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)

I am not sure about supporting this anymore. While it is true that Israel is majority Jews and that Zionism was for creating a Jewish state, there are also other ethnic minorities living in Israel including the Druze. These ethnic minorities also serve in the IDF. I would rather there be an additional phrase/sentence that includes the diversity rather than just highlighting Jews without mentioning the other ethnic and religious minorities that also serve the country. Maybe Mawer10’s phrase + additional details about the diversity. Where is @Mawer10?? He’s good at phrasing things. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

By ignoring subdivisions among Jews, Israel is not very ethnically diverse. The only other relevant population to mention in the lead would be the Israeli Arabs. Druze are counted as Arabs as well. Mawer10 (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2024 (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)

I oppose. I fundamentally disagree with this as "only Jewish state in the world" tends to be a claim made in pro-Israel propaganda to juxtapose it against the dozens of Arab and Muslim countries in the world, thus promoting a David v. Goliath narrative. India is the only Hindu country in the world, but that is never mentioned by anyone. JDiala (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t really see it as propaganda. As commented by Mawer10 on 11:26, 3 January 2024, four reliable sources mention the state being majority Jewish, and I don’t think any of those sources are propaganda. Regardless, the user who was wanting this sentence included is currently topic banned. I am uncommitted to its inclusion/exclusion. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I earlier agreed to Mawer phrasing, viz "With a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023, Israel is the only country where Jews constitute a majority of the population." I definitely do not agree with the "Jewish state" formulation. Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I still support the sentence, the problem related to the number can be simply solved by adding a note or just changing it to "more than 9 million". Since the first paragraph makes it explicit that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not parts of Israel, I see no reason not to include the phrase. Mawer10 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose any and all such additions, due to

(a) the qualifier only [national state] being unnecessary. As others have pointed out, we don't do that for any other national entity, and there are no other entities which claim to be a Jewish majority state, so the statement in question – the singularity of a particular entity – isn't disputed, and should need no affirmation.

(b) the ambiguity around what constitutes Israel proper, and the contentious nature of the extent of Israel, which also renders statements such as "With a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023, Israel is the only country where Jews constitute a majority of the population." meaningless at best and wrong at worst.

I get the sentiment; Israel as Jewish nation state is a historic and singular entity with an exceptional history, no matter how you relate to that. But this proposed change would be unencyclopedic. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC on human rights language in lead

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

---

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) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [13]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (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) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [14]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (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) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [15]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (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) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [16]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (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) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [17]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (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) Note to closer: This editor was banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [18]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (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.[19]

  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) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [20]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (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[21] (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.[22] 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.[23] 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) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [24]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (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)
• Option 2 as discussed by many others the current phrasing undersells the WP:RS by a country mile. TarnishedPath^talk 07:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Information about canvassing that targeted this discussion can be found here. Commentary on how editors who have edited another language Wikipedia have !voted a certain way is clearly commenting on contributor not on content. If there are concerns about further canvassing issues in this discussion WP:AE, WP:ANI, or WP:ARBCOM are the routes open to present your evidence. Such speculation does not belong on article talk pages, is not proof of canvassing, and only serves to derail discussions. Aspersions about antisemitism have even less to do with the article and should not be made anywhere without significant evidence. Pointing out a trend in !votes based on involvement with another project when there has been off site canvassing although not constructive is not antisemetic and is certainly not the same as using triple parentheses. To summarize, if you have evidence of disruption bring it to the right place. Don't speculate on motives or engage in present patterns. Don't cast aspersions. Assume good faith. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) @Sean.hoyland: Tag all the people who were topic banned in the ArbCom motion for canvassing as having been (probably) canvassed. That is trivial and there are two major participants in this discussion that can be tagged that way that I didn't know about until Nableezy linked it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Clearly a distortion. The fact is that there has been a finding of canvassing and sock-puppetry, and sanctions applied, on this and related articles. The comment merely voices a concern about the legitimacy of the RfC process in these articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC) The original comment did not mention canvassing at all. It specifically singled out Hebrew-language Wikipedia editors for some reason. That's the issue at hand. I'm not distorting that. JM (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Not an issue at all, despite efforts to make it one. Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 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".[25] 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) Then the closer will ignore it, all good. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

- Option 2, alternatively 4, then 1. Human rights violations, as well as the settlements and the longest-running occupation in modern history are pretty notable and defining characteristics of the modern state of Israel. Yes, other countries also have dependent territories and territories which you could classify as "occupied" depending on the definition, but Israel stands out for the longest-running legal occupation, that is, an occupation under international law. This is an aspect of this article which will, in all likelihood, only grow in size and notability relative to the rest of the article, the longer the occupation runs. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 - I'm late to the party here, having only just now seen this, but Option 3 is the only version that does not make a value judgment on whether the criticism is warranted, just that it exists. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2, per Nableezy. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:10, 7 March 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 [26] 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)

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.

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)

I think they teach a mix of British and American English here in school.

English Speakers (an advanced English class most schools here have) is more BrE while normal class is more AmE. TomGoLeen (talk) 16:04, 23 February 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)

[27] 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)

The recurring proposal in this discussion of "use the internationally recognized boundaries aka Israel #1, and explain deviations when they occur" seems to be the most encyclopedic solution to me, since it gives crucial context and more clearly expresses the structure of Israel.

For example, "Israel has 10 million inhabitants" is a bit fuzzy, whereas "Israel has 9 million inhabitants residing inside the 1948 borders, and 1 million settlers living in the occupied territories" is much more useful, and helps the reader understand a complicated geopolitical situation. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:35, 6 March 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)

https://www.britannica.com/place/Tel-Aviv-Yafo דולב חולב (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Britannica is not an optimal source, do you happen to have a second one, preferably from a more reliable sources? FortunateSons (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.accuweather.com/en/il/tel-aviv/215854/january-weather/215854

look, this is the January weather stats for Tel Aviv. You can see for yourself it is absolutely not cool, but mild and even warm. דולב חולב (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That is not an RS for these purposes, and the article on Tel Aviv doesn’t use a source, but feel free to add it for now, if someone takes issue with it, we can still remove it later (using the first source) FortunateSons (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Also wikipedia’s Tel aviv article says mild winters. דולב חולב (talk) 05:26, 2 March 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) The sourcing on human rights abuse/war crimes/potential genocide just keeps rolling in. The one month "report" is looking like Israel's idea of a joke, we'll see what the court says about it. And the apartheid accusations are piling up as well. Options 2 and 4 in the ongoing RFC are beginning to look like an understatement.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 25 February 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)

@BanyanClimber: Refusing to engage in the talk page to build consensus is a sign of disruptive editing behavior that is not taken lightly in ARBPIA articles. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

BanyanClimber aside, how do reliable sources refer to the event? Without having looked into common verbiages, I think “declaration of statehood” would be accurate. Zanahary (talk) 00:06, 23 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)

I disagree, unless the article has been trimmed since you opened the discussion. The ancient history makes up a pretty small part of the article, doesn't seem over-weighed to me at all. Zanahary (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I can see the sense in trimming the ancient history and increasing the detail on the Zionist movement in the 19th century. I disagreed with you in October because in October you said that Israel is a modern country and its modern history begins with expulsion (1948). But while the New Historians focused on the Nakba and 1948, modern Israel’s land territory begins with the Zionist movement’s land purchases and settlements in the 1800s. Although it seems to be mostly ignored by modern historians, the initial land purchases were significant in that they became the nucleus of modern Israel, and since the initial land purchases were highly malarious, the scientific and public health efforts of the Zionists were able to significantly reduce the rates of malaria, and according to some researchers, mapped out the borders of the 1947 UN partition plan.[28][29][30] Wafflefrites (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. An undue emphasis on the ancient history basically amounts to a tacit endorsement of the Zionist notion that Jews having been sovereign over the land in millennia past is a justification for the modern state to exist. JDiala (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a leap. The ancient history of Israel receives lots of special attention from academics, clergy, politicians, etc. for lots of reasons, including religious (with the world’s two largest religions placing significant value on the ancient history of this region) and political. Zanahary (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can anyone tell me, why AE speakers offen call it "Isreal"? Same as Azrael is sometimes mispronounced likewise. Can't make sense of it. KhlavKhalash (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's side-effect of differences in diphthong frequency in English words. Perhaps there are some clues in Phonological history of English diphthongs. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You can ask at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language by the way. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

more information, Israel, and Gaza have had occupations, and this is the first signed war by the government to ever occur between Gaza (hamas) and Israel כותבתומתכנת (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, it was unclear what you wanted to change. Please form your request in the following form: Change X to Y. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do the Hebrew/Arabic pronounce of Israel name was removed?

WP:ARBECR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From the first sentence... 2A06:C701:4EF7:7D00:9DBF:F33F:9F22:5CB3 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:3800:863:ADED:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Mention beginning of israeli-palestinian conflict in lead

Change: "The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism, a movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Under the British Mandate placed by the League of Nations after World War I, Jewish immigration to the region increased considerably leading to intercommunal conflict between Jews and the Arab majority."

It's inaccurate to say that the immigration by itself led to intercommunal conflict. We should at least mention that origins of this conflict (as described by morris) were a result of fears of exclusion and dispossession:

"The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism, a movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Under the British Mandate, which was established by the League of Nations following World War I, Jewish immigration increased considerably. Concurrently, a separate economy controlled by the Jewish community was also established. The Palestinian population's growing fear of displacement and dispossession would be the primary source of conflict between the Palestinians and the New Yishuv, persisting well into the latter half of the 20th century."

I added explicit mention of the region "Palestine" since, although Zionism was not always 100% focused on Palestine, the eventual focus on Palestine is most relevant to this article. DMH223344 (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There is an argument to be made (though I disagree) about adding half a sentence regarding fears of a state, but your new versions lacks sources and accuracy: while we can’t know, it is pretty likely that a dislike of the 'new' immigrants was definitely one of the primary sources for the conflict. FortunateSons (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The statement is already established either in the article itself, or in the citation that's used on the page. From Morris: "The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well)."

Your point about the new immigrants is purely speculative. DMH223344 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

There are several issues here. Morris is a great historian but it doesn't mean that we should ignore all other views on this topic. Saying that a separate economy was established is an oversimplification, this was indeed one of Zionist goals but it was never fully achieved. Alaexis_¿question? 12:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Khalidi also describes this. Also, the article itself mentions: "although the Second Aliyah included Zionist socialist groups who established the kibbutz movement based on the idea of establishing a separate Jewish economy based exclusively on Jewish labor." The edit I proposed above uses the word "established", I don't suggest that it was a fully functioning and independent economy. DMH223344 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

And from Masalha 2012: "its policy of employing exclusively Jewish ‘labour’ and excluding the indigenous inhabitants from the Jewish economy and land purchased by the Jewish National Fund, were linked in the minds of David Ben-Gurion and other Mapai leaders with the concept of ‘transfer’ as a key component of Zionist ideology and strategy (Masalha 1992: 22–3). Therefore it is precisely these distinct features of the Zionist colonisation of Palestine, the ‘exclusive’ nature of the European Yishuv and creation of a pure Zionist colony, which led to the destruction of Palestine and the Nakba; as we will see below, Zionist ‘ethnic cleansing’ and the premisses of ‘maximum land and minimum Arab’, and Arab ‘transfer’, led to the massive Zionist ‘territorial expansion’ in and conquest of Palestine (from 6.6 per cent in 1947 to 78 per cent by early 1949)." DMH223344 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

To the success of establishing a separate economy, from Khalidi 2020: "Additionally, a separate Jewish-controlled sector of the economy was created through the exclusion of Arab labor from Jewish-owned firms under the slogan of “Avoda ivrit,” Hebrew labor, and the injection of truly massive amounts of capital from abroad.16 By the middle of the 1930s, although Jews were still a minority of the population, this largely autonomous sector was bigger than the Arab-owned part of the economy."

and: "During the 1930s the Jewish economy in Palestine overtook the Arab sector for the first time, and the Jewish population grew to more than 30 percent of the total by 1939. In light of fast economic growth and this rapid population shift over only seven years, combined with considerable expansion of the Zionist movement’s military capacities, it became clear to its leaders that the demographic, economic, territorial, and military nucleus necessary for achieving domination over the entire country, or most of it, would soon be in place. As Ben-Gurion put it at the time, “immigration at the rate of 60,000 a year means a Jewish state in all Palestine.”52 Many Palestinians came to similar conclusions." DMH223344 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

And from Pappe: The Jewish settlement, the Yishuv, became a separate economic entity. DMH223344 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis, @FortunateSons, if there are no additional objections then I'll make the proposed change. DMH223344 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please establish consensus first. FortunateSons (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought we have consensus, I don't see any unaddressed objections. DMH223344 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really. There are minor issues (such as the definition of Zionism) and the fact that immigration itself was already a source of tension. Adding it to the article and a half sentence about the impact of that is fine, this broad change leaving out this important of a detail (general opposition) is not. FortunateSons (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. DMH223344 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

While the economic part, it strongly sounds like that is the necessary requirement for the following sentence, which isn’t the case, made even clearer due to the fact that it didn’t exist. FortunateSons (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

/wasn’t quite successful FortunateSons (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you are saying. DMH223344 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s the opposite side of our argument on the other topic: the separate economy/the flight was the symptom, the immigration (IMO actually)/the expulsion (IMO partially) the cause FortunateSons (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please cite specific sources to support your claim. Otherwise I won't consider your opinion a valid objection to my proposal. I've already made a convincing case represented by the scholarship. DMH223344 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This quotes land as a significant source for conflict: https://www.bpb.de/themen/migration-integration/laenderprofile/english-version-country-profiles/58400/historical-development-of-jewish-immigration/ FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This states resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937. While economic dispossession may have been a motive, the immigration itself is stated by RS to be the cause. FortunateSons (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with mentioning that there existed a Jewish-controlled sector of the economy in the 1930s and 1940s. This is important as it served as an economic base for the Jewish side in the war. Still, I don't think that all the concerns have been addressed. Khalidi and Masalha have similar positions, even more extreme than Morris, so adding them doesn't help with NPOV. Your version makes the Zionists the only ones responsible for the conflict, ignoring the proclamation of jihad and calls for attacks against Jewish settlers. Alaexis_¿question? 21:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarify details about explusion in lead

Change: "The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war between these groups which would see the expulsion or fleeing of most Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine."

Rewriting in active voice for clarity. Also be more precise, since the civil war was just the first phase (see morris): "The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups. This conflict marked the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine by Zionist militias and paramilitary units. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine had either been expelled or had fled." DMH223344 (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose parts of them were evicted, parts fled for reasons equivalent to eviction, parts did not. Your solution removes that nuance. FortunateSons (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also excluded from the original statement. DMH223344 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

expulsion or fleeing is vague, but your version is just incomplete, sorry FortunateSons (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The version I proposed is more accurate than the current version, as I explained. DMH223344 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I would hesitate to add so much detail without a specific reason. DMH223344 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Me too, which is the argument for the original version FortunateSons (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

My justification as per above: "Rewriting in active voice for clarity. Also be more precise, since the civil war was just the first phase" DMH223344 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The civil war as the first phase is fine, disagree with the rest FortunateSons (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, my proposed version does not suggest that zionist militias and paramilitary were the only reason, only that they were a major reason (which is not contested by serious historiagraphy). DMH223344 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

True, but it strongly implies that, which is not consistently supported by the sources. In my opinion, the passive voice is fine, particularly as there is a significant group where there is strong but not fully conclusive evidence for the cause of their action (though to be fair, my reading is a few years old, so if there are clear percentages on expulsion, flight based on reasonable fear of non-permitted harm and flight from the conflict/to not be under Jewish rule/other optional reason, I would be willing to reconsider my position.

If I’m still up to date, 6 (?) villages definitely “purely” left, a few dozens were aggressively cleansed (read: none or few people could have remained without an overwhelming likelihood of directed and significant harm), and there is a wide range of everything in between, which is a good reason for passive voice if you ask me.

If you are willing to actually look up the specific numbers (I seem to recall Morris having those, but am not sure), I think shorting the section, linking to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight instead of Nakba, changing the order of sentence 2 and 3 and softening 2 would significantly improve your suggestion and make it significantly more likely to be included in the article.

Otherwise, still oppose FortunateSons (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

True, but it strongly implies that, which is not consistently supported by the sources.

It doesn't imply that at all, since I explicitly say "or fled", which is the typical word choice everwhere on wikipedia.

so if there are clear percentages on expulsion, flight based on reasonable fear of non-permitted harm and flight from the conflict/to not be under Jewish rule/other optional reason

In the current version, it sounds like people fled simply due to the war, but no well-respected historian claims that. We don't need to know an exact breakdown of the reasons people left to know that the main reason was attacks and fear of zionist attacks on civilians. Everything in history is multifactorial, but when there is a well-known and broadly accepted major reason something happens, we should mention it. There are of course some historians who do try to estimate the number who left due to various reasons:

"Meir Pa’il, the widely respected Israeli historian of the 1948 war, estimates that, of the total Palestinian refugee population, ‘one third fled out of fear, one third were forcibly evacuated by the Israelis …, [and] one third were encouraged by the Israelis to flee’ (Palumbo, p. xviii). Palumbo’s study reaches roughly the same conclusion as Pa’il." Finkelstein 1995

DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

From Finkelstein 1995: Indeed, according to the former director of the Israel army archives, ‘in almost every Arab village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’. The number of large-scale massacres (more than 50 murdered) is put by the archivist at a minimum of 20 and small-scale massacres (an individual or a handful murdered) at about 100. Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs’

From Shlaim (iron wall): Although the wording of Plan D was vague, its objective was to clear the interior of the country of hostile and potentially hostile Arab elements, and in this sense it provided a warrant for expelling civilians. By implementing Plan D in April and May, the Haganah thus directly and decisively contributed to the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem.

Finkelstein 1995 quoting Morris: The attacks themselves were "the most important single factor in the exodus of April-June from both the cities and from the villages... This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during and in the immediate wake of each military assault. No town was abandoned by the bulk of its population before Jewish attack." DMH223344 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Masalha 2012: In 1948 more than half of the Palestinians were driven from their towns and villages, mainly by a deliberate Israeli policy of ‘transfer’ and ethnic cleansing. DMH223344 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Also Shlaim (iron wall): There were many reasons for the Palestinian exodus, including the early departure of the Palestinian leaders when the going got tough, but the most important reason was Jewish military pressure.

Ben-Ami (2005) describes "hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who were evicted from their villages". DMH223344 (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look for the scholarship. I generally dislike using Finkelstein due to the quality of his scholarship (particularly in areas where I have decent knowledge, so it’s quite possible that those are localised issues). That being said, I think the first quote could be usable: estimates say that one third was forcefully removed, 2/3 fled. I think if you restructure your request (I left a few suggestions above, but feel free to follow the spirit instead of the letter, and cite Meir Pa’il (preferably directly)), you will have good odds of reaching a consensus (barring issues with the sources for other claims, other issues and that you have your EC again, which I think you do?). FortunateSons (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the need to describe a specific breakdown since most scholarship does not give an explicit estimate and it's unclear what "encouraged by the Israelis to flee" means specifically or to what extent we should have faith in this breakdown of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. The scholarly consensus supports the portrayal in my proposed edit.

As for Finkelstein's scholarship, it's not particularly relevant here since he is quoting other sources. I don't think his work on this topic in particular is described as low quality, although of course not everyone agrees with his conclusions (in particular, he disagrees with at least Morris and Shapira on important conclusions as is highlighted in the cited book). If you can point me to respected and relevant scholarly criticism of Finkelstein's scholarship, I would be grateful. DMH223344 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I would have gone for Morris and my own anecdotal experience, and there is a list of people on his wiki page, but I’m not informed enough for an in-depth comparative analysis of his work. Some of his assessments on law are not great, but I am quite hawkish in my international law interpretation, so it’s possible that him and I are just on opposite side of a bunch of implied and explicit disputes (though to be fair, what I read from him was a while ago, so I’m uncertain on the details.)

He also made a bunch of questionable statements, but that is an issue of character and not of scholarship.

I disagree with your proposal in its current form, as it implies expulsion as the overwhelming cause (at least to the uninformed reader), something not broadly supported by scholarship to the best of my knowledge and your sources. If you can appropriately address that issue, I’m happy to have you include it, otherwise I am still opposed. FortunateSons (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

How can you say "I disagree with your proposal in its current form, as it implies expulsion as the overwhelming cause (at least to the uninformed reader), something not broadly supported by scholarship to the best of my knowledge and your sources." when DMH223344 just presented 5 scholars stating variations of "In 1948 more than half of the Palestinians were driven from their towns and villages, mainly by a deliberate Israeli policy of ‘transfer’ and ethnic cleansing."?

People primarily only fled in order to avoid the violence of their imminent forceful eviction.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point: driven from and expulsion are not the same thing. FortunateSons (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What? nableezy - 16:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

How is being "driven from their towns and villages, mainly by a deliberate Israeli policy of ‘transfer’ and ethnic cleansing" not the same as being expelled? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Because there is a difference between abstract fear and concrete use of force. FortunateSons (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "abstract fear"?

"They were either expelled or fled from their homes for fear of being killed, as had actually taken place in a number of villages."

And also: "as scores of historical documentation has since revealed, the Yishuv encouraged the flight or directly forced 750000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the population at the time) from their homeland"

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a detailed explanation by Morris in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Fear that isn’t acute/concrete is abstract. FortunateSons (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to imply that many fled irrationally or unnecessarilly. How is "fear of being killed, as had actually taken place in a number of villages" an 'abstract' rather than acute/concrete. They were concretely and specifically afraid of the Irgun, Lehi and the Haganah, and their campaign of massacres, terrorism and ethnic cleansing. Hardly abstract fears.

And as we've already gone over, Morris is not the best source for these details. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Morris is considered one of the best, and you haven’t provided another broadly recognised historian who disagrees, so even if he wasn’t, he would still be the BESTSOURCE here.

While those fears are definitely understandable, a fear of conflict or harm is generally considered flight and not expulsion even when rational, of which a few villages undoubtedly were, a few most likely weren’t, and everything in between is disputed. FortunateSons (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"a few villages undoubtedly were, a few most likely weren’t, and everything in between is disputed."

Not sure what you're saying here, and what exactly are you claiming is disputed?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59651683-the-massacre-that-never-was

https://www.asmeascholars.org/the-massacre-that-never-was Wafflefrites (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That was a book that every academic publisher Tauber approached to publish declined. And Tauber doesnt even dispute the events, just claims that they somehow do not add up to a massacre, but never says what would be. Tauber's view on Deir Yassin is firmly in extreme minority territory. nableezy - 00:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. Given how the Boston Massacre and Goingsnake massacre are called massacres and put into the same category as the Crow Creek massacre and the atrocities during the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922), I no longer really know what how a massacre is defined either. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The book The Massacre That Never Was: The Myth of Deir Yassin and the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem is a work of historical denialism (specifically Nakba denial). The Deir Yassin massacre was an extremely obvious massacre and we call it such on Wikipedia for good reason. You might review the article we have on it and check the references. The pages Nakba and Nakba denial are worth reading also, and are very thoroughly and well sourced. Especially the Nakba article. @FortunateSons, you may want to read the Nakba article as well and read up on its references. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The Deir Yassin article actually has a section called “Propaganda” Deir Yassin massacre#Propaganda, which is what I think what Tauber discusses. Tauber is listed as source 77.

In regards to the other discussion about whether or not most Palestinians fled or were expelled, I found this section in the Deir Yassin Wiki article:

'There was no rape.' He [Hussayn Khalidi] said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews.'" "This was our biggest mistake," said Nusseibeh. "We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. They ran away from all our villages." He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."

A villager known as Haj Ayish claimed that "there had been no rape." He questioned the accuracy of the Arab radio broadcasts that "talked of women being killed and raped", and instead believed that "most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters." Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that ... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade. They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin." Wafflefrites (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Our article on the Deir Yassin massacre is not of a very good quality unfortunately (Tauber for example probably shouldn't be a reference there per WP:FRINGE). Like I said, for more and better references about this topic please see Nakba or 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation; I believe I read both a while ago, were any major changes made? FortunateSons (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In some villages, there was clear expulsion, in others, clear flight; everything else is considered somewhat unclear depending on who you listen to, and therefore disputed.

Citing specific examples is interesting from a historical perspective, but for this discussion, the total breakdown is the only relevant factor, unless you are willing to take the time for 600 separate villages, which I personally am not. The (first) Finkelstein citation provides such a breakdown and Morris provided approximations, but if you have another one as an alternative, I welcome you to cite that. To the best of my knowledge, most historical sources state that the majority of Palestinians fled (often for good reason, but voluntarily). FortunateSons (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

How can one be said to voluntarily flee from danger? Sources sinply do not describe the Palestinian flight as 'voluntary' but as compelled. But we're going in circles and you're persisting in disagreeing with the reliable sources. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Consider also that during the ethnic cleansing of Haifa for example, "the Haganah made effective use of Arabic language broadcasts and loudspeaker vans" and "called on the populace to 'evacuate the women, the children and the old immediately, and send them to a safe haven'", and used "tactics [...] designed to stun and quickly overpower opposition" where "demoralisation was a primary aim. It was deemed just as important to the outcome as the physical destruction of the Arab units. The mortar barrages and the psychological warfare broadcasts and announcements, and the tactics employed by the infantry companies, advancing from house to house, were all geared to this goal." (per Morris by the way), and that "Historian Walid Khalidi described "the mass exodus of Haifa's Arab population" as "the spontaneous reaction to the ruthless combination of terror and psychological warfare tactics adopted by the Haganah during the attack."" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and you (and others have) can make the argument that this specific conduct amounted to expulsion, but even if we were to assume that as true, it still wouldn’t account for a majority of other instances. FortunateSons (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think discussing with you further on this will be productive. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposal in its current form, as it implies expulsion as the overwhelming cause (at least to the uninformed reader), something not broadly supported by scholarship to the best of my knowledge and your sources.

I actually disagree. Maybe to a reader who is not careful they might go away thinking it was the overwhelming cause, but the proposed version does not state that or imply it. The main difference (in content) from the current version is explicitly stating who performed the expulsions. And as stated by the sources quoted above, expulsions and attacks were the most important factor, so stating who performed them is critical. DMH223344 (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we already have a confused editor above, so I would doubt that. Having said that, adding who performed the expulsions is fine, the rest is the issue. FortunateSons (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What is "the rest"? That this was the first phase? DMH223344 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Current version:

The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war between these groups which would see the expulsion or fleeing of most Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine.

• Your suggestion:

The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups. This conflict marked the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine by Zionist militias and paramilitary units. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine had either been expelled or had fled.

• My preferred version:

The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war between these groups which would see the expulsion or fleeing of most Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine, of which around a third is estimated to have been forcefully removed (alternatives: expelled, evicted) by Zionist militias and paramilitary units and the rest to have fled.

• Suggested compromise:

The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine had either fled or been expelled. This conflict is generally considered the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians by Zionist militias and paramilitary units. FortunateSons (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts? FortunateSons (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

As per above: I disagree with the need to describe a specific breakdown since most scholarship does not give an explicit estimate and it's unclear what "encouraged by the Israelis to flee" means specifically or to what extent we should have faith in this breakdown of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. So I won't consider your "preferred version" further.

Comparing your suggestion with my proposed version:

1. Your version swaps "fled" and "expelled".
2. Your version puts the statement about forceful eviction after the description of demographics in 1949.
3. Your version adds a qualifier of "generally considered" rather than stating it as fact.

Both points 1 and 2 serve to highlight the fleeing and de-emphasize the expulsion. Additionally, both points 1 and 2 lead to an awkward flow in the reading. Point 3 introduces a sense of uncertainty which is not needed and is unsupported by the scholarly consensus.

So I still think my initially proposed version should be used. DMH223344 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Nableezy found the actual RS claiming that involuntary expulsion is considered to be main cause (compared to voluntary flight) by at least some RS, so the issue has been solved anyway. FortunateSons (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting that "RS claiming that involuntary expulsion is considered to be the main cause" means that any flight was therefore voluntary is both OR and badly illogical. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you want to try again? FortunateSons (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could look at my response to him? FortunateSons (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There’s a whole bunch of made up special pleading and OR being put up as a roadblock here, but here is an actual summary of estimates from an actually reliable source: Slater, Jerome (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6. There is no serious dispute among Israeli, Palestinian, or other historians about the central facts of the Nakba. All of the leading Israeli New Historians—particularly Morris, Shlaim, Pappé, and Flapan—extensively examined the issue and revealed the facts. Other accounts have reached the same conclusions. For example, see Ben-Ami, "A War to Start All Wars"; Rashid Khalidi, "The Palestinians and 1948"; Walid Khalidi, "Why Did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited"; Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians; Raz, Bride and the Dowry. Reviewing the evidence marshaled by Morris and others, Tom Segev concluded that "most of the Arabs in the country, approximately 400,000, were chased out and expelled during the first stage of the war. In other words, before the Arab armies invaded the country" (Haaretz, July 18, 2010). Other estimates have varied concerning the number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled before the May 1948 Arab state attack; Morris estimated the number to be 250,000–300,000 (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 262); Tessler puts it at 300,000 (A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 279); Pappé's estimate is 380,000 (The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 96). In another recent review of the evidence, the Israeli historian Daniel Blatman estimates the number to be about 500,000 (Blatman, "Netanyahu, This Is What Ethnic Cleansing Really Looks Like"). Whatever the exact number, even Israeli "Old Historians" now admit that during the 1948 war, the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians, though they emphasized the action as a military "necessity." For example, see Anita Shapira, Israel: A History, 167–68. In July 2019, the Israeli government sought to cover up the extensive documentary evidence in its state archives that revealed detailed evidence about the extent of the Nakba—even the evidence that had already been published by newspapers and Israeli historians.

Beyond that, not being allowed to return to your home is also being expelled, and that is true for *all* of them. Finally, if one user is filibustering it’s usually a better idea to move past them and let consensus develop in spite of that instead of trying to convince them to stop filibustering. nableezy - 13:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong on not being allowed to return = expulsion, but you did provide sources showing that at least some RS consider direct expulsion to be the primary cause, so the order of flight after expulsion can stand, at least until I take the time to look for the specifics of actual academic consensus. I maintain that the link should actually aim to causes and not not nakba (or maybe both?), but the removal of passive voice is fine. FortunateSons (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"I maintain that the link should actually aim to causes and not not nakba"

By what stretch of logic should 'event x' link to 'causes of event x' rather than to our article on event x itself? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, we should just continue with “expulsion and flight”, as it is now. FortunateSons (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks nableezy, this is a great summary and clearly resolves any open issues brought up so far. DMH223344 (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Swapping fled and expelled is done by quantity (According to your citation). If you can find a way to fix 2. without altering the content, feel free to do so. 3. is friendly to your 'side', including evictions of tenant farmer etc., but can be removed if you don’t care for it. Regarding „encouraging to flee“: it can indeed be a wide range, but as the contrast is expulsion and the main categories expulsion and flight, we can therefore logically say that it isn’t expulsion.

It is unfortunate that you don’t like my compromise, let’s hope we find a consensus for another version then. FortunateSons (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

So your key issue is with the ordering of flee and expelled? DMH223344 (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on the scholarship you provided, you have made a convincing case for including the actors responsible (therefore inclusion in my proposal).

My key remaining issue is with anything that - while factually accurate - leads to inaccurate interpretations, most notably that expulsion far the primary or even disproportionate cause beyond what is broadly supported by RS, instead of being an equal or lesser cause compared to flight. Due to the fact that English isn’t my native language, some of my phrasing can be rough, so I’m open to altering those as long as content remains preserved.

Regarding civil war as the first phase, that’s up to interpretation but probably fine. FortunateSons (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

most notably that expulsion far the primary or even disproportionate cause beyond what is broadly supported by RS, instead of being an equal or lesser cause compared to flight

This is your interpretation, not what is represented in the scholarship, which is in agreement that expulsion was the primary factor. DMH223344 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, me, Morris, the old Israeli Historians, Pa‘il and Palumbo (cited by you above) disagree with it being primary in the sense of making up more than flight (I could be wrong on the scholarship, so take that with a grain of sand.) Do you disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if you accept those estimates as accurate, the key question is what is the most important factor. As we saw, it is the forceful expulsion.

You mention the qualifier "in the sense of making up more than flight". But that's not the question here, we are concerned with the primary factor of the exodus, which is the expulsions. DMH223344 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That may be a language barrier on my part, but if something makes up less than half of something and another thing makes up more than half, then the second one is the primary factor, no? FortunateSons (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BESTSOURCES - Don't you think it's ironic to support the old historians over the new? (Obviously the difference is more complex than old and new but still). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I mostly rely on Morris (and the source kindly provided by the other editor), but the old ones definitely contribute to disproving the existence of consensus on expulsion being primary. As long as we are using Finkelstein, we can probably use the old ones too ;) FortunateSons (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Benny Morris does not represent the latest scholarship.

Also reminder to editors here to use the {{outdent}} template. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for using outdent, but please do not remove my comments that do not violate policy without permission.

Morris is still considered up to date by many, and while not newest, he still often considered current (enough). FortunateSons (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course he's "often reliable enough" but that doesn't mean there aren't issues with his work which later historians have improved upon.

And apologies for removing your comment (which consisted of only "thoughts?"), it was out of place in the discussion and I thought clearly insignificant enough that removing it was easier. I was in a rush also to implement my outdent edit (which I was doing manually, changing the number of indents on each subsequent comment) without a conflicting edit, which had already happened the first time I tried to implement it. But of course at this point I'll restore your comment for you immediately.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s fine, just ask next time.

There are no historians without issues, but he is still broadly considered one of the best. Are you aware of someone who you consider comparable or better who disagreed later regarding the topic at hand? FortunateSons (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Expulsions lead to fear which leads to fleeing. So expulsion can be the primary reason even if it's the case that fewer than 50% of people who left were directly expelled. DMH223344 (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be an argument of why expulsion may have been a factor for flight, but not an argument for Expulsion as the primary factor: someone fleeing due to fear of expulsion is still fleeing. We can still go with the phrasing used by your first Finkelstein citation if you think mine is also misleading? FortunateSons (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to mention the systemic violence which people were fleeing from. Only saying people fled without mentioning from what is rather whitewashy in my opinion. Also the great number of massacres and acts of violence perpretrated in these expulsions and flight is likely due for inclusion in this summary anyway. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean you are in favour of including the first Finkelstein citation? FortunateSons (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand, you don't agree that expulsion was the primary factor leading to the exodus? Is the phrasing you're referring to "The attacks themselves were the most important single factor in the exodus"? DMH223344 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Isn’t that generally written in cases where there are considerations of a multitude of factors, or cases where „attacks“ also include the capture of villages. Attacks generally are not the same as expulsions. FortunateSons (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with DMH223344, that "In the current version, it sounds like people fled simply due to the war, but no well-respected historian claims that.", and I think that it would be an improvement to reword this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Likewise agree, the sourcing is very clear here, and the only reason to keep it vague is to obscure. nableezy - 16:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons, @Wafflefrites, if there are no additional objections, then I'll make the proposed change. DMH223344 (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I would change the link from nakba to the other page, and may take the time to actually dig up the research in the future, otherwise no. Please remember to cite RS where applicable. FortunateSons (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you post your version again? This thread has gotten too messy. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

See the first post here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Clarify_details_about_explusion_in_lead DMH223344 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I see, your second sentence has also added additional details and weight to the lead with regards to forceful military expulsion. As FortunateSons and I have pointed out, there is historical debate and inconsistencies about whether most Palestinians were forced out of if they fled. Especially after Deir Yassin, both Arab and Jewish leader inflated the number of dead and encouraged rumors, the Jewish leaders I believe in part did this to encourage flight. Your version seems a bit unbalanced in this regard giving more weight to forceful expulsion and feels a bit POV pushing,

especially this comment,

“Expulsions lead to fear which leads to fleeing. So expulsion can be the primary reason even if it's the case that fewer than 50% of people who left were directly expelled.” seems a bit like roundabout logic to conflate fear of expulsion with direct expulsion and attribute expulsion as the direct reason.

So in sum, I prefer Makeandtoss’ version. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you. Nableezy posted some sources that seemed to consider it the primary direct source, but if it isn’t, I’m still opposed FortunateSons (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What sources disagree? Sources, not personal opinions of Wikipedia editors. nableezy - 19:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

For example, Morris: https://web.archive.org/web/20081207221932/http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2008/02/benny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html FortunateSons (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesnt really challenge expulsion as the primary cause. He doesnt break it down at all, only to say that most fled because of the "flail of war". nableezy - 20:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If someone flees, they aren’t expelled FortunateSons (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t true and you just saying it doesn’t make it true. nableezy - 20:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To quote the causes article: “ In the first decades after the exodus two diametrically opposed schools of analysis emerged; Israel claimed that the Palestinians left because they were ordered to by their own leaders, who deliberately incited them into panic, to clear the field for the war, while the Arabs claimed that they were expelled at gunpoint by Zionist forces who deliberately incited them into panic.” Expulsion (similarly used in the Morris letter) generally refers to the latter.

Per Cambridge: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/expulsion; that doesn’t cover situations where you have a choice, or leave before getting forcefully removed. FortunateSons (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the point you're trying the make. In any case, the claim Palestinians left because they were ordered to by their own leaders, who deliberately incited them into panic, to clear the field for the war has been almost universally debunked. DMH223344 (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

My point (responding to the other user) are that flight and expulsion are diametrically opposed when it comes to the mode of flight (but not to motive) FortunateSons (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Flight and expulsion are diametrically opposed" - This isn't true at all and is completely out of line with the RSs (many of which have already been provided to you in this discussion). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure that your response is not covered by the second half of my contribution? FortunateSons (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't my interpretation, it is the interpretation represented by the scholarship (as I've shown in this thread), as I've said multiple times in this thread. Expulsions were the primary reason for the exodus. You and fortunatesons are interpreting "primary reason" as meaning "50% or more of people were removed with direct force from their homes", but that isn't what is being discussed here. DMH223344 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Idea for a compromise: Morris uses displaced, which is shorter anyway, right? FortunateSons (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What about this version :

The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups, which was the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians by Zionist militias and paramilitary units.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. By the first Arab-Israeli war's end in 1949, Israel was established over most of the former Mandate territory. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled or fled.

I have tried to combine @DMH223344 @FortunateSons and @Makeandtoss edits Wafflefrites (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggested displaced (as used by Morris) as an alternative to expelled or fled. Are you opposed? FortunateSons (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In your comment on 19:10, 5 March 2024, you used “fled or expelled”. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the dispute is the order of the words. Today I found Morris using displaced for both, which fixed this issue. Sorry, the thread has gotten quite hard to follow. FortunateSons (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course I am opposed, the phrasing pushes the traditionalist (and now debunked narrative) of the Palestinians being displaced as a consequence of war, rather than primarily as a consequence of expulsions. See Khalidi: "This argument furthermore ignores the fact that in many cases Palestinians were driven out of areas where there was no fighting, where there were local truces, or where fighting had long ended, and that the vast majority were not allowed to return to their homes even after the fighting was over."

For @Wafflefrites, why did you add this sentence: "By the first Arab-Israeli war's end in 1949, Israel was established over most of the former Mandate territory." DMH223344 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That was from Makeandtoss’ edit but nw I am thinking it’s not the best since he dropped the link to the 1949 armistice Wafflefrites (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Displaced refers to both, no? At least the way it’s used by Morris. FortunateSons (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion of the use of 'displaced', please familiarizse yourself with WP:BESTSOURCES on this topic, and I have to remind you that Wikipedia:Competence is required. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering you don’t seem to have read the essay you are citing: Alleging incompetence: It is generally inadvisable to call a person "incompetent" or their editing "incompetent". While being direct with problems is advisable, it is possible to be direct without being insulting. Telling people their work displays incompetence often does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them less receptive to instruction.

Morris is considered one of the best historians on I/P, it's not like I’m citing some random newspaper FortunateSons (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of incompetence. If I feel the need to so I will do it at AE or another appropriate venue.

I am asking you to strongly consider the essay I linked to however, and we've gone over your overreliance on Benny Morris multiple times now. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are not concerned about my competence, what purpose does citing WP:Competence have?

If “overreliance” on one author is your primary concern, we really should also stop people from trying to work Finkelstein (who is significantly more controversial on quality and character) into every possible situation, no? Morris is broadly cited (including by Finkelstein). If it makes you feel better, I can include a bit more Shlaim and old historians if it makes you feel better.

Morris is/was (?) considered one of the best on the causes and motives and expulsion, per Pappe: “ Were these atrocities and conduct a consequence of the war itself or were they the result of premeditated expulsion plan? Some Israeli “new historians,” such as Benny Morris, who wrote the most important scholarly research on the question, tend to talk about this immoral chapter as emanating from the war atmosphere.“ [1] FortunateSons (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The full quote reads "Were these atrocities and conduct a consequence of the war itself or were they the result of premeditated expulsion plan? Some Israeli “new historians,” such as Benny Morris, who wrote the most important scholarly research on the question, tend to talk about this immoral chapter as emanating from the war atmosphere. Others, like this author, tend to see it as an outcome of a master plan prepared by the Jewish leadership before the war. Palestinian historians see it as a direct result of the Zionist settlement in Palestine. Ultimately, the establishment of a Jewish state could have become a reality only through an act of expulsion. 1948 was the opportunity, although the intent had been there all the time." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That really isn’t relevant to the claim I have cited here, no? FortunateSons (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Lede

@Eladkarmel: Please respect other editors' time and effort spent on Wikipedia by reverting what you specifically object to, and not indiscriminately revert every edit made to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Eladkarmel, regarding your reversion with edit summary "Restoring previous lead versions before deep changes made without reaching discussion. Please reach consensus before making such changes", please see Don't revert solely due to "no consensus".

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I restored the edits until there is a proper rational given for the reversions. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank for your careful reversion @Wafflefrites: [31]. Can you explain though why the recent changes? The first Arab-Israeli war and the 1947 civil war were both part of the 1948 Palestine war, aka both the first and civil war were responsible for the Palestinian expulsion that had occurred. But the first war mention was removed by you and moved to the following paragraph, where it seems as if the war was due to an act of aggression by neighboring Arab countries, which is not an accurate representation of history, nor an accurate summarization of body. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Makeandtoss! I put it in chronological order. First the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine happened from 30 November 1947 – 14 May 1948. If you go to the civil war page, there’s a section called “First wave of Palestinian refugees” and the Nakba infobox. And then Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948 after the civil war. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war was from 15 May 1948 - 10 March 1949 (after Israel declared independence).

This was the out of order version:

The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine triggered a civil war between the two groups, and the first Arab–Israeli War with neighboring countries, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of the mandate's predominantly Palestinian Arab population.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and its borders were drawn in the wake of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which saw Israel established over most of the former Mandate territory,

I think this version is confusing because it reads as though Israel declared establishment after the wars, and immediately after its declaration the armistice line borders were drawn. The armistice borders were drawn not immediately after Israel’s declaration of establishment on 14 May 1948, but after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, formally ending the war.

But you are right, both wars saw expulsion of Palestinians. And I believe you are right about the act of aggression. The Arabs didn’t see it as an act of aggression but an act of defense, while the Israelis thought otherwise.

Here is a third version:

The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine triggered a civil war between the two groups, which saw the first wave of expulsion and flight of most of the mandate's predominantly Palestinian Arab population.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, in an act of defense, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. During the Israeli offenses, additional Palestinians fled or were expelled. The 1949 Armistice Agreements saw Israel’s borders established over most of the former Mandate territory

What do you think? Does this fix the chronological issues, and is it representative of both sides of the war? Wafflefrites (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand the issue with the chronology but this presents unnecessary details such as "first wave" and POV language such as "act of defense" and "offense". Makeandtoss (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible solution, something around:

"The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. By the first Arab-Israeli war's end in 1949, Israel was established over most of the former Mandate territory, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of its predominantly Arab population." Makeandtoss (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that’s a good solution!! Wafflefrites (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons, @DMH223344 Makeandtoss’ version is here Wafflefrites (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Same issue with flight and expulsion, should probably include the 5 armies, otherwise good. (Assuming sources are fine) FortunateSons (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"in an act of defense" would violate WP:NPOV, this doesn't represent the scholarly consensus in any way.

Discussing the two waves of expulsions is too much detail for the lede. There are many things we could mention, for example the exodus of the Jewish population from the Arab countries as a result of the same conflict, but it's just not suitable for the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 17:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you all work on the version that is in the section “Combined version” down below? I keep reading different things from different editors and scholars so I don’t know what is the consensus either, and I may be interpreting the scholars incorrectly. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The history and scholarship are especially difficult here.

See for example the historiography section of this article.

We should probably have a whole article dedicated to the historiography of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, there is History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, not quite the same thing, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Would also help resolve the endless disputes about the historiography which take place across all related articles. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"Discussing the two waves of expulsions is too much detail for the lede."

Do you mean that we shouldn't mention that the expulsion(s) happened in two waves or that we shouldn't mention the expulsion(s) in the lead at all?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Another discussion in a long series of discussions about the lead, I'm not counting, but I think this must have been discussed more than 10 times around here: 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101. All these discussions seem to have been a waste of time since most editors haven't reached a consensus on almost anything. Given that each editor's personal biases on this controversial subject are the reason for the lack of consensus, perhaps we should ignore a bunch of random sources out there to determine what goes or not into the lead and rely only on a normal online encyclopedia like the Encyclopædia Britannica. Mawer10 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If only it was that simple. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

When there is no consensus, more discussion will ensue, till there is. EB is not a solution, though. Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm considering getting an uninvolved administrator to review this and a few other recent discussions here for disruptive editing. Would I be alone in thinking that would be appropriate / a good idea? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that isn't the usual tbh, more focus on sourcing would certainly help. Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Is that to say that you consider dealing with disruptive editing in this area to be the norm or that you don't think there is any significant disruptive editing here? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are different dispute resolution processes, not sure which it is that you have in mind. And yes, this is just the usual rough and tumble in my view, although some might disagree. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your input. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of "invaded" in lead

The lead currently mentions: "Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War."

The number "five" and the use of "invaded" here are misleading. See Khalidi (iron cage, citing Morris, Shlaim):

To revisit one of the most important of these myths about the infant state of Israel, the number of Arab armies that invaded Israel after its establishment is described in a range of standard accounts as ranging from five to seven.32 However, there were only seven independent Arab states in 1948 (some hardly independent, and some hardly states in any meaningful sense of the word), two of which, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, did not even have regular armies and no means of getting any armed forces they might have had to Palestine. Beyond this, of the five Arab regular armies, one (that of Lebanon) never crossed the international frontier with Palestine,33 two (those of Iraq and Transjordan) scrupulously refrained from crossing the frontiers of the Jewish state laid down in the United Nations partition plan as per secret Jordanian understandings with both Britain and the Zionist leadership and thus never “invaded” Israel,34 and one (that of Syria) made only minor inroads across the new Israeli state’s frontiers.35 The only serious and long-lasting incursion into the territory of the Jewish state as laid down under the partition plan was that of the Egyptian army. Meanwhile, the fiercest fighting during the 1948 war took place with the Jordanian army during multiple Israeli offensives into areas assigned by the U.N. to the Arab state, or into the U.N.-prescribed corpus separatum around Jerusalem. This story of an invasion by multiple, massive Arab armies, and other legends, is not just an important element of the Israeli myth of origin: it is a nearly universal myth, and in taking it on, the Israeli revisionist scholars, or “new historians,” as they are more often called in their own country, are shouldering a doubly daunting task.

I suggest we update this sentence to:

"Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. Of these, only the Egyptian army would significantly cross the border into the area laid out in the UN partition plan for a Jewish state." DMH223344 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with the full change, but partially approve of the last sentence. The invasion into the mandate is still an invasion, but yes, the degree of relative success is relevant here. Additionally, I would encourage you to add which armies (temporarily) advanced into area that is modern-day Israel, just for the sake of completeness. FortunateSons (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Mobilized their armies" is still more appropriate. But I can see a case for using "invasion" to describe the Egyptian army.

Even Khalidi in this more detailed description does not mention the details of the temporary advances; I don't think its appropriate for the lead. DMH223344 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Khalidi is a pro-Palestinian historian, the question for this would be what the new (and old) historians and contemporary news reporting think, which (as far as I know) is invasion. Additionally, even an invasion just into the mandate is an invasion. FortunateSons (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In what way is Khalidi a "pro-Palestinian historian" and what do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that his work is biased and inaccurate or unreliable? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• there are elaboration on his political views on his wiki page, I think he is clearly considered pro-Palestinian (at least by western/english-speaking standards). He is a historian writing about I/P, therefor being a pro-Palestinian historian.
• He is definitely biased (but so are the new/old historians), that’s not an issue per se. He seems to be well respected, but relying exclusively on a biased source in the lead to a contentious topic is not appropriate even if it is a respected source.

FortunateSons (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Every human being has biases and personal opinions. Khalidi may be a "pro-Palestinian" private person, but that doesn't mean that he is a "pro-Palestinian historian", nor that his professional work is inaccurate or that it should be dismissed.

Also, no one is suggesting that we base the lead exclusively on any one source.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

A historian who is a staunchly pro-Israeli private person (say: Morris, despite being pretty moderate) is not a pro-Israeli historian? FortunateSons (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss has also proposed a solution in the section above. What do you think about his version? I sort of prefer Makeandtoss’ version because your version has introduced some more details to the lead, and I think the lead is supposed to be more of a summary. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Where? FortunateSons (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In the section above

Possible solution, something around:

"The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. By the first Arab-Israeli war's end in 1949, Israel was established over most of the former Mandate territory, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of its predominantly Arab population." Makeandtoss (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you missing the part about the other armies? That may be obvious to us, but is relevant here. FortunateSons (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so Makeandtoss hasn’t actually commented in this thread. I just pasted his comment and username down here and I think it has caused some confusion. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, makes sense. Could you link to the comment directly? I can’t seem to find it on mobile. FortunateSons (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wafflefrites (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons Can you take a look at Makeandtoss’ version. I think his is a good version that uses neutral language. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s a partial improvement over this, but I think a compromise between both could be optimal here. FortunateSons (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

More urgently, I would strongly encourage you to cite at least some pro-Israeli historians directly, particularly when basing the narrative on them, and not make changes about Israeli history exclusively based on historians with significant bias.

I may be scarred because of Finkelsteins “use” of quotes, but let’s use sources directly where they are either broadly supported or cited by people on the other cite, not where they are considered to be “narrow” by the cited person. FortunateSons (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What would you consider "pro-Israeli" sources? The traditionalist history has been thoroughly debunked and disproven, so we shouldnt be treating such sources with the same weight as more modern understanding of history. DMH223344 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Odd the idea that pro-Israeli historians are not biased too. nableezy - 19:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

They definitely are, which is the reason why we wouldn’t solely rely on them for something in the lead of the Palestine article either, right? Particularly when it comes to disputed facts. FortunateSons (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be cautious of the old, and directly cite the new where appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In any case, the change here is to improve the accuracy of the lead. It's not "pro" either "side". However, as Khalidi points out, the inaccuracy present in our lead is part of a traditionalist Israeli myth of origin. Which he does by citing Israeli sources. DMH223344 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is consensus for that academically, you should have no trouble directly citing major contemporary historians on the Israeli side. If there isn’t, you can’t put it in the lead. FortunateSons (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That isnt how this works, if you think something is incorrect then bring sources that challenge it. nableezy - 19:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The word “invasion” is broadly used by the sources cited at 1948 Arab–Israeli War, for example footnote 18, 19, 22 FortunateSons (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article itself says "entered" DMH223344 (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

And calls them invading forces FortunateSons (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You've refused to answer my question about what sources you consider "pro israeli". And as nableezy says, you have to support your challenge with sources. DMH223344 (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Direct citations to a few (read: multiple) new historians would be a start, otherwise reputable professors at universities in Israel or old historians FortunateSons (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of "direct citations" here other than to give me extra work?

As for your other points, bring some references to specific passages from said professors or historians then we can discuss concretely. DMH223344 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I tried to address the wording issues in the thread below, which doesn’t use invaded per the source you provided and uses the alt wording that you suggested. Can you take a look please? Wafflefrites (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are citing a book, you can just follow that citation, it takes one minute max. I just don’t have access to any without going to the local library (or piracy), and particularly Finkelstein has a habit of poorly citing FortunateSons (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Khalidi is flat out wrong about the Iraqis. They attacked and occupied Geulim which was in the Jewish part (see Morris's 1948, p. 248). Our own article about the 1948 Arab–Israeli War#Arab states says that there were Saudi and Yemeni contingents, as well as some limited action on part of the Lebanese army. The Saudis in particular were incorporated into the Egyptian army which undoubtedly invaded the Jewish part. I don't have time to examine all the sources that article is based on but they seem legit.

I'd support changing the exact number to several to resolve this issue. Alaexis_¿question? 17:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Alaexis. I am good with using the exact number, “several”, just neighboring, or even listing out all the major Arab players. We could probably discuss more but I am currently waiting for Makeandtoss’ response because he was also involved with the changes to this section of the lead. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The full paragraph from morris reads:

Once in Samaria, the Iraqis were largely inactive. But renewed Haganah pressure on the Legion at Latrun resulted in a minor Iraqi attack, at Glubb's request, to disperse Haganah energies. On 28 May an Iraqi battalion at- tacked and took part of the Coastal Plain settlement of Geulim, southeast of Netanya. Alexandroni troops counterattacked-while the Iraqis were busy looting-and retook it.309 A handful of AF aircraft periodically bombed and strafed the Iraqis during the next three days.310 The Iraqis hunkered down in Samaria and made no further offensive efforts, except the capture on 30-31 May of as al-Ein water pumping station, midway between Geulim and Lydda.

which if anything supports the change I am suggesting. The Iraqis were "largely inactive" once in Samaria (of course not the area allotted to the Jewish state). As for Geulim, it doesn't change anything about my suggestion.

"there were Saudi and Yemeni contingents, as well as some limited action on part of the Lebanese army" also does not change anything about my suggestion. The Egyptian army was the only significant invading army. As morris says, the lebanese army did not cross the border. DMH223344 (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This was also discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War/Archive_21#1948_Arab–Israeli_War#First_phase:_15_May_–_11_June_1948. -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Combined version

Ok, I have tried to combine this again with bits from @DMH223344 @FortunateSons @Makeandtoss. What about this version:

The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups, which was the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians by Zionist militias and paramilitary units.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were displaced due to expulsions or fled. The 1949 Armistice Agreements saw Israel’s borders established over most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were ruled by Jordan and Egypt respectively

Wafflefrites (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• mobilzed their armies and entered the area of the former mandate. (Also maybe include the number?)
• there are some issues with readability, including in the last sentence; I’m not a native speaker, but it looks “awkward” to me
• the break between the second half of the first and the entire last sentence is potentially redundant and definitely to much for the lead

Looks good otherwise FortunateSons (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I mixed up the order. The armistice sentence was supposed to be last. The order should be fixed now. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I will probably make a few alterations to grammar and content later, but otherwise weak support FortunateSons (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together. My only suggestion would be to change "were displaced due to expulsions or fled" to "were expelled or fled" since it's more direct and reads better. DMH223344 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It's repetitive to mention the expulsions twice; hence my previous version. Also during all wars, armies mobilize, including Israel's in 1948, so I am not sure how that adds values to the sentence; it only confuses it. The first war started due to a myriad of reasons and not due to one action by a side or another. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! FortunateSons also mentioned the redundancy so I have removed it:

The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled.

Next, is to determine if we want:

A. On 15 May 1948, neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies

B. On 15 May 1948, several neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies

C. On 15 May 1948, four neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies

D. On 15 May 1948, Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq entered the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine

E. A military coalition of Arab states entered the territory of Mandatory Palestine in the morning of 15 May

F. Remove the second sentence and replace with “By the end of the First Arab–Israeli War, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled”

G. On 15 May 1948, the First Arab–Israeli War began

H. On 15 May 1948, the First Arab–Israeli War began between Israel and several neighboring Arab countries

@DMH223344 @FortunateSons @Makeandtoss @Alaexis, could you please reply to this listing with your preferred order? Discuss? Wafflefrites (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are using mobilized, 4 is technically inaccurate, you would have to include the ones that didn’t invade as well, as listed here. Maybe another argument for using invaded? FortunateSons (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I have struck out D because if I included all those countries that are in the infobox, the sentence would be really long. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I would then favour just adopting this phrasing: “… a military coalition of Arab states entered the territory of Mandatory Palestine in the morning of 15 May, starting ….” from the article linked above. FortunateSons (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I preferred the old D as it was more informative and did not use the word Arab. The use of the characterization Arab suggests a holy war as opposed to an appropriation of land owned and occupied by millions of folks, for whatever reasons. I am ambivalent on the ultimate wording. I just don't like any wording that suggests a bunch of Arabs decided to attack a bunch of Jews for purely religious reasons. Of course they were Arab as that's who lived in that area. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I have re-added the old D with some tweaks based on the comment from FortunateSons. Transjordan is listed in option D, but I think Transjordan's involvement was a little more complicated. Not all of the Arab leaders were against the recognition of Israel. For example, Abdullah I of Jordan, the Emir of Transjordan was the only Arab leader that had supported the 1947 UN Partition Plan. He was later assassinated by a Palestinian nationalist in 1951 [32] Fawzi Darwish Husseini, another "respected figure" and cousin of Jamal al-Husayni, "had worked with Jews to advocate a binational state". He was murdered in 1946.[33][34] Wafflefrites (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

E looks good, and I’m partial to the version from Alaexis FortunateSons (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing "five" with "several" in the current version "the armies of several neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine." The mobilisation can be discussed in the article itself. The list of countries likewise isn't needed, this way we'll be arguing whether they participated sufficiently in order to be mentioned. Each country had its own agenda and participated to a different degree, and these details should be discussed in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 09:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think option B with “several” is good too.

From @Makeandtoss’ comment “Also during all wars, armies mobilize, including Israel's in 1948, so I am not sure how that adds values to the sentence; it only confuses it. The first war started due to a myriad of reasons and not due to one action by a side or another” from 21:39, 9 March 2024, I have added three additional options.Wafflefrites (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Option H is a combination of B plus not mentioning “who started the war” or who mobilized armies Wafflefrites (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the options. All wars start in mobilization. This just places the burden of the war on the Arab side, as if the Jewish side was waving white flags, and not bent on taking over all of Mandatory Palestine. This is too detailed for lede anyway. Just say the war erupted without any POV. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wiki page lead for the first Arab-Israeli war has “and a military coalition of Arab states entered the territory of Mandatory Palestine in the morning of 15 May.” I have added additional options, but it does seem in terms of direct action, the Arab coalition took the first action (at least what I read from the Wiki page lead)

Also in regards to the civil war that happened after the failed UN partition

Benny Morris writes on p.76, “there was also a clear, organized Palestinian Arab response to the UN resolution.” On Dec. 1, it was a strike, and on Dec. 2, it was “a large Arab mob, armed with clubs and knives” led by two AHC officials. Morris then writes that the mob turned back after wounding some people and encountering the Haganah “But the war had begun”. [35] Wafflefrites (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

How can a reaction be a first action? Problem with the never ending conflict is that each side calls every one of their actions a reaction. Chicken/egg. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The source says it was a response (reaction) to the UN resolution, not to any type of physical aggression. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Which could very well be taken as a casus belli. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That is your opinion, if there are reliable sources that say it was casus belli, you could probably even add it to the Casus belli Wiki article. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Well covered at: 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead of the article says the first wave of expulsions and Israel’s Declaration of Independence was a casus belli for the First Arab-Israeli War. The Benny Morris quote was in regards to the preceding civil war that happened after the UN partition plan, before Israel declared independence, and before the expulsions. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The point is that the lead text should not suggest that there was a unilateral attack on Jews by Arabs simply because of religious differences. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t interpret it as having anything to do with religion. The other editors may want to see your point about casus belli in regards to the first Arab-Israeli war. In regards to the preceding civil war, according to Benny Morris at least, the preceding civil war first began with a mobilization from the Arab side. I don’t think there were casualties from that mob, but Morris says after in his text that the war had begun. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

History did not start with a mobilization from the Arab side. Such logic is why such feuds never end. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree with this, my original suggestion included "mobilized" but there isn't really a great reason to be including those details in the lead anyway. DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, the entry/invasion into the mandate is a core part of the progression of the conflict, which is a core part of the founding history of the country. FortunateSons (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not have any real strong opinion on any of the current options A-H, but we did try to improve the sentence and add detail to make it clear that Zionist militias and parliamentary units expelled Palestinians and Palestinians also fled, while some historians use the term “exodus”. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The WP article says both fled and expelled. Not either or. Let's just say the 1948 war erupted without going into the chicken/egg debates. Whether the Arabs had invaded, implying aggression; or were intervening to save the Palestinians from ethnic cleansing is a matter of POV that has no place in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

And this WP article says expelled or fled. WP is not a reliable source. I will be drafting a third combined version taking into consideration these comments and historical events. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention of Apartheid in Lead

The lead currently mentions: "It [Israel] has the highest standards of living in the Middle East" without qualifying that all notable human rights organizations consider Israel to be a single apartheid state.

Propose to replace with: "Is is considered to have one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East, although most human rights organizations consider Israel to be an apartheid state." DMH223344 (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's an absolutely ridiculous statement taken in isolation and without caveats or context. What's generally missing is: "... if you count only Israel proper/if you discount all those living under free facto Israeli occupation, military law and apartheid". The same applies to all of these fabulous statistics - they only apply if you count only Israel proper + Israeli settlers living in illegal settlements (presumably derived from Israel's own fanciful statistics regime), while forgetting the entire under-class of both occupied living alongside said settlers and all of the Palestinian labourers that have for years kept the economy ticking over while themselves live in borderline poverty. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree; at best, this belongs in the section above, but even that is disputable.

The primary apartheid claim applies to the West Bank only, and the view claiming that Israel proper (where most economic activity takes place) is also covered is a minority view; in addition, the claim that Israel is a broad apartheid state is not recognised as such by the international community as such. Therefore, including it in the title is not WP:DUEWEIGHT. FortunateSons (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it goes well beyond that. Look at our own, length, well sourced article Israel and apartheid. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Like the broad rejections by western governments and Jewish NGOs, the legally dubious claims (assuming that the occupied areas are part of Israel?) and the fact that the decisions faced broad criticism. Additionally, many of the strongest claims are only concern the occupied territories and are therefore at best partially applicable to Israel proper. FortunateSons (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

sure it's challenged by some entities, that's what my proposal above includes the qualifier "most human rights organizations". DMH223344 (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Except it isn’t, most simply didn’t make a statement. Of those that did, HRW stated that the conduct in Israel proper didn't meet the standard for the crime. Major human rights orgs like J Street and the ADL fully disagreed. Most is therefore factually inaccurate, and even if it was not, it would still be undue weight. FortunateSons (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

In April 2021, Human Rights Watch became the first major international human rights body to say Israel had crossed the threshold. Read what the article says about HRW. J Street is a pro-Israel lobbyist org. ADL saying it isn't is not meaningful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

„HRW report differs from it in finding that while "the elements of systematic and widespread repression with the intention of maintaining the superiority of one group exist both within Israel and in the OPT, only in the OPT (including East Jerusalem) does the severity of inhumane acts make them criminal."“

J Street is liberal pro-Israel and considered to be anti-Israeli by some on the right wing, making me inclined to say that they are pretty neutral in general, at least no less than many pro-Palestinian orgs which are biased towards the other side of the conflict.

ADL saying it isn’t meaningful, despite them being a broadly respected RS? There are also others, if you want to make a list, like those listed in the article. FortunateSons (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ADL and J Street are specifically pro-Israel. That is their focus. I would not accept specifically pro-Israel or pro-Arab institutions in articles like this. As for HRW, you just said: the severity of inhumane acts make them criminal. Are you saying that they are not inhumane in all areas and that somehow makes them not criminal? Doesn't work that way. Kinda like Bush saying we can torture people in Guantanamo and ignore the US Constitution because it's OK if it's only occupied. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The linked article itself references the crime of apartheid. FortunateSons (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Well there are something like 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank with 700,000 Israelis, including 220,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

But most of them aren’t Israeli citizens and therefore not counted into the statistics that I am aware of, making them not relevant for economic numbers. They also, which is quite important here, aren’t citizens, and discrimination against non-citizens is a normal feature of many laws, including in areas of work, land purchases, travel, political participation, protections from state powers etc. all across the world. FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Those Palestinians cannot become citizens if they do not swear that Israel is a Jewish state. What are they citizens of? Makes it sound like apartheid. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Something similar may be required of them of they want to become German citizens, does that make Germany an apartheid state? FortunateSons (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That's one of the 16 states in Germany and as it says that state law is controversial and considered discriminatory. I don't think that's a serious response. These are people who were born in and whose ancestors were born in the land in which they live. And their houses are regularly bulldozed to remove them. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There are some issues with your current proposal’s phrasing. It would be best to drop “although” per MOS:EDITORIAL and bring in other sources that disagree with the apartheid characterization per Wikipedia:SOURCESDIFFER. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Is your suggestion to insert a clause saying that some groups do no consider it apartheid? I think that's covered by "considered to have one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East" and the previous statement (not quoted in this thread) about human development index. Those metrics would of course not capture the apartheid consideration. DMH223344 (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Vox has a great example here [36], and could probably be used as a source for the body paragraphs as well. I could help you balance the sentence. It seems like those that disagree with the label are Israel, US and other Western allies, the ADL, the European Commission. Other editors may argue that these are irrelevant and unreliable sources, however Vox (which I believe is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia) has deemed these other sources as relevant enough to reference and balance out their article on the Israel apartheid topic. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

“ Is your suggestion to insert a clause saying that some groups do no consider it apartheid? “

Yes, I believe that is how it is done from what I have seen on Wikipedia articles. For example, “ Hamas is accused of having committing acts of gender-based violence, war crimes and crimes against humanity in keeping with the recognition of The International Criminal Court (ICC) that sexual violence is a war crimeand a crime against humanity.Hamas has denied that its fighters committed rape and assault against women.”

That is from Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel Wafflefrites (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

And unlike the rest of the world, Israel and, under Reagan, the US claimed South Africa wasn't apartheid. We are not trying to say Israel is apartheid in WikiVoice. But that is the general consensus among human rights groups and that should be included. This is not like a specific incidence, like one war crime where there are always denials and the of of war and individuals involved in the crime. It is the general operation/policy of the country. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If you read the Vox article, it actually does a good job with the issue. There is certainly debate around it, Vox did a good job with presenting different sides, such as security issues. This is why I asked in the RFC on this if apartheid was occurring within Israel proper, and I had also linked a really good article on the West Bank Barrier aka “Apartheid Wall”[37] .

The conclusion that I came to from this reading. is that there seems to be inequality between Arabs vs others within Israel but I am not sure if it amounts to apartheid. The history of security issues is another confounding variable , not sure if I am using that term correctly, DMH223344 should be familiar with that term. That is why I asked about apartheid in Israel proper. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid may be a polite term. CNN just reported that 68% of Israeli's want to block food aid to Gaza, even though newborn babies are dying of malnutrition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that is apartheid. I think it is more “Who helps the enemy??!!” type rhetoric/thinking from citizens, from articles I have read with quotes from civilians. The public perception within Israel is not the same as the international perceptions outside Israel. I remember watching a snippet of a video from Mia Shem after her release as a hostage. She said “there are no innocent civilians in Gaza” [38]. Israeli citizens also clash with the IDF who try to secure passage for the aid.

Since the aid is going to Gaza, which is outside Israel and governed by Hamas (not Israel), I don’t think that Israeli citizens blocking aid is a related example of apartheid. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It is extremely basic humanitarian law to provide food and basic services to civilians in areas you occupy (as well as the morally obvious thing to do). The withholding of these things is a continuous ongoing war crime, and yes, way worse than apartheid: it's the crime of crimes – as many have now said, a "textbook case of genocide". Those acting against the provision of aid are acting in a continuously illegal fashion. It's not apartheid because it is something much worse. Apartheid can be subtle and creeping: there is nothing subtle about Israel's genocidal intent. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's collective punishment. In effect, the two million Gazan civilians are hostages. But we can't get ahead of RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid inside the greenline is not really relevant here, since these same human rights organizations refer to a "one state reality" or something equivalent to that. See for example BTselem:

B’Tselem rejects the perception of Israel as a democracy (inside the Green Line) that simultaneously upholds a temporary military occupation (beyond it). B’Tselem reached the conclusion that the bar for defining the Israeli regime as an apartheid regime has been met after considering the accumulation of policies and laws that Israel devised to entrench its control over Palestinians... it is one regime between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and we must look at the full picture and see it for what it is: apartheid.

I will read the vox article. But like O3000 said, we are not trying to say anything in wikivoice here. DMH223344 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, Vox is not great on this issue, especially when it comes to factual precision and understanding of the conflict as a whole. For example their notorious article where they claimed there was a bridge connecting the gaza strip and west bank on which palestinians could travel but israel limited traffic on (???). DMH223344 (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

True. As stated above, if these statistics count Israeli settlers then they are encompassing the entirety of Israel–Palestine territory, just through the lense of a very selective and POV prism of understanding, and Wikipedia, in displaying these claims without caveats, is perpetuating a flawed data approach that masks apartheid. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Every data point about Israel on this page ultimately needs a note outlining whether it refers to A) Israel; B) Israel + Israeli citizens living in illegal settlements; or C) something else. Unless this is delineated, it's all useless to readers. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

+1. If the ICJ determines that the occupation is itself illegal (not just the annexes, which are already illegal), the apartheid case becomes much stronger, personally I don't mind waiting for the ICJ to produce an advisory on that. Also, the expression "apartheid state" is not that helpful, it is not defined in international law. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer waiting for a decision from the SC, but yes, waiting for the ICJ is definitely reasonable (or even the reaction of scholarship to it), +1 on you suggestion. FortunateSons (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if a term is not defined in international law, it is still meaningful. The wikilink i proposed should give readers more detail. Do you have any alternate phrasing suggestions? DMH223344 (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC

The RFC never reached consensus about adding war crimes and crimes against humanity why did you add that? There were more editors that agreed with option 1 , 3 or 5 then 2 why do you say it’s reached consensus while it didn’t? It’s totally not right when you claim it reached consensus while it didnt 2A06:C701:429F:3000:E1B4:EABB:F54B:BD6B (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Add the Israel Name in Hebrew

I would suggest that we edit the Israeli name in Hebrew (ישראל Jisra'el מדינת ישראלⓘ Medinat Jisra'el) I i mean: ,,Israel (ישראל Jisra'el מדינת ישראלⓘ Medinat Jisra'el), officially the State of Israel,is a country in the Levant region of West Asia." What do you think? Vogelman29 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This information is already contained in a footnote in the opening sentence of the article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought it might make sense to write it even more clearly, but ok. :) Vogelman29 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The world's only Jewish-majority state

It seems bizarre to me that this fact is not mentioned anywhere in the lead given this is probably the most notable, unique, and defining fact about Israel as a country. Should get a mention somewhere in the lead, probably in the first paragraph. 2607:FEA8:5399:A400:FC20:E4D4:8620:48FC (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Wars

How should we summarize Israel's five Gaza wars and two Lebanon wars in the lede? This is obviously missing. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Combined Version #3

The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, the First Arab–Israeli War began. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled.

My reasoning for these changes:

1. This version avoids mentioning that several neighboring Arab nations mobilizing their armies starting the war because the role of Transjordan was not so clear cut and there is also the argument for casus belli.
2. This version keeps the word “or” rather than using “and”. There were a portion of Palestinians who were not forcibly evicted (they fled their villages before encountering any Jewish forces due to rumors or other reasons). AP News, The Guardian, PBS, Time use “or” [39][40][41][42]

Thoughts? Suggestions? @Makeandtoss@DMH223344@FortunateSons@Alaexis Wafflefrites (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how this provides significant improvements to the original version. It’s less precise, violates NPOV, is vague on historical facrs such as the beginning of the war due to the invasion, and makes expulsion look bigger than it was. That being said, it is an improvement over the last version. FortunateSons (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, several Arab armies from neighboring states entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine at the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled.

@FortunateSons@Makeandtoss@Alaexis@DMH223344 This an alternate version Wafflefrites (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Better, but doesn’t make clear that the entry is the beginning of the war, not that it happens at after the beginning FortunateSons (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll add a textdiff comparing the text proposed by u:Wafflefrites to the current article, hopefully it'll help other editors to evaluate the changes. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an endorsement of the changes.

−

The 1947 [[United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine|UN Partition Plan]] triggered [[1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine|a civil war]] between the two groups, which saw the [[1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight|expulsion and flight]] of most of Palestine's predominantly Arab population. Israel declared its [[Israeli Declaration of Independence|establishment]] on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the [[1948 Arab–Israeli War|First Arab–Israeli War]].

+

The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups. Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. '''On 15 May 1948, several Arab armies from neighboring states entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine at the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War.''' By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled by Zionist militias and paramilitary units or fled.

Alaexis_¿question? 22:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Approve of this version with the suggested change of using "marking the start...". DMH223344 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe that it's an improvement. The phrase "Arab armies ... entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine at the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War" sounds awkward. I don't see problems with the current wording (starting the First Arab-Israeli war). If we define the 1948 Arab–Israeli War as the international phase of that conflict, then by definition it started when other countries entered the conflict. I'm also open to other options, for example marking the start of the First Arab-Israeli war. Alaexis_¿question? 22:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Oooo… I like “marking the start of the First Arab-Israeli war”. It sounds very official and is neutral. 👍 Wafflefrites (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

“ In 1947, the United Nations recommended the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, sparking a civil war between the two groups. When the British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its independence. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, marking the start of the First Arab-Israeli war. As a result of the conflicts, the majority of Palestinian Arabs were either expelled or fled from territory that came under Israeli control. The armistice in 1949 left Israel in control over most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively ”

. Mawer10 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ohh nice! I like this one too! 👍👍 Wafflefrites (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"As a result of the conflicts" is misleading DMH223344 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, we can change that to "during the conflicts". Mawer10 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)