Talk:Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former featured articleIsrael is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 4, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
June 23, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
April 20, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article


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

From the river to the sea Palestine will be free 

Free Palestine  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.19.219 (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Free Palestine 2.50.19.219 (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

Also if possible, state if you support or not. I personally Support. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this, but as Iskandar323 pointed out, it is probably best practice to put this somewhere in the body paragraphs as well.
talk) 16:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
I would support if phrased in just that way. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is an encyclopedic way of phrasing it.
Iskandar323 (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. 05:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Dovidroth (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added :) Homerethegreat (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose having the only Jewish state statement in the lead per
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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
Added, following one more editor input as requested per your statement. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
I support the phrase suggested by
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
@Qplb191 is it possible you can do a partial self rv? Homerethegreat (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sure I didn’t see the consequence. Qplb191 (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Strong support, but as mentioned, inclusion into the lead should follow inclusion into the rest of the article. FortunateSons (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:
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)[reply]
This article is not occupied territories, but about the State of Israel. When the
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
There is clearly a consensus to add this. Think best all move on. Moxy- 21:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Any comment? Homerethegreat (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Makeandtoss, can you post your suggested compromised sentence? Wafflefrites (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be restore as per this talk and our lone editor should
WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 Moxy- 18:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Probably needs an explanatory section under Demographics. Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
#2 is disputed so that's not a definition of Israel, except according to Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yep. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[7] here’s a link . I think it should be 1949 to 1967, not 1948. Wafflefrites (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If a state was founded in 1948, then by definition, these are its borders.
Well obviously not. The 1776 borders of the United States are not the US borders and the 1801 borders of the United Kingdom are not the UK borders. 17:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Jahaza (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In theory there are currently no means to expand national borders by force. However, that was not always the case and borders may also change by agreement. In the case of Israel, there are peace treaties, there is occupation as defined and illegal annexation (considered as continuing occupation) and those things need to be explained where necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Israel #3 should generally be used, as it most effectively encompasses areas inhabited primarily by citizens and under effective control/and or credibly effectively claimed by the country. However, as stated above, reasonable deviation (generally into the direction of 2. FortunateSons (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's Correct Geographical Location

Israel is located along the eastern coastline of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bordered by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza/Palestine and Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.179.7 (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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
Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[8][9][10] Wafflefrites (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Maybe the first thing we can do here is to remove or shorten this section from the lead:
"Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Jewish states, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. The region was then ruled by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic and Roman empires. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. In the Middle Ages, it was part of the Crusader Kingdom, several Islamic Caliphates and the Ottoman Empire."
This quote is about the region and not the state itself, which makes it undue for the lead. DMH223344 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss recently added to and expanded that lead section. This is what I mean by no consensus: there are at least three different opinions on what the history section should be. Trimming, keeping, or both trimming and adding about the Islamic Caliphates, etc. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed about the region in general, not the modern state. You could readily cut any of the material after the first sentence, which simply loosely defines the relevant geography.
Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Since the modern state’s identity is related to the region’s history, I don’t find that passage to be overlong at all. Zanahary (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in that case, the history should be related to the state's identity with references to RS. Otherwise it doesnt belong. DMH223344 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree sources should pertain to the "History of Israel" and that pre-modern history should come from sources that include it as the history of Israel and/or its background. But in any case I don't find the history section to be overlong at all, considering how much has happened there and how much attention has been paid to it by various religious and ethnic groups for millenia. Zanahary (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That again sounds like you are talking about the history of the region/geography, not the modern state.
Iskandar323 (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Reliable sources link them quite closely—closely enough for this article’s history section to discuss the region’s pre-modern history. Zanahary (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DMH223344: The sourcing in this section is actually far worse than I had imagined. It does not appear to reference a single, solid tertiary compendium of history. It is just a
Iskandar323 (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The first sentence is about the region too though: “ Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine and the Holy Land. “
I think the ancient history could be combined and shortened, but not completely removed (maybe similar to the Portuguese Wiki article on Israel). The different ruling powers historically shaped the region’s demographics and religion (Judaism, Muslim conquest, Crusades) and have a direct impact on modern conflict and conflict over shared holy sites today. And the ancient history is important in understanding why Zionists specifically wanted a Jewish homeland in the Levant. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of a state: A state is a political entity that regulates society and the population within a territory. A state by definition is a government over a certain territory; i.e. it is impossible to discuss a state's history without discussing the territory's history; as is the case with every state's WP article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Zionists didn't want a state in the Levant; they specifically wanted it in Palestine, though they might have settled for Argentina if that hadn't worked out. In Palestine, the history was obviously a huge bonus for their movement as a culturally salient touchstone. But again, we're really talking about the history of
Iskandar323 (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There were a number of Zionist migration targets besides Palestine and Argentina, but certainly none took any amount of centrality comparable to Palestine.
Many (all?) articles on countries feature a history of the land and its people from long before the state’s formation. For Israel, the region’s history is of particular importance, since a lot of the state’s contemporary identity, culture, and political/foreign policy cannot be completely explained without a good amount of regional history. Zanahary (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
You can ask at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language by the way. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A help desk question, but I think it’s a transformation from “ees-rah-el” to “is-rail” to “is-real”, the latter two representing a common vowel transformation among some AE-speaking populations. Zanahary (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I will probably make a few alterations to grammar and content later, but otherwise weak support FortunateSons (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [11] 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.[12][13] Wafflefrites (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E looks good, and I’m partial to the version from Alaexis FortunateSons (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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”. [14] Wafflefrites (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Which could very well be taken as a casus belli. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well covered at: 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
„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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The linked article itself references the crime of apartheid. FortunateSons (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There are some issues with your current proposal’s phrasing. It would be best to drop “although” per
Wikipedia:SOURCESDIFFER. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
Vox has a great example here [15], 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)[reply]
Some issues with this article:
  1. The opening sentence "In recent years, human rights organizations and legal experts have increasingly described Israel’s policies toward Palestinians as apartheid, adding to a longstanding debate about whether this is an accurate way to categorize the country’s practices." is misleading. It's not just "increasingly described... as apartheid"--every notable human rights organization does. This example alone captures Vox's general low quality reporting on the subject. Being "balanced" does not mean being "nice" to both "sides", it involves reporting accurately, honestly and completely.
  2. The sentence "Israel isn’t alone in its criticism of the term, which has been the source of international debate." gives the rejection of the apartheid label much more credit than it deserves. The rest of the paragraph cites the ADL which they describe as a "civil rights group", which is of course not an accurate characterization. The last sentence in this paragraph "Some critics also claim that the term apartheid cannot be used because only Palestinian noncitizens outside of Israel’s internationally recognized borders suffer from confinement and other potentially “inhumane acts,” while Palestinian citizens of Israel purportedly have the same rights as all other Israeli citizens, such as the ability to vote and run for office." misses the point almost entirely. It's not about only palestinian citizens of Israel. This article might seem like its presenting both sides, but it really isn't; it pushes the Israeli rejection of responsibility for anything in the occupied territories, without challenging it, or clearly putting into contrast what human rights organizations say about this point.
  3. The paragraph "The US and other Western allies of Israel have pushed back on this label as well. In 2023, the US House passed a resolution stating that Israel is not a “racist or apartheid state,” and in recent years, the Biden administration has said it disagreed with human rights analyses that argue that Israel practices apartheid. In January 2023, the European Commission also said that it is “not appropriate” to associate the term apartheid with the Israeli state." is purely an appeal to authority, without any arguments or details being presented.
  4. The article cites Israeli government claims as equally legitimate, if not more legitimate, as the claims of human rights organizations (which all corroborate each other).
  5. "Outside of Israel’s borders, the Israeli government has supported what UN leaders describe as illegal settlements in the occupied territories, which have pushed Palestinians out of their communitie." again this is totally underselling the reality. It is not "UN leaders" who describe the settlements as illegal. They ARE illegal. Also, Israel has not defined its borders, so this sentence extra doesnt make sense.
  6. The section "2. Establishing the intent to maintain the domination of one racial group over another" has some glaring omissions and is overall unnecessarily vague. For example, it misses that the nation state law is a Basic Law, essentially constitutional status.
  7. As another example "“Israel does not have a racial segregation implemented by law,” Haaretz opinion editor Anat Kaam wrote in the Daily Beast in October 2022. “There are Arab citizens—citizens with full, equal rights—in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, as well as in the Israeli court system, including the Supreme Court. There are Arab doctors, professors, policemen, teachers, and countless other professions, working side by side with Jews.”" except that it does have racial segregation implemented by law, as demonstrated by this article even: "That law — which was widely criticized by Palestinians and liberal Israeli Jews as undemocratic — explicitly stated that the right to “national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.”" National belonging is the mechanism of racial discrimination. That's the whole point of bifurcating citizenship from nationality. Adalah has listed explicitly 65 laws which discriminate directly or indirectly against Palestinian citizens of Israel on this basis.
Overall, this article is shallow and misses the key point that not every claim from every individual or organization should be given equal weight and reported almost unchecked. DMH223344 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is how adalah describes the nation-state law: "The Israeli Knesset voted on 19 July 2018 by a margin of 62 to 55 to approve the Jewish Nation-State Basic Law, constitutionally enshrining Jewish supremacy and the identity of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people." emphasis mine DMH223344 (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, i dont' think it's even relevant to my proposal, which is already balanced by not omitting the statement about Israeli standards of living. DMH223344 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“ 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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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”[16] .
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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” [17]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
+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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If there are no more comments, I will make the suggested change DMH223344 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no RS consensus on apartheid within Israel proper, and no consensus for including the occupied territories within this part of the article. As long as you don’t have a remedy for at least one of those, the inclusion here is not appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, I think a clarifying footnote that states that it refers to Israel proper + settlements only would resolve this issue, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a RS consensus. As I mentioned several times, every notable human rights organization agrees. The ADL and J-street are not human rights organizations, as has been explained in this thread. DMH223344 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to our own article,
Israel and Apartheid, HRW doesn’t believe the bar to be met within Israel proper, and the legal bodies are generally not tasked to examine Israel proper. Additionally, Goldstone disagrees (which is old, but still), and many of the views either only apply to Israel proper if you view it in conjunction with the occupied territories (something not broadly supported by RS except B'Tselem, or merely focus on the West Bank. Therefore, the only major organisation saying that Israel proper (and not only viewed in conjunction with the West Bank) has reached the bar is Amnesty, which is important, but not broad consensus. FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
When making the assessment of whether the crime of apartheid is being committed, human rights organizations (including Amnesty International, Human rights watch and B'Tselem) also consider the condition in the occupied territories. From HRW: "On the basis of its research, Human Rights Watch concludes that the Israeli government has demonstrated an intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians across Israel and the OPT. In the OPT, including East Jerusalem, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them. When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid." DMH223344 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so if you need A + B + C= D, and only have A in Israel proper, you don’t have D (being Apartheid). The apartheid claim in the context of economics is not relevant if the people are not citizens or residents of the country discussed, and the citizens and residents (as shown by your source) are not affected by Apartheid per HRW. FortunateSons (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a state commits the crime of apartheid, it is an apartheid state, just as if a group is accused of perpetrating acts of terror then it might be characterised as a terrorist group. Suggesting that only perpetrating apartheid in the form of systematic oppression in certain areas makes it somehow less apartheid-y is like suggesting that only perpetrating terror in one area makes your less terrorist. If you follow my analogy it will take you to some odd places. Moreover, the central point of this discussion is the very observation that almost any socioeconomic figure about Israel tends to extend also to its illegal settlements, thereby including populations that in the regard of all serious human rights actors are in territories where the crime of apartheid is being committed, so there is direct overlap between the territories entailed in the figures and the crime.
Iskandar323 (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
By that logic, we would be able to refer to the United States as a terrorist state, something that we would definitely not do in wikivoice. Additionally, based on the uniqueness of the situation (based on citizenship, not ethnicity, and resolved if there is a peace deal).
The economic figures don’t include the occupied territories except where citizens live, which is true, but also not per se relevant: as far as I know, occupying powers generally don’t include areas which are not de-facto annexed into their economic calculations. FortunateSons (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you acknowledged in your other comment, HRW does consider the occupied territories when assessing Israel as an apartheid state. DMH223344 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that is a question of general conduct, not apartheid in the area where from which the economic number was taken. It does, in fact, not consider Isreal proper to meet the bar for apartheid. FortunateSons (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The apartheid accusation is flawed because the definition of apartheid is dependent on race. It is like accusing India of apartheid when the issue is the caste system. There is segregation and discrimination within the occupied territories but I don’t think it’s due to race. Maybe due to place of residence + security issues. The restriction to water access within the West Bank is segregationist, but I don’t think it’s due to race - are Israeli citizens who are Arab allowed to visit and access the restricted water sites? Wafflefrites (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is your interpretation. Here we are discussing what human rights organizations say. DMH223344 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This UN source [18] calls the occupation apartheid. In that case, I would have to agree with a Selfstudier’s points that 1) the ICJ ruling on the legality of Israel’s occupation would make the apartheid case clearer and 2) the term “apartheid state” is not legally defined. It is not disputed that Israel occupies West Bank. If the occupation is determined to be illegal then the illegality of the “apartheid” or segregation is clearer since per the UN occupation = apartheid. Yes, it is my interpretation and I am interpreting the sources to determine if the accusation is lead worthy. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the human rights groups document the extraordinary discrimination against Arabs within and outside of Israel. This extends, among other things, to the refusal of the right to return, to the restriction of ownership of property in communities to certain ethnic groups, and to the illegality of intermarriage between religious groups. There is almost nothing about the legal setup in Israel that actually delivers any form of equality – something that factored into the recent V-dem downgrade of Israel from a "liberal democracy" to just an "electoral democracy".
Iskandar323 (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
A modified suggestion:
"It is considered to have one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East, although most human rights organizations consider Israel to enforce an apartheid system in the occupied territories." DMH223344 (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That also works.
Iskandar323 (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I would still prefer to wait, but that wording is better although I think you should drop the “although” per
MOS:EDITORIAL and separate as two sentences. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The last paragraph currently reads:
"The country has a parliamentary system elected by proportional representation. The prime minister serves as head of government, and is elected by the Knesset, Israel's unicameral legislature. Israel Is one of the richest countries in the Middle East and Asia, and an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member since 2010. It has one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East, and has been ranked as one of the most advanced and technological countries, with a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023. It has the world's 29th-largest economy by nominal GDP and 18th by nominal GDP per capita."
I propose to change it to:
"The country has a parliamentary system elected by proportional representation. The prime minister serves as head of government, and is elected by the Knesset, Israel's unicameral legislature. Israel is considered to enforce a system of apartheid in the occupied territories. Israel is one of the richest countries in the Middle East and Asia, and an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member since 2010. It has one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East, and has been ranked as one of the most advanced and technological countries, with a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023. It has the world's 29th-largest economy by nominal GDP and 18th by nominal GDP per capita."
This proposal avoids the editorial issue but maintains the mention of apartheid in the same context as before without making it sounds like a disconnected list of statements. DMH223344 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks out of context, and is worse than the prior suggestion. FortunateSons (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s better, agree with @Wafflefrites FortunateSons (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support separating the sentences as well; the one on apartheid should be in combination with the one on the longest occupation in modern history statement. And glad we all agree on the phrasing at least, so the next steps should be easy. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RfC about how we should mention human rights issues in the lede which was closed only two weeks ago. What you're proposing here contradicts the outcome of that RfC. Alaexis¿question? 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. The RFC is in the context of other human rights concerns. Here we are talking about balancing the discussion of the standard of living aspect, which as discussed in the thread includes settlers and so should also include a mention of the occupied territories. DMH223344 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and the inclusion of settlers with Israeli citizenship is not an argument to include people who don’t even have a residence permit. FortunateSons (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's confusing here? Normal country statistics don't include data on people living outside of the country. If Israeli socio-economic figures incorporate data on settlers in the occupied territories, it is treating those territories as effectively annexed for statistical purposes. But you can't pick and choose. If occupied territory data is being incorporated, it is important for context to note the selective nature of the sampling, otherwise the real world segregation is just being replicated digitally in the segregation of data on illegal settlers in the occupied territories from data on the surrounding occupied territories – as if it exists in a vacuum.
Iskandar323 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It’s treating the settled areas as part of their country (mostly area C), the inclusion of non-citizens living in areas not fully controlled by Israel (who the apartheid-claim includes) would be just as unusual. Additional, due to the sometimes considered unique status (both de jure and the facto) of the West Bank, an analogy is always going to be difficult as what they are occupying is not really a country in the traditional sense, and is closer to a territory FortunateSons (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, there is a reasonable argument for a footnote or a half sentence specifying who is included in the data. FortunateSons (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very loosely analogous to including Crimea and the Donbas in Russian statistics, which, at this juncture, would equally merit a note.
Iskandar323 (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Loosely yes, directly no, because Ukraine was a sovereign country prior to invasion. But a short note on who is included (settlers and residents, as far as I know) would probably provide some value. FortunateSons (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This information is already contained in a footnote in the opening sentence of the article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might make sense to write it even more clearly, but ok. :) Vogelman29 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why should it be mentioned? Almost every nation state is the only majority state for its national population, and many ethnic communities/nationalities have a diaspora. You have got this whole thing backwards: What is actually notable is that the Jewish diaspora is so (literally) ancient, not the reverse – and would you know it, our article on the Jewish diaspora describes exactly how ancient it is. That parts of an ancient diaspora have constructed a modern nation state – in the aftermath of the Shoah, even – is notable; that they have revived an ancient, virtually dead tongue to do so (albeit with a modern pronunciation) is notable; but that the country they have constructed is the only majority-Jewish one is not. What is notable, but maybe not lead-worthy, is that the State of Israel is defined by law as Jewish, and that Hebrew is the only national language despite a substantial Arab-speaking minority being Israeli citizens. TucanHolmes (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not really, for example, the lead for Great Britain/England/United Kingdom does not include the world wars beyond its economic/decolonial impacts. We are already overweight on the conflicts, let’s not make this problem more apparent . FortunateSons (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is overweight on conflicts, not us. WP reflects reality, it is not our job to pick and choose. These wars were a major part of Israel's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeandtoss (talk • contribs) 10:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been 6 Arab-Israeli wars. https://www.britannica.com/event/Arab-Israeli-wars
Not just in Gaza or Lebanon, but with other Arab countries as well. There are a lot of conflicts between Israel and its neighboring states; there is a reason why there is a saying that Israel is surrounded by its enemies. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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” [19][20][21][22]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can someone summarize what the developments have been on this. I wish wikipedia had better support for discussions. This is a nightmare. DMH223344 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks! Alaexis¿question? 21:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That fixed most of the issues at hand, support FortunateSons (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ohh nice! I like this one too! 👍👍 Wafflefrites (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result of the conflicts" is misleading DMH223344 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we can change that to "during the conflicts". Mawer10 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is classic historical mythology debunked by the new historians, which places the burden of the 1948 war on the Arab side, and claims that the expulsions were a result of that war; even though Zionist militants had been engaged in ethnic cleansing since December 1947, and were aiming for the takeover of all of Palestine. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the complicated part, anything else to say? Mawer10 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support something closer to the original proposal by Wafflefrites. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your version has dropped the link to the 1949 Armistice agreements though. You need to add that back. Also your version makes it sound like the Declaration of Independence led to the war.
“marking the start of the First Arab-Israeli war” doesn’t necessarily mean the Arab armies started the war. Based on the sentences and their placement, the Arab armies mobilization could also be interpreted as a response to the Declaration of Independence. But “at the beginning of” could be a better option, meaning the Arab army mobilization occurred at the start but was not the action that started the conflict.
I think the two options could be:
Or:
Wafflefrites (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Makeandtoss, your version at 13:40, 12 March 2024 uses “fled and expelled” when reliable sources use “or”. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is a significant issue @Wafflefrites, thanks :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with this version based my comments outlined above.
FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put up two versions. One using “marking the start” and the other using “at the beginning”. I hope that we all will be able to come up with a version that everybody can support. The U.S. Constitution is 4543 words and took four months to write over a period of 5 years and 9 months. Our edit is about 90 words, so it could take us 2.38 days over 1.37 months (about 41 days) Wafflefrites (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marking the start is better. But yes, we do have time. Thank you for the productive contribution :) FortunateSons (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about the demographics of Palestine, "the majority of Palestinian Arabs were either expelled or fled from territory that came under Israeli control" gets straight to the point and appropriately emphasizes the territory that Israel came to control after 1949. And it is necessary to use the term "Arabs" after "Palestinian" because there were Palestinian Jews at that time. Mawer10 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make it explicit, I support the first option (with "marked") suggested by Wafflefrites on 14:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC). I'm also okay with minor changes like changing Palestinians to Palestinian Arabs if that ends up to be the consensus. Alaexis¿question? 21:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss I think we have general consensus from all the other editors for Version 1 of my comment at 14:43, 12 March 2024.
This new version does not use the word “invaded”. It says “marked the start”, which is official-sounding and neutral. And I think the others have said this is historically accurate and not vague. Also because it is official sounding, I think it brings dignity to the Arab military side - it was an official and legitimate movement.
The new version explicitly states that Zionist militias and parliamentary expelled Palestinian Arabs, which addresses your concern about the expulsions not simply being a result war. This is also historically accurate and not vague.
I think these were the two main concerns with the current version in the lead.
From
WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS
“The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group.”
I don’t think this version fully satisfies everyone, but would you agree to this version? Do you have any other suggestions? Wafflefrites (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this work. approve of version 1 of your 14:43 comment DMH223344 (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with using „marked the start“ FortunateSons (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus involves putting forward compromises. I will put forward a compromise to avoid implying that Israel's declaration of establishment led to the war (even though I didn't intend to mean that, I meant that the British termination of the mandate); and a good compromise to come from the opposing view is to avoid implying the war was started due to the Arab invasion. A good middle ground would be:
As for fled and expelled, rather than fled or expelled, that's the name of the WP article, not my formulation: 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about both (expulsion AND flight), but the relevant action/mode of removal is referred to as OR in the article. Additionally, your version removes significant information about the course of the conflict.
Lastly, the war may or may not have started because of the invasion, but definitely was started by the invasion FortunateSons (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prominent historian Eugene Rogan and Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, one of Israel's New Historians, have explicitly called the claim "that the Arab invasion made war inevitable" a myth. [23] This is clearly a matter of POV that should not be in the lede. As for the matter of "and" or "or", I have changed it to "or", as per your arguments. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t access your source; is it possible that it is geolocked/requires permission? FortunateSons (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is: The War for Palestine by Rogan and Shlaim. The myths are elaborated in page 3. The link is a PDF file that takes a few seconds to load and is accessible. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used a VPN for the source, found the place describing it as a „founding myth“, but can’t find the place where an alternative narrative is described. Would you be so kind as to provide a page number? FortunateSons (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss I have put 3 additional versions down below, version A is similar to your version. I think there is a problem with the first sentence of the version you have put up:
"Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."
The above sentence uses 2 commas. In your sentence, it looks like the commas are setting off a nonessential element/nonrestrictive clause.[24][25] The commas make it look like the British mandate termination is a nonessential part of the sentence and can be removed, therefore "Israel declared establishment --> and the First Arab-Israeli War erupted."
I have tried to fix this issue in Versions A/C below by using the commas in list format rather than marking off a nonessential/nonrestrictive clause. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.136

These two renowned historians have refuted the myth that placed the responsibility of the 1948 war on the Arab side by highlighting how it was a response for the Zionist organizations offensive plans that were aiming to takeover the whole of Palestine. The myth is clearly POV to be included in the lede; and I have already made a compromise to avoid stating which side is responsible for the war; and I expect that the same is done in good faith so that we move forward. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is assigning responsibility, marked merely refers to the starting event. One can credibly argue that Israel „started“ the war in 67, but the responsibility does not lie with them. In the same vain, just because the invasion of the Arab states marked the beginning of the war does not necessarily mean that the invasion was unjustified, merely that it was the start. FortunateSons (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A war was already ongoing in 1948 - the
Iskandar323 (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Which marks the beginning of what is generally referred to as the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, no? FortunateSons (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are competing narratives. The Arab countries perspective is that they were merely intervening to protect the beleaguered Palestinian population, which was on the back foot against the Haganeh/IDF; Israel's perspective is that they were suddenly invaded (as if out of the blue). Both narratives can only be understood in the context of considerable political nuance. But yes, the intervention is where historians delineate the second phase of the conflict.
Iskandar323 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The one that is often referred to as a different name, and also the line between a civil and an international war. FortunateSons (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VERSION A (03-13-2024) (based on Makeandtoss' recent version):
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, forces from neighboring Arab states later entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted. By the war's end in 1949, the majority of Palestine's predominantly Arab population had fled or were expelled by Israel, which was founded on most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively.
VERSION B (03-13-2024) (uses DMH223344's wording about Zionist militias, the 1949 Armistice sentence is closer to the current lead):
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. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine as an extension of the civil war, marking the start of the First Arab-Israeli war. By 1949, the majority of Palestine's predominantly Arab population were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled. The 1949 Armistice Agreements established Israel's borders over most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were ruled by Jordan and Egypt.
VERSION C (03-13-2024) (same as version A -uses "erupted" per Makeandtoss, keeps the 1949 Armistice sentence closer to the current lead, uses DMH223344's wording about Zionist militias):
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, forces from neighboring Arab states later entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted. By 1949, the majority of Palestine's predominantly Arab population were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled. The 1949 Armistice Agreements established Israel's borders over most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were ruled by Jordan and Egypt.
What do you think of these versions? @Makeandtoss
@:DMH223344
@:FortunateSons
@:Alaexis
Wafflefrites (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You missed out on the „marking“, that was a good addition, and A is the least bad version. Otherwise, it still feels like we are moving farther away from what one would call clear language and into vague territory.
I understand the argument against using invasion (even if the term is technically accurate), but the discussion regarding erupted/started is moving away from what an educated person not specifically familiar with the subject would perceive as reasonable and started being about getting a phrasing so vague that nobody technically disagrees. We are adding complexity and vagueness where there really isn’t any, the entry/Invasion marking the beginning of that stage of the conflict is not generally disputed (to the best of my knowledge.) FortunateSons (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that military invasion is a technically accurate term. I also prefer the current lead version because it easier to picture what happened. However, Makeandtoss and others' arguments is that the current version does not give a historically accurate impression in regards to the Arab side. Also the sources differ per DMH223344's source about only Egypt invading. I suppose another argument against using "invasion" is there is some negative connotation. Makeandtoss (and I think DHM223344, as well as user Objective3000......) have brought arguments that the start of the war was not the invasion (casus belli). I would prefer a link to the 1949 Armistice agreements that actually says
MOS:NOPIPE. I will add in "marking" (i had replaced with signifying). Wafflefrites (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
If there are objections to "forces from neighboring Arab states later entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine", we can write "neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies", "neighboring Arab states activated a military coalition", or another alternate wording/phrase. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A choice of language that was installed in a previous version, and which did describe the situation quite well, was to say that the entry of the Arab armies into the territory of former mandatory Palestine "internationalised" the conflict (i.e. the civil war) - you could then use "marking the start of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war". Also, the "by the end of the war" part could be made less vague by starting with "Between 1947", so "Between 1947 and the end of the war.../the 1949 armistice agreements", since this helps clarify that this refers to both phases of the conflict.
Iskandar323 (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
This would just put the burden of the war on the Arab side, a founding Zionist myth which was debunked by the new historians. Being aware of giving such implications, we are better off avoiding it. Both armies mobilized. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wafflefrites: I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a democracy and instead works through consensus which involves putting forward compromises. You can't take my version in which I gave several compromises and put it next to an initial biased version with no compromises up for democratic voting. That's not how Wikipedia works. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was not to put it up for democratic voting, but to compare with other variations that had also received some consensus. All versions need improvement with grammar, probably, and your version has a piped link. If we did want to achieve consensus by voting, it would require an RFC. Also there is no initial biased version with no compromises because all three versions have compromises when you compare it to the current lead. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wafflefrites: No such thing either as consensus by voting through an RFC. Everything on WP works through consensus which involves taking legitimate concerns of editors and making compromises. Thanks for clarifying that was not your intention, now we should focus on improving the existing iterations. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you revise your version from 10:15, 13 March 2024 using the feedback I gave you at 01:16, 14 March 2024 about nonessential/non-restrictive clauses and using a link to the 1949 Armistice agreements that says
MOS:NOPIPE? Wafflefrites (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
What about “On 14 May 1948, the British terminated the Mandate, Israel declared its establishment, neighboring Arab states later activated a military coalition, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted.”
It is in chronological list order. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m opposed to that, it’s both vague on phrasing and lacks detail (invasion into the mandate, it causing the war) FortunateSons (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and only one of the two factions invaded the area of the mandate, which was the reason why the previous version was stable. Additionally, the so-called myth is not broadly „debunked“, and is in fact often considered to be accurate within Israel/the West.
Another phrasing can be valid, but regardless of moral legitimacy, the start of the war (or its phase, depending on how you differentiate) is causally derived from and began with the entry/invasion of the Arab armies. FortunateSons (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wafflefrites: Thanks for the reply, I have added a few relevant links above. MOS:PIPE relates to redirects and isn't related to this. As for the commas thing I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say?
As for the Arab invasion in 1948 starting the war (which has already been called a myth by two of the most prominent historians in the field), we don't (rightly) describe Israel as having started the 1967 war (even though it did based on claims of "preemptive"). It is best to leave these POVs out of the lede and focus on basic facts. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the war began after the Declaration of Independence and the invasion of the Arab armies into the mandate, those are the two direct causes of the beginning (alternative phrasing from above “internationalisation”) of the conflict. That is broadly supported by RS, including in the article you linked, and has been acknowledged as such by editors with a wide range of experiences. It was also described as a
founding myth, you have failed to specifically cite a case of it being referred to as false. FortunateSons (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Makeandtoss, here are some additional sources on nonessential clauses. I think the two commas you have are structurally offsetting a “nonessential clause”:
https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/how-to-use-two-commas-in-a-sentence
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/usage-of-essential-and-nonessential-clauses
A nonessential clause is something that can be removed without changing the core meaning of a sentence. Since you placed two commas around the British Mandate portion and since that portion is grammatically removable, that portion is a nonessential clause… if you remove that portion, the sentence becomes “ Israel
First Arab–Israeli War
erupted.” So I recommend, changing to list format to avoid writing something that creates a meaning that we may not want . Maybe change that sentence to list format
“On 14 May 1948, the British terminated the Mandate, and Israel declared its establishment.”
In the above sentence, the British Mandate is not nonessential because when you remove the portion in between the two commas, the sentence no longer makes grammatical sense :
“On 14 May 1948 and Israel declared its establishment.” Wafflefrites (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of this proposal in the first place was to describe the Zionist involvement in the expulsion. This version should not be considered without specifically mentioning expulsion at the hands of Zionist forces. DMH223344 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does say "by Israel", but the phrasing gives much more weight to Fleeing rather than the expulsion. Which as we showed many times was the primary reason for the exodus. DMH223344 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That really was not consistently shown, direct expulsions are still often considered to be the a smaller mode of the exodus compared to flight, and while some RS disagree, there really isn’t broad consensus that direct expulsions were the majority compared to flight. FortunateSons (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, i never said majority. I said primary reason. DMH223344 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/primary It’s not the main/more important than anything else mode of the exodus, that is flight. It is an important mode, so its inclusion in the suggested format is valid. FortunateSons (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More important than anything else? Yes it is. People fled because of the expulsions, not because of some vague fear of Jews. We've discussed this many times in this thread. You are the only one still confused about this. DMH223344 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People fled because of fear, including of war and expulsions, atrocities (some true, some amplified), and a wide range of other reasons (and this is already beyond what the so-called old historians believe, so we are already moving towards 'your' direction of interpretation). Fleeing because of justified fear is still flight, if there was no significant reason to leave, we would call it immigration.
Again, a person not familiar with the subject would not be able to tell from your versions that direct expulsion accounted for less than 20 percent (I think it’s about 60/370, but I could be wrong on this) of villages. FortunateSons (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of irrelevance being discussed here. The push factors here for the expulsion and flight are a combination of being murdered versus fear of being murdered. The exact combination is not really the point: the point is that some people were murdered, and others got out of the way before the same fate at the hands of the same lunatics also befell them. There are then a variety of different formulations of words, some more mincing and euphemistic, to describe these events – in which the belabouring of "flight" (as something of an Israeli PR move) is one of the means used to attempt to diminish this ethnic cleansing event – as if people pre-emptively moving their families to safety to prevent them getting murdered (as elsewhere) makes the course of the events less onerous.
Iskandar323 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Will this require an RFC? This way Makeandtoss, DMH223344, FortunateSons, and any other editor can each put up their versions in an organized manner, other editors can comment, and then one of those third party Wikipedia people can evaluate what is consensus? I was trying to combine everyone’s versions, but there are competing asks, and specific wording preferences for each variation, so I don’t think a combined version is possible anymore. Wafflefrites (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A combined version is possible and we haven't still reached any deadlocks.
@DMH223344: I don't think it shows fleeing as primary reason, it just simply lists both, and for the sake of sentence structure, fleeing comes first, so that expulsion by Israel is explained within context of it being established over most of Mandatory Palestine.
@Wafflefrites: I still don't understand the point regarding non-essential information? It seems you are overthinking this part, since there's no intention on my part to put the termination of British mandate as non-essential information. It is just additional information that flows normally with the sentence.
It is more appealing for the paragraph to start with the "Israel was established part" rather than the date of 15 May 1948 (since it sets the scene for the flavor of the third paragraph), don't you agree? Also do you have any other feedback or just these two points? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss I want to make sure the grammar and sentence structure is right to avoid reader misinterpretation. It’s possible I may not understand the grammar rules either so I will ask at the Wikipedia Teahouse Wafflefrites (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also in regards to ”both sides mobilized their troops”, did the Arab side first mobilize? Is that why we had that part about Arabs mobilizing troops? Was it a surprise attack? The
1948 Arab-Israeli War page says “ The invading forces took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements.”Wafflefrites (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
A civil war was already ongoing at the time of the declaration - it might be more pertinent to say something along the lines of the "neighbouring Arab forces joined the war and moved to secure Arab areas and engage Israeli forces", or something on those lines.
Iskandar323 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
“entered areas of mandate assigned to the arabs in the partition plan” would be more accurate, as some Jews lived in the areas.
Regarding the proposal itself, that is true, but the war is still seen as a separate event from the civil war, and should be described as such; you can make the argument that it was a legitimate invasion, but it was definitely an invasion/attack/entry into an area outside of your borders without the permission of a sovereign government. We can try to be neutral beyond what is commonly used, but we are reaching the point of obfuscation what is broadly considered fact. FortunateSons (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"When the British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its independence. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the [conflict/civil war] by entering the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War." Is this proposal acceptable for all? Mawer10 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this version! I am still awaiting feedback from the Wiki Guild of Copy editors on the grammar for the nonessential clause version. Your version does not seem to have a grammar issue. Also "intervened" seems to be an accurate word. Seems like an appropriate way to show that the two conflicts were separate yet related. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, prefer conflict but both options are acceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems alright, I'd also prefer "conflict." Alaexis¿question? 22:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is headed in a good direction, yes. "Conflict" is probably better, as others have mentioned, to avoid ambiguity/confusion.
Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Although I disagree with mentioning the Arab invasion given the lack of mention for Zionist forces mobilization, as described above by two of the most prominent historians on the topic, the least we could do is just say "The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the conflict, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War." This is a good middle ground and everyone's legitimate concerns would have given compromises per WP:consensus.
One last thing: Israel declared its establishment not independence, contrary to the name of the document, which is a PR tactic; since Israel did not exist prior to that day. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, as this leaves out the invasion/entry into the mandate, which is a significant and undisputed fact. We have an NPOV version, and there is consensus for some variety of inclusion, I think it’s best you
WP: drop the stick
on this part. The invasion into the mandate is what makes this historical stage significant, and there is no valid reason for exclusion as we have already found a middle ground which states “entry into the mandate” instead of “invaded Israel”.
Independence is broadly used, and can therefore be used here, as it is used by many other countries after they decolonised. Additionally, what you declare is (within reason) what you say you declare, this argument would have more merit if we were calling it “became independent” FortunateSons (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But on an accuracy note, Israel did not declare its independence (because there was nothing to be independent from); it declared its establishment.
Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Another significant and undisputed fact is that Zionist forces were mobilizing, leading to Arab intervention, as per the RS above. It is indeed POV to mention one thing and forgo the other. Dropping the stick is on editors who are insisting the inclusion of myths into WP articles, and have provided not RS to support their claims. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The significant part is the invasion/entry into the mandate, which the Zionist forces didn’t do because they were inside the mandate. If the US had joined the war on Israel’s side, I strongly doubt that you would have an issue with the same phrasing we are using here to refer to them. FortunateSons (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The language above what l already says intervention, not invasion, but yes, it should be "establishment", not "independence", since the declaration is one of establishment - it has become nicknamed as referring to independence, but this does not accurately reflect the historical declaration, nor is it an accurate way to describe the event, because independence has to involve becoming independent from something - you can't become independent from a power vacuum.
Iskandar323 (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Regarding invasion vs. intervention, that’s my point: it’s already a compromise which is broadly agreed upon, so moving it further into the other direction will have less consensus than this version.
Perhaps “declared its establishment as an independent state” is a compromise here? It is broadly referred to as a Declaration of Independence, even if it technically isn’t one, so this should cover both, no? FortunateSons (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Compromises are made when there is supporting RS; please provide any independent RS in the scholarly field that have used this specific phrasing. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t copy and paste from scholarship when it comes to phrasing.
Here is a knesset source referring to it as Declaration of Independence, using the phrasing “ DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.”
Here are contemporary references referring to it as Independence:
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. FortunateSons (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are obviously not quoting the Knesset, which doesn't even support the independence claim made.
NYT source calls it country’s founding, while mentioning Independence as a common name. There is scholarly consensus that this was "independence". If this was independence then Mandatory Palestine would've been Israeli-ruled, which cannot be further away from the truth. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word is used 10 times (title and caption included) by the NYT, so it’s definitely a common name. When it comes to the use by the knesset, it would be accurate use if we are using “declared”. If you are going with “was founded/established”, that is also accurate (as it would be for any county), but independence is the commonly used name. FortunateSons (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME Common name guideline refers to WP articles' titles, and not the content. Israeli Declaration of Independence article itself says "it declared the establishment" not the "independence". The declaration itself also doesn't even mention state independence. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The knesset, NYT, and many others do call it independence, and the day is referred to as Independence Day (Israel). While WP:COMMONNAME does only refer to title, we should use the common name in articles as well where appropriate, which it is here. FortunateSons (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Israel declared its establishment as an independent state" or "Jewish leaders declared the establishment of Israel as an independent state" is a good middle ground between "declared its establishment" and "declared its independence". This phrasing is used in many sources, and is clearer. See here and here. Mawer10 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it is a good compromise. Waiting to reach a similar compromise on the myth of the 1948 war being caused by an Arab invasion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Arab invasion/entry/intervention is conditio sine qua non for the war, and there is consensus for inclusion. It being a founding myth doesn’t make it untrue. FortunateSons (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RS have explicitly said as demonstrated above that the claim that the "that the Arab invasion made war inevitable" a myth that was refuted by numerous historians including the writers themselves in the same book; nothing was said about it being a founding myth. Compromise is a two-way street. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you would have no issue citing where it says those words, no? But even if it did, it’s still the cause, as there would likely be no Arab-Israeli war outside the area of the mandate. Both sides already made compromises by adding it without the use of invasion, that is the middle ground. FortunateSons (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use control F to find the word invasion, where the myth was described as such, and in the following comment where the relevant passage from the book was quoted. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On page XV, pdf page 107, 113, 114 it’s called an invasion, should we then refer to it as such? I can find 5 uses of the words “Arab invasion”.
PDF page 28 speaks of both-sided foundational myths, not of myths in the sense of being wrong. Additionally, I cannot find a place referring to the statement as false or inaccurate (and no, calling it a foundational myth isn’t it). Please be so kind as to actually cite your sources, preferably with a quote. FortunateSons (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entry of any troops from their home territory into another territory in a war is invasion; no one is disputing that the Arab countries invaded in 1948; what we are disputing is that the Arab-Israeli War was started because of the Arab invasion, which is explicitly described as a myth in this source:
This paragraph clearly states how each of the new historians turned these myths; aka labelling them false and providing a more accurate narrative. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of legitimating national actions in the Palestine War, in the halls of politics as well as in the classroom, has conflated history writing and patriotism in the Middle East in what might best be termed "official history."? This political invention of history is common to both Israel and the Arab states, though for markedly different reasons. Arab official histories seek to advance state interests by mobilizing citizens disillusioned by the defeat of national armies and the loss of Arab Palestine, while Israeli official histories seek to reaffirm a sort of Zionist manifest destiny while diminishing responsibility for the negative consequences of the war. This practice has led a recent generation of critical scholars to view the official histories of 1948 as a fabric of myths. Since the late 1980s, a group of Israeli scholars has led a charge on Israel's foundational myths. The new critical Israeli history was catalyzed by Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, when the Likud government sought to establish historic continuity between their controversial actions in Lebanon and the actions of Israel's founding fathers in Palestine in 1948. this is referring to so-called “official history”, but is not necessarily false. Please cite the actual place in which the historian states the claim that you are making, and does not merely refer to your claim as part of Israel’s founding myth. FortunateSons (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making any claim, I am directly quoting from page three of the book which called that the " Arab invasion made war inevitable" a myth that was debunked by the new historians. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is referencing founding myth and not myth in the sense of misinformation, it’s quite possible that there is an RS that refers to it as not being the causal (in contrast to moral) cause of the war, but this isn’t it. On the other hand, it being generally considered the cause is proven by your citation which describes it as a foundational myth. Please provide a precise or different citation or drop it, as we otherwise have consensus. FortunateSons (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with "The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the conflict, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War.” I am also fine with the “entering” version that also had some consensus.
I am confused though because User:DMH223344 had posted up a Khalidi quote on March 7 that said only Egypt and Syria entered the territory on 15 May, and then there were temporary advancements per FortunateSons.
So would another possible wording be to say that neighboring Arab forces advanced towards or entered the area of the former mandate, marking the start? Wafflefrites (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The @Mawer10 version with “conflict” is When the British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its independence. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the conflict by entering the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War. , which I would consider best. The Khalidi-quote is focussed on the area assigned to Israel by the UN; this isn’t an issue as we are addressing the former area of the mandate, so we do not have to bother with that (particularly considering this is already a somewhat biased framing, which someone above described as partially inaccurate (but again, we aren’t disagreeing)). As most forces entered the mandate, we can say that the Arab forces did, we only can’t say “all Arab forces”. FortunateSons (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we have more consensus for "The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the conflict, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War.” than other versions, especially considering the view of RS on this issue. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, as the entry is a core part and supported by RS as we are referring to the mandate. I am opposed to any version that does not mention the entry or invasion. FortunateSons (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per RS, Israel started the 1967 war and invaded four Arab countries; do you think we should we also add this in the sentence about the Six Day War? For consistency's sake. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite analogous, as there was credible information that an attack was somewhat imminent. That bei said, we already use occupy in the lead (as 67 is of somewhat lesser importance than 48, such balance is DUE. FortunateSons (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely analogous actually; there was credible information that a Zionist attempt to takeover all of Palestine was somewhat imminent. Why are we selectively including these POVs in the lede, instead of just a factual analysis? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I’m not saying that Palestinians invaded the mandate. However, to the best of my knowledge, there were no plans for large scale attacks on any of the invading countries in 47-49 FortunateSons (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given there was a partition plan, and the Deir Yassin massacre, any plan to take over all of Palestine is by definition an invasion, and an act of aggression that necessitated Arab intervention; again this is POV, but so is the argument that Israel did a "pre-emptive" strike in 1967. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-emptive has broad RS consensus, with some details being disputed, but it’s generally quite clear.
Any plan to take over even all of the former mandate would not be an invasion, as the people were already within the mandate, just as Palestinians capturing some area would not be an invasion, it was a civil war over control of a territory. In the same way, if the US had militarily intervened against one of the Arab states in 48, it would also have been in invasion despite the fact that they had invaded the area of the mandate (and Israel, depending on which state) prior. FortunateSons (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So does the fact that Arab intervention was to protect Palestinians from massacres and prevent Jewish takeover of Arabs part of Palestine has broad RS consensus. It is still POV; an interpretation. Given the partition plan making two Jewish and Arab states, a takeover of all of Palestine would have inevitably meant an Israeli invasion; just as the entry of Jewish forces into Jerusalem, and even East Jerusalem, was considered an invasion since it was supposed to be an international city. This is all POV; let's stick to facts. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe that we will find consensus among the two of us here, as we have specifically contradictory interpretations of RS coverage. As the version favoured by me (with a different phrasing) has found consensus here, I do not believe that continuing this discussion provides any value here. FortunateSons (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus, especially when we have RS calling the claim you are trying to insert a myth. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third (and last) time I’m asking you for an RS that doesn’t merely refer to it as a founding myth. We also do have consensus from all editors but you. FortunateSons (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to contention, I think we should avoid using the word “invaded” and use “entered”, which was in Mawer10’s proposal. I think Makeandtoss may be confused because of sources like Khalidi saying that not all the Arab states invaded the UN partition lines, when as you pointed out, it was the British Mandate lines. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know what the confusion is! Makeandtoss provided a source that said it was a myth that Arab invasion made war inevitable. So his source is not disputing that there was an invasion; it seems his source is arguing that the war was not inevitable from the invasion. The source acknowledges there was an invasion.Wafflefrites (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which adds to my point that there is consensus for one of the phrasings other than his, meaning that we have broad agreement for inclusion, yes? FortunateSons (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually supported both versions. Makeandtoss’ new version was introduced a little later so I don’t know if others had a chance to review it for feedback. Seems it’s just you, me and Makeandtoss.
:
This source says that there was an Arab invasion and war broke out https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war. But this source which is Britannica, is saying “ The first war (1948–49) began when Israel declared itself an independent state following the United Nations’ partition of Palestine and five Arab countries—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria—attacked Israel. ” https://www.britannica.com/summary/Arab-Israeli-wars. So Britannica’s saying the declaration also was a part of the the war’s start.Wafflefrites (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m happy to have both causes with the word invaded, but removing both the word and the cause goes beyond NPOV in my opinion. FortunateSons (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Mawer10 and @Alaexis because they seem to be good at picking words. “Invasion” is used by reliable sources. It does seem to stir up contention among Wikipedia editors, but on Wikipedia we’re supposed to avoid euphemisms.. is “entered” a euphemism? Britannica used the word “attacked” and did not use “invasion”. The history.state.gov used “invasion” + “war broke out”. Also tagging @DMH223344 @Makeandtoss Wafflefrites (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I'm a bit lost already. What version are we discussing? Maybe you could create a subsection "Proposed version - March 24 2023" and add the proposed text there? It's hard to give a definite opinion about the choice of words without the context.
Still, I think that the word "invasion" is used by the majority of the sources, including those critical of Israel such as Pappe (The Making of the Arab-Israeli conflict) and Shlaim (Iron Wall, The War of Independence). Btw Shlaim's opinion that the invasion was not inevitable has been used as an argument here, but I don't see how it's relevant - the invasion may have been avoidable but it did happen in the end. Alaexis¿question? 22:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to describe The Basic Law: The Knesset (1958) and its amendments

Propose to add: "The Israeli legal center Adalah states that this law has been used to prevent Arab political parties and parliamentarians from seeking to alter the character of the state through democratic means, for example, to a state based on full civil and national equality that does not grant preference to one national group over the other."

in the section "Government and politics" after the sentence: "The Basic Law: The Knesset (1958) and its amendments prevent a party list from running for election to the Knesset if its objectives or actions include the "negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people"."

@Alaexis has commented "this is supposed to be an overview of the govt and legal system;" accordingly we should describe the extent to which certain laws have been enforced in practice. Otherwise this isn't a description of the government and legal system. DMH223344 (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, undue for this article FortunateSons (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to explain why you think it's undue DMH223344 (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two main paragraphs about the entire basic law, the reaction of one organisation is just not due. Unless that is the most important fact to know about the law, this addition would be a better fit in the relevant articles, not here. FortunateSons (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a reaction, it's a description of how the law is used in practice. Adalah is not just some organization, it is the leading Israeli legal advocacy group for human rights in Israel. DMH223344 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no other objections then I will make the change. DMH223344 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even that is just not DUE here. It’s a better fit for the specific article on the law. FortunateSons (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't showing a point of view or perspective. It's describing the practical implementation of the law mentioned. A description of a country's laws natural also has a description of how they are upheld in practice. DMH223344 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and balance would then have to include those saying that the application is equitable, no? At the very least that part would be too long for this. FortunateSons (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DUE is specifically about viewpoint. BALANCE is more relevant here: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." This is covered by my proposal. DMH223344 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Basic Laws of Israel or Knesset would be a better place, if you would prefer to go more in depth? FortunateSons (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of an unrelated law
Just to add to what FortunateSons has written, the position of Adalah is actually much more nuanced [26]
The added text ignores the part that I've highlighted. This is a complex topic and this article is not the right place to explain the nuances. Alaexis¿question? 21:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text you quoted is related to "The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty", but my proposal is about "The Basic Law: The Knesset (1958)" DMH223344 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, sorry for the confusion. I'll collapse this thread. Alaexis¿question? 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration

@UnknownBrick22: There is no such thing as independence from a predecessor state, independence happens when an existing state throws off a foreign occupier. Please self-revert your last edit. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would you characterize the American Revolution then? ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declaration of Independence quotes “ Such places are usually declared from part or all of the territory of another state or failed state, or are breakaway territories from within the larger state.” The territory was part of the Ottoman Empire, then the mandate, then independent. It’s commonly referred to as such. Therefore, referring to as independence is accurate and appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Sections in "History"

The sections titled "Bronze and Iron Ages", "Classical antiquity" and "Late antiquity and the medieval period" don't seem strongly related to the topic of the article which is the State of Israel. The inclusion of these sections as such makes the history section read in a confusing way; all of a sudden you jump 1000 years into the future.

I'd suggest these sections be summarized with a focus on its relevance to the current state of Israel. Possibly in a section titled "Pre-Ottoman History of the Region".

For example, the United States page briefly describes the indigenous people before colonization, but quickly shifts to focus on the start of the colonization and the development of what is today the united states. DMH223344 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on which parts you would like to remove specifically? The US isn’t really analogous, as there isn’t a partial claim of historical indignity derived from the ownership of the land. FortunateSons (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have had discussions like this before, see Talk:Israel#History section for the most recent one before this. There are also probably more in the archives. I don’t think we came to any consensus. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems everyone except one users agrees the section should be reduced and made more focused on the beginning of zionism. That seems like consensus to me DMH223344 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is built with respect to WP guidelines which state that RS must proportionately represent all viewpoints without bias. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

human rights language in lead

Qplb191 the version you removed here, claiming the RFC did not reach consensus, is contradicted by the RFC close here which found a consensus for the version you removed. Please do not revert what has consensus. Thank you. nableezy - 14:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, I didn't notice, I just did better wording because in some reports they also mean crimes against Lebanon and the people of Lebanon and not just Palestinians and the occupation of southern Lebanon. Qplb191 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't better wording and Lebanon has nothing to do with the sentence. nableezy - 17:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Qplb191 you need to self-revert your latest changes, the sentence as it was has an explicit consensus from an RFC. A change will require a new consensus, not just you doing what you want. Please self-revert. nableezy - 20:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel occupied the WBGS during the 67 war

The current phrasing: "The 1967 Six-Day War saw Israel occupying the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights."

I suggest: "During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel took over the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank today. The United Nations and most international human rights organizations also regard the Gaza Strip to still be under Israeli military occupation." DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It continues to occupy Gaza and the Golan as well though. nableezy - 17:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake to omit Golan. About Gaza, isnt that covered by my saying "The United Nations and most international human rights organizations also regard the Gaza Strip to still be under Israeli military occupation"? I assumed including "Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip today." would get many objections since most places on wikipedia tend to say WB is occupied in wikipvoice, but describe the occupation of GS in a qualified way.
My corrected version (including golan):
"During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel took over the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Golan Heights today. The United Nations and most international human rights organizations also regard the Gaza Strip to still be under Israeli military occupation." DMH223344 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The United Nations and the ICJ are what define and uphold international law, so if they say something is an occupation, it is an occupation; there is no equivocation to be had about it – lending weight to marginal voices that act as if the facts aren't clear and the UN/ICJ hasn't clearly ruled on this would simply be
Iskandar323 (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Unfortunately, neither of those bodies issued a binding decision on the topic post 2005, as far as I know. There was no SC resolution and the decision by the ICJ was advisory. FortunateSons (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The binding nature doesn't mean anything about whether it's legal or not. DMH223344 (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but a decision by the SC or ICJ are likely indications of which way RS will go. FortunateSons (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, due to the amount of pushback we get on every change on this page I tend to lean in this falsebalance direction. Thank you for the correction. DMH223344 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion,, but I have restored a sentence that mentioned that Israel returned the Sinai. [27] Wafflefrites (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, definitely a good idea to separate out Gaza due to its unique status. While I’m generally in favour of the change, I would suggest you wait a few months. If Israel actually fully occupies Gaza, we can save ourselves the edit, but I would leave it to you. FortunateSons (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current phrasing is fine; they are all militarily occupied not "taken over". Makeandtoss (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain more your issue with the phrasing "took over"? Does it imply annexation? DMH223344 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Arab rule"

@

Abbasid, Crusader, and Ottoman empires." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

by mistake I deleted the crusader rule but the other empires do not appear in the original text, anyways I added this. Qplb191 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V-Dem Institute classification of Israel downgrade from liberal democracy to electoral democracy

"The category of Electoral Democracy, to which Israel has now been added, means that the right to vote is preserved, but not the commitment to equality, minority rights, freedom of expression or the rule of law." Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist Democracy Index lists both the United States and Israel as “flawed democracies”. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "second highest poverty rate amongst developed countries" to lead

The lead currently mentions "Israel ranks very high on the Human Development index, and is one of the richest countries in the Middle East and Asia, and an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member since 2010."

I propose to change this to:

"Israel ranks very high on the Human Development index, and is one of the richest countries in the Middle East and Asia, despite having the second highest poverty rate amongst the world's developed countries."

Not mentioning the notably high poverty rate is lacking

WP:BALANCE. DMH223344 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Do you have an RS with that statement? FortunateSons (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-28/ty-article/.premium/israels-poverty-rate-is-among-the-highest-in-the-developed-world-new-report-shows/0000018c-b055-d45c-a98e-bb5d02af0000
also mentioned in the article, so it does not require a citation in the lead DMH223344 (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good RS, but I’m not sure on the content. This is based on national poverty lines, which are valuable, but not quite useful for proper contrasts. I couldn’t find good world bank data and this isn’t really good for a lead use, and the issue appears to be somewhat complicated per Standard of living in Israel and their sources, including Haaretz. FortunateSons (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This is based on national poverty lines, which are valuable, but not quite useful for proper contrasts" Haaretz disagrees. The lead paragraph is unbalanced without this inclusion. DMH223344 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Haaretz published both positions (opinion article by columnist, who Google describes as a journalist, so RS unless shown otherwise) FortunateSons (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DMH223344 I disagree for 2024 ,it is in fourth place among the developed countries after USA , Chile and Turkey and besides, many articles that have been published that claim that the high poverty rate is due to the black economy in Israel, which in relation to GDP is the highest in the OECD without the black economy The poverty rates are estimated at a little less than 10%, which is less than the OECD average
In addition, poverty rates are not calculated in absolute terms, they are relative. Qplb191 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The absolute poverty rate (in PPP) compiled by the World Bank is estimated at 0.5%, which is slightly lower poverty rate than the OECD average. Qplb191 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share a source for the 2024 claim? The Haaretz article I linked is from late 2023. We could change to the phrasing of the Haaretz article subtitle which uses "Israel's Poverty Rate Is Among the Highest in the Developed World". DMH223344 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poverty rate by country [28]
By the way, the figure you brought is based on a survey that is not a quality source at all, there are many conflicting sources, and beyond that it is a more extensive economic issue. I strongly object to adding this. Qplb191 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[29]https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-is-it-so-hard-to-know-how-many-israelis-are-poor/amp/ Qplb191 (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source still ranks it among the highest poverty rates DMH223344 (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information you are trying to present is not accurate, it is based on different data, for example in some of the data, for example Spain has a poverty rate of 30% and some of the data is 10%.[30] Qplb191 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to introduce a complex and extensive economic issue into the lead, which is not the right place for it. According to the of the World Bank report, Israel has a poverty rate below the OECD average, the data you are basing on are based on different surveys that bring different data and they are not accurate. There are different methods for calculating poverty that cause the results Miscellany, for Italy and Spain in some indices
There is a poverty rate of 10% and in some of almost 30% I oppose this addition. Qplb191 (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead already mentions plenty of economic indices. The proposed addition adds balance. As I suggested, we dont need to specify that it ranks second, we can say it ranks among the highest. This is supported also by the source you shared. DMH223344 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already explained, there are many different indicators for examining poverty, according to the World Bank index, Israel is placed below the OECD poverty average, so writing this down would not be accurate. In some sources Spain and Italy have a poverty rate of 30% and in some 10% according to some sources as I mentioned this statement is incorrect therefore I object to adding it. Qplb191 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the world bank it’s not one of the highest in the developed world . https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY?locations=1WQplb191 (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poverty is measured by comparing countries according to the World Bank's poverty index (PPP), such as South Africa, not by measuring a poverty index by country according to surveys or relative poverty indices that vary from country to country. Qplb191 (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poverty index 2023
another source (2023) that place Israel below Sweden and United Kingdom in poverty index . Qplb191 (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New lead propose

Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Jewish states. The region was ruled by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic ,Roman, Arab rule, Islamic Caliphates, Crusader, and Ottoman empires. The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in Europe, a movement seeking a Jewish homeland, which garnered British support. After World War I, the Ottomans were defeated and the Mandate for Palestine was set up in 1920. Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestineincreased considerably, leading to intercommunal conflict between Jews and Arabs.[24] The 1947 UN Partition Plan triggered a civil war between the two groups, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Palestine's predominantly Arab population.

In 1948 the First Arab–Israeli War. 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. The 1967 Six-Day War saw Israel occupying the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. It has since established and continues to expand settlements across the occupied territories, actions which are deemed illegal under international law, and annexed both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which are largely unrecognized internationally. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt,, and with Jordan, and more recently normalized relations with several Arab countries. However, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded. Israel's practices in its occupation have drawn accusations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and apartheid against the Palestinian people. @Mawer10 what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to make specific and localised changes (maximum one paragraph at the time), you are unlikely to get useful engagement with this proposal because the specific changes are less than clear. FortunateSons (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History section

Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Jewish states. The region was ruled by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic ,Roman, Arab rule, Islamic Caliphates, Crusader, and Ottoman empires. The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in Europe, a movement seeking a Jewish homeland, which garnered British support. After World War I, the Ottomans were defeated and the Mandate for Palestine was set up in 1920. Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestineincreased considerably, leading to intercommunal conflict between Jews and Arabs.[24] The 1947 UN Partition Plan triggered a civil war between the two groups, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Palestine's predominantly Arab population.

what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ FortunateSons what do you think about the proposed history section? Qplb191 (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you do a mark up of what you are changing, preferably by bolding anything new? I’m not at my laptop for the next few days. FortunateSons (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sure.
“ The region was ruled by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic ,Roman, Arab rule, Islamic Caliphates, Crusader, and Ottoman empires.”
This are the most important empires there is no need to mention all of the empires that ruled the region that didn’t have a big impact.
Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine and the Holy Land or the land of Israel in the Jewish tradition. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Jewish states. Better wording and more orderly
“ The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in Europe, a movement seeking a Jewish homeland, which garnered British support. After World War I, the Ottomans were defeated and the Mandate for Palestine was set up in 1920. Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestineincreased considerably, leading to intercommunal conflict between Jews and Arabs.[24] The 1947 UN Partition Plan triggered a civil war between the two groups, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Palestine's predominantly Arab population. .”
same as now Qplb191 (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those look good to me on content; I would maintain the original sentence order (as in the article, not the last comment) and change the first sentence (in your last comment) to clarify that it’s a non-exhaustive list. Let’s wait for some others, but no major objections on my end. FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will want feedback from @
Fatimid Caliphates. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
As far as I can tell the only change here in the proposed text above is the empires. There is no such things as Arab rule and Islamic Caliphates. I don't see a problem with naming them. Also check the talk page section on how downplayed is the 7AD+ history of the territory of the State of Israel which is the History of Palestine. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid and Hellenistic empires, Hasmonean kingdom, Herodian rulers, Romanand Byzantine empires, Arab Caliphates(Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid), Crusaders, Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottomanempires
I have a problem with the empires mentioned, it is already written that the place was home to Jewish kingdoms, and this is confusing. The Hasmonean kingdom and the Herodian kingdom were actually the same kingdoms (Herod continued the Hasmoneans and also married with them) and they were not empires either, these were only local rulers under Rome, many of the empires shown didn’t have a great impact on the region ,and it doesn't add up to mention them.

Qplb191 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Byzantine Empire, it is actually Rome that is already mentioned and in my opinion there is no need to mention it again regarding the Arab Caliphate rule, you can simply write it without mentioning it in depth and those who want to be interested can simply go to the link. (In my opinion now it’s very confusing) Qplb191 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could use the Encyclopedia Britannica as a basis here:

Following the example of this encyclopedia, we would exclude the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid and Hellenistic empires because Jewish political entities continued to exist in Palestine during these empires. "In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Jewish states [which were destroyed by the empires A and Z]". After that, we would move on to the Roman empire, which destroyed Jewish sovereignty in the region and continue talking about the Arab and Turkish empires in a more elaborated way. Mawer10 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think it’s a good idea. Qplb191 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite and later, Israelite and Judahite states which were destroyed by the Roman Empire .Later the region was ruled by Arab Caliphates, Crusaders, Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman empires. The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in Europe, a movement seeking a Jewish homeland, which garnered British support during World War I. During the war, the Ottomans were defeated and the British Mandate for Palestine was set up in 1920.”
Do you think it’s a good virsion? Qplb191 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks good FortunateSons (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Canaanite city states were destroyed by Israelite states; so why are we mentioning on thing but not another? We shouldn't mention any of these ancient empire transitions, which are by definition violent.
I don't know why Arab Caliphates, 700 period of history at least, is linked to "Arab conquest of Levant" while the article is about Muslim conquest; while no other empire has its conquest linked, such as Pompei's campaign for example. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that @Mawer10 proposal is better , this is what appears also in Britannica. I don’t see a reason to mention every possible empire in the lead, Mawer10's version is more understandable, for the article context it is more relevant that these states were destroyed by the Romans. Qplb191 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. These states were not "destroyed" by the Romans. What you are referring to is the
Bar Kochba revolt which was an uprising by an ethnic group in the Roman empire and not by an existing state. We don't need to mention every possible empire, but we should at least mention the main ones. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
If you want, you can omit it, in my opinion there is no need to mention all the empires, certainly not specifically . beyond that, as I have already mentioned, the Hasmoneans were not an empire and Herod himself married them and continued them. How is it necessary to delve into this as you wrote, in most of the countries in Wikipedia, all the empires that ruled the region are not specified, only the central empires that had a presence and had influence. Qplb191 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes you think that ancient Jewish kingdoms more than 2,000 years ago which lasted no more than a century had more presence and influence than Arab caliphates just a millennia ago that ruled Palestine for more than half a millennia? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that I don't think it is necessary to mention the Jewish kingdoms that ruled. Qplb191 (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the influence on the region and history, the Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Arab and Ottoman empires had the greatest influence, so I recommend mentioning only them. Qplb191 (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This version appears to forget about the Assyrians and Babylonians.
Iskandar323 (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It's a bit chronologically weird isn't it? In the Iron Age there were Canaanites, Israelites and Philistines, then it was Assyrians and Babylonians, the Persians, the Macedonians/Seleucids, the Hasmoneans, the Romans, etc. History didn't skip from the Israelites to the Hasmoneans to the Romans.
Iskandar323 (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Iskandar323: Britannica presents the history of the region after the Romans very well, it is certainly more informative than just a list of every empire that controlled the region. As for pre-Roman history, Britannica leaves out a lot. But if we left the mention of the Canaanite, Israelite and Jewish kingdoms in the introduction I don't think we would be omitting much, we would just be focusing on the native political entities of the Palestine region instead of the foreign empires that controlled it. Mawer10 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Mawer10 is it really necessary to include all these empires? , what do you about including only the Babylonian, Hellenistic , Roman , Arab , crusaders, and ottoman empires ? Qplb191 (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I don’t think that we need to include the Jewish states. Qplb191 (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish states are of relevance due to their connection to the current ones, arguably the same can be said about some of the Arab/muslim one. The rest is often of limited significance if you ask me. FortunateSons (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we already mention the Jewish states that existed, there is no need to mention it twice, the empires I mentioned had the greatest influence, so in my opinion there is no need to mention all the empires. Qplb191 (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, I think we should do it and then fix the details FortunateSons (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this version based on the Britannica Encyclopedia, and added the pre-Roman history of the region that Britannica omits. It can be shortened, but as you can see a list of empires is not necessary. Mawer10 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is not a bible. This lede abruptly jumps from 1st century to 7th century, and from 7th century to 21st century. This is not a summarization of the history of the region that the state of Israel was established on in 1948, aka not a summary of the History of Palestine. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's not a summary of the region's history, I don't know what is. It's pretty similar to the first three paragraphs in History of Palestine#Overview. And since Wikipedia editors can't agree on anything in the various discussions about the lead, I think it's a good idea to use Britannica as a source of inspiration. Mawer10 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Politically, between the 1st century and the 7th century, the region remained under Roman control and its continuation under the Byzantines. With the exception of the Jewish revolts, nothing very relevant occurred during this period that deserves mention in the lead. And the claim that the text jumps from the 7th century to the 20th century is not entirely correct, the text makes mention of the crusades (12th century) and Ottoman rule (starting in the 16th century). Mawer10 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A random Jewish revolt 2,000 years ago is not more relevant than several empires that had controlled Palestine throughout the millennia. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of this revolt in the text I created, what is your suggestion? A list of empires? Mawer10 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Mawer10 . Qplb191 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also dumb jumping from the iron age, past the lengthy Persian and Greek periods to the brief Hasmonean period. The only fix to the excessive history is to remove the majority without leaving any undue weight on a few historical fetishes. There is also the still glaring "history of the region" versus "history of Israel" problem. E.g. The iron age kingdoms are, for example, more directly related to the history of the West Bank than the history of modern Israel.
Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
"The area came under control of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid and Hellenistic empires until achieving a brief independence under the Hasmonean dynasty, but soon was incorporated into the Roman Empire..." Even if the other empires are added to the text, it makes sense to differentiate the Hasmonean rule from the others because the Hasmonean kingdom was a Palestinian kingdom, native to the region, while the other are foreign powers. The current lead is more problematic by summarizing the history to a list, the crusaders seem to be an empire in the list. And I disagree with your idea that Israel and Judah are more directly related to the history of the West Bank than to that of modern Israel; the two are located in the same geographic and historical space so it is dumb to see them as separate. Mawer10 (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History operates within defined borders. When you recount the history of Portugal, you don't recount the history of the entire Iberian Peninsula.
Iskandar323 (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think history operates within defined borders, especially if such borders are not natural borders like rivers, deserts and mountains. Also the Palestine region is very small compared to the Iberian peninsula. But tell me, how should the introduction be following the modern borders? Mawer10 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in the last history talk thread, what the history section should actually be doing is referencing high quality secondary, academic reference works, such as Israel: A History by Anita Shapira (2015) – "Written by one of Israel's most notable scholars, this volume provides a history of Israel from the origins of the Zionist movement in the late 19th century to the present day."
Iskandar323 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
you make a very good point, could you please present an example of such a version ? Qplb191 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Zionism did not appear out of the blue, I imagine that such an example has a context. Mawer10 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to Shapira's work, but Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn (2016) by Daniel Gordus (Harper Collins) gives a preview of the first few chapters. It likewise starts with a recounting of the awakening of Zionism in the late 19th century.
Iskandar323 (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Iskandar323 do you agree that we should erase the Herodian and Hasmonean because it is already mentioned that there were Jewish kingdoms and they weren’t empires as well. Qplb191 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed versions discussion - March 24 2023

@Makeandtoss @FortunateSons @DMH223344 @Alaexis @Mawer10

Hi guys, here are the latest versions we have for discussion:

VERSION A: When the British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its independence. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the conflict by entering the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War.

VERSION B: When the British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its independence. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the conflict, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War.

I think the first point of discussion is if we want to mention and use "invasion/invaded" former Mandatory Palestine or if we want to use another word. I think one source of confusion was whether or not there was an invasion. Based on the Khalidi source provided by DHM22334, we determined that Khalidi was talking about the 1947 partition plan borders, not the Mandatory Palestine borders, so the Arabs did cross the borders into Mandatory Palestine but not the borders of the partition plan.

Based on Makeandtoss' sources, his sources acknowledge that there was an invasion: "Flapan set the agenda when he reduced the historiography on the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 to seven myths:......that the Arab invasion made war inevitable". Flapan is not disputing the invasion, but he is saying that it is a myth that the war was inevitable due to the invasion. Makeandtoss elaborates on this point when he wrote, "These two renowned historians have refuted the myth that placed the responsibility of the 1948 war on the Arab side".

The arguments so far for including "invasion" is that many reliable sources use this word, and we want to avoid using a euphemism per

MOS:EUPHEMISM
. Which brings me to the second point of discussion: how to rephrase VERSION A (that includes invasion) so that the burden of responsibility is not placed on the Arab side.

Here are some examples I found on the internet for brainstorming:

From Britannica: “The first war (1948–49) began when Israel declared itself an independent state following the United Nations’ partition of Palestine and five Arab countries—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria—attacked Israel."[31]

"The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948."[32] Wafflefrites (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time!
A is better.
Invaded and attacked are both good, entered (in the context of the armies) is ok when used in the context of it being the last causal link of the war, but it’s more of a euphemism and less used unless in very specific contexts, so it’s worse than brittanica/state.gov.
Someone used internationalising above, that could be useful if choose invaded or attacked to be extra careful when maintaining NPOV. FortunateSons (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion option B is better Qplb191 (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option C: simply stating the war erupted; exactly as we do for the Six Day War, in which we don't mention that Israel attacked and invaded four sovereign Arab nations (the pre-emptive argument is a myth given Israel's plans for such an attack had been formulated since at least early 1950s).
And also again, it's not a matter of voting, consensus depends looking at reliable sources and what they say (we have a prominent RS calling the inevitability of war due Arab invasion a myth). Makeandtoss (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Said prominent source is also referring to it as an invasion, so that would be an argument in favour of the usage, not against. FortunateSons (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So does every prominent source refer to Israel's war in 1967 as invasion of four neighboring Arab states. Do you want me to add that to the lede to maintain consistency? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Brittanica generally uses other discriptors FortunateSons (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no use of denying the fact that Israel invaded three Arab countries and occupied its territories in 1967, which has been extensively documented in RS, why not add that to the lede as well, for consistency's sake? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what RS use, we don’t think in black and white categories of invaded and not invaded. We can use pre-emptive attack/strike for 67 if you prefer, that seems to have RS backing FortunateSons (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, why are we insisting on black and white categories of invaded or being invaded? Why do you want to mention that Palestine got invaded in 1948 but without mentioning that the Zionists were planning to take over all of Palestine; which has RS backing? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific war aims in context are disputed, the invasion into the mandate is not. As I said, I’m happy to add pre-emptive strike for 67. FortunateSons (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to write that Option A is better but then I looked up the word the word "intervene" [33]
It originally meant "to come between" in Latin, probably that's why we have "humanitarian interventions" but no "humanitarian invasions." Anyway, my point is just the word has additional connotations, and considering that it's not widely used by the sources I don't see why we should use it.
Looking at the sources in the old thread (Morris, Pappe, Shlaim) and at the tertiary sources you've added, I think that the word "invaded" (or maybe "attacked") is both widely used and accurate, to the extent that one word can capture a messy reality. Alaexis¿question? 14:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1, that is an important point FortunateSons (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with “intervened”. The reason is because an editor on the Nakba Wiki article was describing the events leading up to the war here in this edit [34] Wafflefrites (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think “intervened by invading/attacking” would be a fair compromise, unless someone is opposed. The point made in 55 is slightly misleading: the partition plan was not accepted and was therefore not respected by any side of the conflict. FortunateSons (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The First Arab–Israeli War erupted after the British terminated its Mandate, Israel declared its establishment and forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the ongoing conflict by launching an attack against Israel." Wafflefrites (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with using intervened. There was an existing conflict, amid which independence was declared. Intervention in such a context is understood as being military in nature. The language of attack/invade is POV, just as the other POV of acting in defence of fellow Arabs is POV. The intervention came in the specific context of widespread violence against Palestinian villages by Jewish militias – a context of pre-existing violence that makes it very un-straightforward to put a finger on exactly who was attacking/defending at the time. The answer depends almost wholly on POV, and so the NPOV path is to not assign this agency.
Iskandar323 (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Alaexis posted a definition of intervened. Intervened also has a POV. I am starting to strongly agree with FortunateSons that both intervened and invaded, or some other balancing language is to be used, if using “intervened”. Either that or keep it vague as in Version B. The history is extremely complicated and even historians have different opinions Wafflefrites (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I thing a balanced compromise is most appropriate, considering we are deviating pretty far from past consensus, which is: 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 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. FortunateSons (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part "forces from neighboring Arab states intervened/got involved in the ongoing conflict in the former Mandate" by itself implies that Arab forces entered or invaded the territory of the Mandate. It would be impossible to enter the conflict without entering the Mandate since Israel did not attack neighboring Arab countries. So, a B like version is not vague. Mawer10 (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or “entered the conflict” as you said. entered is a neutral word Wafflefrites (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the clarification is beneficial to the average reader. FortunateSons (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is how Avi Shlaim writes it “ The following day the regular armies of the Arab states intervened in the conflict, turning a civil war into the first full-scale Arab-Israeli war, a war which ended in defeat for the Arabs and disaster for the Palestinians.”[35] Wafflefrites (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I want to keep things neutral either by being vague or by being balanced is because of the Arab motivations for entering the conflict. Yes, they got involved partly due to hearing about the expulsions and killings, but another reason for their involvement was rejection of the Partition Plan and preventing the formation of a Jewish state. [36] So that is why I am thinking intervened may not be entirely appropriate without some other balancing aspect per
Wikipedia:Balancing aspects Wafflefrites (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Never heard of dailyhistory.org. Appears to be a wiki and therefore should not be used. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what popped up when I searched Why did Arabs atrack Israel 1948. Here is what I found from Business Insider which cites an author named Steven Pressfield “ When Israel became an independent nation on May 14, 1948, the armies of four Arab neighbors — Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq — immediately invaded the new country to prevent its creation.” https://www.businessinsider.com/four-israeli-aircraft-stopped-a-huge-arab-army-in-1948-2014-5?op=1 Wafflefrites (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Britannica version does not assign the blame to the Arab side. It is saying all 3 events triggered the war: UN Partition, Declaration of Independece, Arab attack:
“The first war (1948–49) began when Israel declared itself an independent state following the United Nations’ partition of Palestine and five Arab countries—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria—attacked Israel."
Maybe another proposal could be:
"The First Arab–Israeli War erupted after the British terminated its Mandate, Israel declared its independence, and forces from neighboring Arab states launched a military coalition against Israel." Wafflefrites (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Launched a military coalition is still vague, I think using invaded/attacked while including all 3 per Brittanica is a fair compromise? FortunateSons (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also going to be the issue of whether independence is the right word or not, which I think it is, but will be a somewhat dogmatic dispute over optimal phrasing. FortunateSons (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference between version A and version B is that the latter omits the part "by entering the area of the former Mandatory Palestine", that supposedly blames the conflict on the Arab side or/and uses euphemistic language. Mawer10 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second version better represents RS consensus and is preferable. FortunateSons (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. The verb "intervene" seems to be the most appropriate as there was already an ongoing conflict and ethnic cleansing of Arabs in the territory before May 14, 1948. It remains clear that the Arab forces entered/invaded the old Mandate without using the verbs "invade" and "enter". I'm not gonna use "attack against Israel" as suggested by Wafflefrites because it was uncertain at that time where Israel's borders were and Israeli forces were already acting militarily beyond the territories given by the UN to the Jewish state: "When the British terminated the Mandate for Palestine on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its establishment as an independent state. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the ongoing conflict in the former Mandate, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War."
Alternatively, we could write "The following day, a war broke out between Israel and forces from neighboring Arab states who entered in the territory of the former Mandate" or "The following day, a war broke out between Israel and neighboring Arab states, which concluded with an armistice in 1949...". Both are acceptable to me. Mawer10 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s like Makeandtoss’ Version B. I think I just like Version B OR using “intervened” along with “invaded”. Depending on the reader, military invasion can be inferred, but it does not remain clear that the Arab forces entered/invaded the old Mandate without using the verbs "invade" and "enter". Maybe "When the British terminated the Mandate for Palestine on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its establishment as an independent state. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the ongoing conflict and crossed the borders into the former Mandate, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War."

Wafflefrites (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Version B is the same as version A, but without the "by entering the area of the former Mandatory Palestine" part. I didn't want to remove this part of the text, but then I realized that it doesn't make any difference. The use of the verb "get involved" also works in place of "intervene in the conflict" as I suggested earlier. Mawer10 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ box

The FAQ box asks why Jerusalem is considered Palestine's capital, but the answer only refers to Israel. Also, of course, this talk page is about Israel and not Palestine. I take it the reason it says Palestine was low-level drive-by POV editing, but I await consensus before changing it to Israel in case I'm grossly mistaken. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should be changed that Israel is a country with partial recognisation

Countries like Kosovo are listed as "a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition" while West sahara is listed as "a partially recognized state."

Objectively speaking, this applies to Israel. Is there any reason why this shouldn't be included? Genabab (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Israel no longer a full UN member? Moxy🍁 02:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy That doesn't really have a bearing on if it is partially recognised.. Genabab (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So no sources? Moxy🍁 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking if there are no sources saying Israel is partially recognised? Genabab (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Unless there is an equal push to insist upon the same for “State of Palestine” (which both does not list it as “partially recognized” in the lede nor is there any present push on that page), this feels like an undue and politicized upheaval of a well balanced status quo between pages. Mistamystery (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind Palestine being considered partially recognised. Because, it is.
I don't see how it makes sense to say that it is politicised. It's just the truth that Israel is recognised only by some countries, but not others. Genabab (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To adjust the lede when there are already appropriate sections in both articles that cover this seems excessive (and yes politicized) given how stable both articles have been in this regard.
I would actually push for shifting of the "partial recognition" items on the according Kosovo and West Sahara pages you mention. As there are pro- and anti-legitimizing elements pushing to guide the perception of such states on wikipedia, it seems more appropriate to insist upon a more neutral placement of international recognition than leading with any mention partiality of recognition in the lede (which seems to favor anti-legitimists and may perhaps not be appropriate nor neutral per WP). Mistamystery (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the way recognition is described in various contexts is a bit random, but I don't think "Objectively speaking" is how this kind of content decision is made in Wikipedia. We just follow the sources and try to compress any diversity in terminology down to something that captures the balance. I don't think reliable sources normally refer to Israel as partially recognized, do they, regardless of the numbers? Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of saying this I guess is that Wikipedia content doesn't speak objectively, it reflects the bias of the set of sampled reliable sources. Wikidata is the speaking objectively thing. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoylandThanks for clearing up how this works. I was really confused at what seemed to be a double standard. But at least there seems to be a reason behind Genabab (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it confusing too. There's a reason, but I'm not convinced it's the best way of doing things. Sensible people like you spot the problem immediately because essentially the same property of something, which is just a number in this case, is described in different ways in different articles. It produces a tension between articles. And this information is used to train large language models. If someone asked an AI about a property of two states, population for example, and they have the same population size, and it only described one as large, it would seem weird. On the other hand, just reflecting sources allows you to avoid having to think about what quantifier words like 'partially' mean precisely. But I think it's better to avoid these situations and just provide the facts not the quantifiers e.g. if you want to talk about recognition, just say x is recognized by n states. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Israel is a full UN member so this is unnecessary. Recognition by individual nations is Irrelevant. SKAG123 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose those are criteria primarily relevant for countries which aren’t UN-members, we wouldn’t do that id Russia and North Korea stopped recognising the UN. FortunateSons (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel’s government acting since 1901?

The current version of the article says, “Since 1901, Israel's government reforestation program has planted over 260 million trees to replace the original "cedars of Lebanon".”

This doesn’t make much sense, since the state didn’t exist in ‘01. The references say that the NGO Jewish National Fund has been doing it since ‘01 (back in Ottoman days — how cool is that!?) and suggest that perhaps other entities have also joined in since then.

I propose the following rewording: “Since 1901, reforestation programs have planted over 260 million trees to replace the original "cedars of Lebanon".” I’d do it myself, but I’m not extended-confirmed. Lereman (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the material as erroneous. If something cogent to the subject can be redrafted, it can be re-added.
Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I like @Lereman new suggestion, are you opposed to that one? FortunateSons (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's supported. 1901 isn't a date I saw in the Britannica entry, and the JNF is a primary source for claims about its own activities. Also, I would really be expecting to see an academic source for claims around reforestation - this implies that we are talking about areas that were historically forested and have been restored. These are significant claims. If its not the restoration of traditional landscapes, it's just forestation, not reforestation.
Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
1901 is set as a starting date for the JNF by some sources, so it’s plausible (but not sure which of those are RS [1][2][3][4][5][6] FortunateSons (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure they started immediately in 1901, so I'd change it to "since the beginning of the 20th century" which is supported by [37]. Alaexis¿question? 08:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed FortunateSons (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to re- vs afforestation, this is what Alon Tal says in his All the Trees of the Forest. Israel's Woodlands from the Bible to the Present
He doesn't say whether most of the planting is the former or the latter. Considering that this is the main country article, we shouldn't go into detail here. Again, I would suggest rephrasing "Israel's modern forests are all hand-planted. Since the beginning of the 20th century, Jewish National Fund's forest planting program has planted over 260 million trees." Alaexis¿question? 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support FortunateSons (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was no machinery used to plant 260 million trees? Otherwise, the notion of hand-planted is bogus. And is 260M figure confirmed by a source outside of the JNF? Also, is this even particularly useful information to mention as the only information surrounding forests in the geography section? As opposed to, say, some topline information on the actual level of overall forest cover...
Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that "hand-planted" is used as the opposite of "naturally grown" (old-growth?) rather than to assert that no machinery was used. Happy to hear suggestions how to rephrase it.
I'm definitely for starting with the general statistics, but the massive planting program is certainly worth mentioning, as many sources on the nature of Israel do. Alaexis¿question? 20:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Manually planted? Or just planted? FortunateSons (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levant or Southern Levant

Should this article (and Jordan too) be referred to as Levant or Southern Levant? Technically all of Israeli land (inclusive of undisputed and disputed) are in Southern Levant, so will it be more specific to refer to the title as Levant region or Southern Levant region? Josethewikier (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wording about historical names in the lead

@

Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

It does have less historical relevance than other names, that's why the main article on the region is Palestine (region) and Canaan while Land of Israel is about biblical heritage. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Israel" is what the indigenous people called their land for centuries, and it has more historical relevance than "Holy Land."
Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Israel, as well as Judea, are not less historical than other names. They were the primary names at least since the early Iron Ages and until the mid 2nd century. They are the most relevant names to the article, while there is still room to mention other names with the right historical context. But the problem is wider, most of the paragraph seems too insignificant to be mentioned in the lead. Israel is a Jewish nation state and its foundations based upon Jewish identity, regional history, culture, language and religion, and yet it is almost completely absent from the paragraph in favor of a generic regional description that teach almost nothing about the state's most relevant historical background. Infantom (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please verify that the Land of Israel was a common name for the geographic reason throughout recorded history per
WP:BURDEN. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

RfC: Apartheid in Lead

I think it's time for us to have this discussion.

I propose that the apartheid allegation be explicitly mentioned in the lead. This is an

incredibly well-sourced
allegation, and I think the current lead which vaguely talks about "crimes of humanity" and "war crimes" is avoiding the core of the issue — precisely which crime is Israel being accused of? Apartheid is the principal one.

Specifically, I propose that the current version "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." be replaced with "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." JDiala (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option A: Mention apartheid.

Option B: No change.

Option C: Other.

Survey

  • Bad RfC we already had a recent discussion regarding the language in the lead. No significant change has happened since. FortunateSons (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we wait for an action by the ICC or the ICJ before discussing this issue again, as that will probably influence the situation drastically. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a binding decision by one of those could be such a significant change. FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A court decision by the ICJ supporting apartheid charachterization would turn the claims in to factual reality; i.e. Israel is maintaining an apartheid system, rather than Israel is accused of maintaining an apartheid system; i.e.
Israeli apartheid. In both cases this has nothing to do whether this should be mentioned in lede, because the lede is a summary of the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You voted in the wrong place, and you misunderstood my comment: As there is no significant change (and a decision would be such a change), there is no reason to re-open a discussion so soon. FortunateSons (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support of option A: this mention is long overdue and this is pretty much the elephant in the article. This is supported by the world's leading human rights organizations, including HRW and Amnesty International which are RS per WP. The lede is a summary of the body and given that we have a subsection on apartheid charges, then the least we could do is provide a simple mention of this.
    WP:LEDE specifically says any prominent controversies should be mentioned; the charges of apartheid is obviously and most certainly a prominent controversy, which has its own WP article Israel and apartheid, and is being mentioned in international forums including the ICJ genocide case. We are quite literally beautifying the horrors of this long-standing occupation and increasing settlement construction by not mentioning the findings (yes findings, not accusations) of major human rights groups. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Discussion

Comment: as a compromise, I would support the wording proposed by DMH223344 on 02:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC):
“most human rights organizations consider Israel to enforce an apartheid system in the occupied territories."
This wording had received consensus from ~5 editors. I would oppose the wording suggested in this RfC. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’Support this’’’ as well as Makeandtoss’ reasoning. In order to employ more explicit wording there needs to either be a monopoly of sources or a high court judgement imo and we don’t have that at the moment Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an upcoming ICJ ruling on Israeli practices in the OPT. As per The Implications of An ICJ Finding that Israel is Committing the Crime Against Humanity of Apartheid during the recent public hearings, "24 States and three international organizations made the further claim that Israel’s policies and practices amount to a system of institutionalized racial discrimination and domination breaching the prohibition of apartheid under international law and/or amount to prohibited acts of racial discrimination.". Personally, I would like to wait for the ICJ deliberations on this matter to conclude before addressing what should be in the lead (although it being in the body is straightforward). Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&oldid=1220727219"