to solve this is to remove the various sections related to the West Bank. I support that under each section in any paragraph there will be a mention that it includes the occupied territories that are not internationally recognized (as in the map for example). Qplb191 (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is only an example to showcase that we need a solid basis, from which any extensions need to be clarified. One million settlers, one million clowns, it doesn't matter; the important thing is we use Israel #1 as the basis, and if anything goes beyond that then we have to clarify it explicitly per RS. And this is not limited to population, but also to geography map, etc. As for the occupation, it shouldn't be treated as part of Israel as the religious section does, but it definitely has to be mentioned since the state of Israel is the one maintaining this occupation. Geographic scope is one thing, and state policies is another. Choosing a definition here aims to clarify what we mean by state of Israel, and not to limit information about it. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that a single definition is needed or would be helpful for such a complex subject. What changes (other than removing the sentence about the Jewish holy sites in the West Bank) would this lead too? To take the economy section as an example, all Israeli economical statistics take into account Golan heights, so what do you propose to do? Leave everything as is ("per RS")? Remove all statistics? Alaexis_¿question? 22:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't remove the statistics, we simply mention explicitly, wherever possible, that they include areas outside of 1948 Israel. Same for population figure. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The scope of the article is the State of Israel founded in 1948. The scope is not the geographic area within the 1948 borders or any other set of borders. Questions about borders/statistics/etc. refer to the state, not an a priori Wikipedia definition of the state. Where the borders/statistics/etc. of and about the state are disputed in reliable sources, it should explain that. Jahaza (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

A state is defined by its borders. If a state was founded in 1948, then by definition, these are its borders. Anything outside of these borders, the state might act, in imposing a military occupation for example. That doesn't mean the occupied territories are part of the state; it means that the state is occupying the adjacent territories to it. I agree it should be 1948 Israel and anything beyond that should be explained per RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Climate

“Coastal areas, such as those of Tel Aviv and Haifa, have a typical Mediterranean climate with” mild winters. Not cool

Winters are very mild, with night temperatures usually around 14 and days of 21° + דולב חולב (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you source references referring to it as mild? If so, I am in favor of inclusion FortunateSons (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

The last edit(diff), by DMH43, introduced a ref with an empty name parametre(<ref name="" />), which is causing a big red error. – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:7CD2:A9C0:D928:AB1F (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed that.

@DMH43 before you are making editing related to the conflict/war please open discussion on talk page and reach consensus. Qplb191 (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:7CD2:A9C0:D928:AB1F (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Lede RFC

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.

There is a consensus that the most recent RfC on this issue was too recent to warrant discussing this again now. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Is this bold sentence to be added to the lede an accurate summarization of the article's apartheid accusations section (noting that the lede serves as a summary of body, including any prominent controversies, per MOS:LEDE)?

"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) 13:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

!votes

Oppose both the RFC and the suggestion due to recency for the former and the fact that said accusations are already appropriately covered elsewhere for the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FortunateSons (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Please note that this RFC is being reopened after two months since a previous one, in which multiple editors were canvassed to the discussion, and ArbCom has taken action against them. All editors are welcome to join this discussion, but they must disclose if they have been canvassed here, and are kindly reminded that this article is a contentious topic lying under ARBPIA3, and thus subject to certain sanctions. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Not voting for or against, but would it be possible to add “in the occupied territories” to the end of your proposed sentence to clarify? I think the apartheid accusation is mostly for West Bank, not Israel proper? Wafflefrites (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The charge extends to Israel as well, at least according to Amnesty. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

And the Kingsley NYT 2022-03-23 article (cited in WP article) notes Amnesty is an outlier in saying so. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that Amnesty is an outlier, the bolded sentence doesn't seem to even imply Israel has instituted apartheid outside of the occupied territories anyway, although perhaps this is a bit unclear because of the wording of the sentence. JM (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment This is at least in part related to the not yet closed #RFC on human rights language in lead above.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, but this discussion is revolving around the explicit mention of apartheid, since the lede should summarize the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment Grounds for reopening a well discussed closed RFC that involved dozens of editors on the basis of a ArbCom action against three people (only one of which had any measurable contribution to the previous RFC) is specious at best. These are not appropriate grounds to reopen this. Mistamystery (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

RFCs can be reopened after a few months. Furthermore, the previous RFC had witnessed mass canvassing, only three instances were publicized and sanctioned. This is a fresh start, especially for editors who have been canvassed, to rethink their involvement. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I didn't comment on the last RFC, but it was closed in December. There hasn't been enough time to justify bringing this up again. This RFC should be withdrawn. Nemov (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct, there is no justification for a new RFC. Marokwitz (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment Thinking about it some more, I would prefer to wait until we know more about the two matters currently at the ICJ in relation to the occupation and the accusation of genocide, perhaps the proposed statement will turn out to require amending and I see no harm in waiting for a short while. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The outcome of the ICJ case(s) might prove decisive / tip the scales. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless the ICJ is ruling on apartheid specifically (and they are not), it is unimportant to this RfC. And if it were to rule on apartheid, it would likely not change the lede prose -- just another opinion to add to the list, as they have no jurisdiction. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The ICJ (International Criminal Court) has jurisdiction. I think you might be confusing it with the ICC (International Criminal Court), which nevertheless also has de jure jurisdiction in the Palestinian territories. They can't enforce their rulings by themselves, but the rulings still stand. It is not just another opinion to add to the list. The outcome is extremely relevant in this case, because — even though it isn't directly ruling on an accusation of apartheid — no matter which way the court rules, the ruling will probably influence the discussion about Israel–Palestine and possible human rights violations in all areas, not just genocide (among them the accusation of apartheid). TucanHolmes (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I mixed up the ICC investigation, which is futile, with the ICJ proceedings, for which Israel has indeed agreed to be under their jurisdiction. Regarding the ruling will probably influence the discussion about Israel–Palestine and possible human rights violations in all areas, that needs someone with expertise backing it up, since from the sources in our article the analysis beforehand seemed pretty clear (and indeed results show) that the court isn't making any dramatically new decision. What may be more interesting is their upcoming advisory opinion, should they actually choose to address apartheid as a legal question (which as it is not specified, they probably(?) won't). SamuelRiv (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with the clear consensus that this is premature. The previous RfC on the same topic was closed last month. Jeppiz (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment @Makeandtoss: No-one seems keen to !vote this RFC, would you be willing to self close it? I would suggest revisiting it after Israel's one month "report back" and the ICJ developments on the occupation question. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2024 (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.

Well, one leg is in, the genocide case, and that would seem supportive of some hr language, we might as well wait for the 1 month "report back" thing and the second case re the occupation and then see where we are.Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for changes in the lead

here is the revert I am proposing we undo. The changes made would be:

1. clarifying that the borders have not been officially defined by israel
2. specifying the fraction of land purchased by 1947
3. describing the primary source of antagonism according to benny morris
4. specifying that israeli citizens can vote (not just jewish nationals)

@Qplb191 DMH43 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I only asked you to open a discussion on the talk page before you add the changes related to the conflict/war and you will get consensus. The sentence regarding the purchase of the land was added a few months ago without a cosensus being accepted. I took down the sentences that did not receive consensus and were discussed on the talk page. Qplb191 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, can you link me to these discussions? DMH43 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Only supporting #1 on the condition that the context of its internationally recognized 1948 borders is mentioned. Opposing all the rest since they do not summarize the body nor are important in my view. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, before adding things related to war/conflict, it is customary to open a discussion on the talk page before adding them, you didn't get a consensus for the changes you made.Qplb191 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you read over Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus",,,then have a real reason for removal pls. Pointless saying nothing but get consensus before additions.Moxy- 19:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

In regards to #2, the mention of land purchases was removed entirely. Since I am the one who originally added that: I am ok with removing it entirely, with keeping it in without the 6.6%, or with keeping it in with the 6.6%. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You had asked me to get consensus on topics related to war/conflict, but these points are only tangentially related to war/conflict. DMH43 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

1. I know that there were editors who objected to the addition of the land purchase and there was a debate about it, the sentence was added, removed and then added again while not everyone agreed with the addition of the sentence. (including me)

2. The adding about the borders is irrelevant and confusing,

it is agreed that Israel borders on the Mediterranean Sea, the West Bank , Egypt , Lebanon , Gaza Strip and Jordan (48) The statement that this is not accepted by Israel or by the international community is quite confusing and not exactly correct (Israel claims for sovereignty over the Golan Heights and without the Golan Heights in 48 borders Israel borders Syria in the north).

3. There were many reasons why the Arab leaders opposed Zionism not only from a territorial point of view, so it is wrong to state it that way. Qplb191 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

1. ok this makes sense, i am fine to not include it
2. the point is that the borders might or might not include the west bank and gaza strip depending on if you consider israel to have control over this entire area
3. This includes dispossession which is broader than territorial displacement. and of course there are many reasons, but this is the main reason which is agreed on by scholars.

DMH43 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

At the moment(at least) Israel has not asserted sovereignty or officially declared that the West Bank and Gaza belong to its borders, so this statement is confusing and quite incorrect.

There are many various reasons for Arab opposition to Zionism it would be misleading to mention only one reason. Qplb191 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, this discussion is based on what several sources describe as defacto annexation of the west bank. (btselem, al haq, amnesty international).

And I disagree that it's misleading to mention the main reason. DMH43 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

״although Israeli sovereignty, over East Jerusalem, the west bank and golan heights is unrecognised internationally.״ is much more understandable at least to my point of view . Qplb191 (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

im rereading my edit now, and i agree, it doesnt belong in that sentence. If I find a more readable edit Ill propose it. Although I still am not convinced by the point about opposition to zionism. Should I open an RFC for that? DMH43 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

“the fear of displacement and dispossession is one of the reasons for antagonism to Zionism”

I agree on that I think it’s better written. Qplb191 (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, not exactly, I think that would not be representative of the source or the scholarly consensus. DMH43 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344 I’m not sure Benny Morris’ quote is fully representative of the reasons for conflict. Fear of displacement and dispossession may have been one reason, but according to the Shaw Commission there were other reasons: 1929 Palestine riots#Shaw Commission of Enquiry including economic and political. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

From the Shaw Commission “The fundamental cause, without which in our opinion disturbances either would not occurred or would have been little more than a local riot, is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future. ... The feeling as it exists today is based on the twofold fear of the Arabs that by Jewish immigration and land purchases they may be deprived of their livelihood and in time pass under the political domination of the Jews.” Wafflefrites (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be better to reference a secondary source such as the work of morris or other historians than the shaw commission report. DMH223344 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Classification of Israel’s government

The below is the most “meta” summary of this question I have seen – i.e. that different voices classify it differently.

• Ariely, Gal (2021). "Israel's Regime Conflicting Classifications". The Palgrave International Handbook of Israel. Singapore: Springer Singapore. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-2717-0_2-1. ISBN 978-981-16-2717-0. Israel is classified by some as an apartheid regime that can only be democratized through boycotts and sanctions, while others believe it is a stable liberal democracy, flourishing despite extreme conditions. How do observations of a single case lead to such contradictory classifications and interpretations of a regime? This chapter offers an overview of how the Israeli regime is classified, addressing two fundamental issues in the debate over its suitable classification: the definition of democracy and the parameters of the unit of analysis. This chapter also examines how Israel is categorized in cross-national regime indexes, demonstrating that such indexes cannot be exploited to bypass the dispute about the regime classification. In so doing, it exposes the limits of restricting the focus to the classification of the Israel regime, arguing that this debate can never be conclusively resolved.

This is a good source to underpin the stated difference of opinion on this core matter in the lede. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hah, that dratted word, again, probably explains the silence. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

So my personal answer would be the boundaries of Israel's geographic extent. Does the chapter tackle this point specifically or does it offer other answers? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate and misleading information

“During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine.” This sentence is inaccurate and misleading. I recommend clarifying it: “During the Roman rule, the Jewish majority in the region faced persecution, leading to their becoming a minority, and the land was subsequently renamed from 'Judea' to 'Syria Palestine.'" 66.81.170.162 (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"Independence from Mandatory Palestine"

Mandatory Palestine was not a country, it was part of the British Empire. As a result, "Independence from Mandatory Palestine" should be changed to "Independence from the United Kingdom." Iraq, which was known as Mandatory Iraq, uses "Independence from the United Kingdom." Why should Israel be any different? GamerKiller2347 (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Important to note that Israel declared independence (effectively a state establishment declaration), it did not achieve independence since it had never been a state prior to 15 May 1948. I wonder what RS say about this supposed "independence". Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could remove the "Independence from" statement completely, similar to Kosovo. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I would agree to that. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Important to note that even the Israeli "independence declaration" was a declaration of state establishment. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@BanyanClimber: Please discuss before reverting. How do you declare the independence of a state that didn't exist up until its "declaration of independence"? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

History section

I have noted this before, but there is an obvious selective reporting of history that remains unresolved; a gap of at least 1,500 years that is barely mentioned! The article about any modern nation state reports on the history that happened within its borders, and not the history that aligns with the religious or cultural identity of the state. Jumping from the Roman-Jewish wars to the rise of Zionism makes this article seem as if it is published on the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs and not from Wikipedia. Main content to be borrowed from History of Palestine, although it will be challenging to determine the weight of the different historical events. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It's more like the ancient stuff should be further diminished and the history only start in any great detail with the Zionist movement in the 19th century. The History of Israel page is the place for overly redundant ancient history, as has been pointed out numerous times before, and as you will see in the archives. However, if you attempt to trim ancient history on the grounds of relevance (on any country page), objections will rapidly emerge from the woodwork. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree: ancient history should be trimmed and "medieval" history should be expanded as this would reflect a proportional summarization of the sources. This is per WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery". If the objections aren't based on WP guidelines, then they are quite irrelevant. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)