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[edit]

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. Wh15tL3D09N (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 MOS:INTRO and WP:SS, and placement of the population sentence seems fine. We should wait for more editor input before we go ahead and implement the changes. Duvasee (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[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 Mawer10. Also, I agree with Iskandar323 that the body should reflect this fact. I suggest that we put it in the Demographics section, after the details of the demographics in Israel ( Jewish - 73.6%, Arabs - 21.1%, Other- 5.3%). GidiD (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[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 Republic of Artsakh still existed, the article on Armenia did not include it in its statistics. The article about Russia does not include the occupied populations of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, and only includes Crimea in so far as the official Russian census does, but then includes the Russian population without Crimea as well. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If this is, as you say, an article about the State of Israel, then it is proper to include information about the State of Israel, including the Jewish majority within it. The occupied territories are, by virtually any RS, not considered a part of the State of Israel. The statement in question isn't about who "controls" or "governs" whom, which is also a more complicated question then you make it out to be (Area A, Area B, Area C, for example). Furthermore, I'd like to remind you of a few policies. First, as you asked for, reliable sources were prevented. Your rejection of them should not be based on Trying to Right Great Wrongs. If RS reports the State of Israel as majority Jewish, it is not up to Wikipedia to reject that because of other political realities extending beyond the borders (whether they include Jerusalem and the Golan Heights or not) of the State of Israel. We can provide further context in the article itself, and link to that context from the lede, but it isn't our place to right some great wrong that you feel the reliable sources are misreporting. Furthermore, it is worth remembering WP:OWN. I don't think you are violating that policy yet, but I do think with this line of discussion, you are getting close to it. You seem only willing to accept an article status that meets with your personal view of what it should contain and how it should be phrased, as opposed to consensus among editors, which overwhelmingly appears to disagree with your demands. That this is supported with some strange claims or questions ("what even is Israel?" "Netanyahu IS the State of Israel" and a few others), it's bordering on WP:OWN, or if not, maybe over emotional investment in this topic that detracts from an ability to achieve consensus with other editors. I get that, this is a topic that rightly and greatly brings out people's personal feelings; I think we all would not be human if that wasn't the case. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[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 Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Its clear we have a WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 Moxy- 18:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[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]

RFC on human rights language in lead[edit]

A rough count puts option 3 in the lead, followed by options 2, 4, 5, and 1, respectively. Option 1 attracted virtually no support, and for the purposes of our analysis, was discarded. We note that options 2 and 4 are similar in language, policy-based arguments in favor, and the editors making those arguments, as are options 3 and 5. Of those two sets of options, 2 seems to garner more support than 4, and 3 seems to garner more support than 5. We will mostly adjudicate, then, between options 2 and 3.

The most cited argument from supporters of option 2 was based on WP:DUE, and the underlying policy of WP:RS. Here, we find that supporters of options 2 and 4 have a slight edge. They bring a large sample of reliable sources that were not convincingly rebutted by the supporters of options 3 and 5 who attempted to discredit them. However, the supporters of options 2 and 4 taking the prerogative to do their own meta-analysis of secondary sources, rather than the simpler and more policy-adherent citation of existing meta-analyses, weaken this argument somewhat.

The most directly relevant guideline to this discussion is WP:LEADWEIGHT: According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. On this, we find that the supporters of options 2 and 4 who cite it make the strongest argument. The body of the article includes extensive mentions of allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel, which options 1, 3 and 5 do not adequately summarize. Additionally, options 2 and 4 include mention of allegations by human rights organizations which are covered at length in the body. The case that option 2 is the best reflection of the body per policy is clear and convincing, in contrast to option 3. Option 4 arguably fulfills this criterion better, but it did not receive enough vetting in the discussion to reasonably gain consensus.

Supporters of options 3 and 5 largely focused on a content-based rebuttal to the argument that Israel's alleged crimes are more notable than other countries', arguing that since these other countries' leads do not contain mention of the crimes, the lead here should not either. This misses the mark on two fronts: first, supporters failed to convincingly rebut the assertions that Israel's alleged crimes are more prominent than other countries' in reliable sourcing, which was among the weaker of the arguments put forward by supporters of options 2 and 4. Second, there is no solid policy foundation for this comparison – LEADWEIGHT, as the guiding policy, clearly points to the body of this article as the priority in determining what goes in the lead, not the leads of the articles on other countries. An alternate argument was brought up in favor of option 3 on the grounds of concision – given how much of the body of the article is devoted to this subject, we find this unpersuasive in light of LEADWEIGHT as well. We note that some supporters of options 2 and 4 brought content-based arguments as well, and those were similarly given less weight.

Finally, we note that the specter of canvassing was raised over supporters of options 3 and 5 – these factors did not directly affect our reading of consensus, but we note that we emphasize argument strength over numerical balance in this discussion, as policy asks us to do. Based on the arguments put forward in this discussion, we find a weak consensus in favor of option 2.

— ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ and theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should the sentence Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians. be changed to any of the following options:

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



Survey[edit]

Collapsing off topic bickering
*:::::::Was definitely a bit odd to see things like So you’re saying the UN secretary general said there is no bias? which is the exact opposite of what BM actually said. JM (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why youre responding to something from 6 weeks ago, but do you know what "retract" means? Some synonyms are abjure, forswear, recant, and renounce. nableezy - 18:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this is an RfC which is still open. I don't know why if you dislike me responding to something from 6 weeks ago that you also respond; the meaning of "retract" is irrelevant because it doesn't retroactively change the fact that he physically said it. As BM said, the fact that he could say and think it at all demonstrates that it's not the highly partisan position you believe it is. JM (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does however mean he disclaimed it, which means he denied it. Which is what I said, making your question to me dumbfounding. Feel free to the last word, I dont intend to engage with you further. And who said it was still open? There hasnt been an RFC tag on this section for multiple weeks now. People who have never been here keep showing up though, for reasons unknown. nableezy - 22:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering I ended up here through the page that lists all RfCs and it's not been closed, seems open to me. Anyway, you claimed BM said that the UN secretary general said that there was no bias against Israel, when what they actually said was that the UN secretary general said that there was bias against Israel and then retracted it, meaning your rhetorical comment was a mischaracterization. JM (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Summary style, lead is summary and body is place for explanations per (Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section).)
WP:NPOV which dictates: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Topic is controversial specifically war crimes / crimes against humanity which is not widely supported, there is consensus on Israel being criticized internationally, especially by the United Nations, therefore WP:NPOV dictates to be as loyal to neutrality as possible.
WP:NPOV, Prefer nonjudgmental language. Overemphasizing controversial non consensus by world on Israel commiting war crimes and crimes against humanity violates further dictate. If there is included per WP:NPOV we must Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This will make it too long whilst Lead needs to be summary, therefore best elaborate in body. Per WP:Summary style, the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points.
Furthermore lead is should be summary of article. Lead currently lacks mention of vital important information - Israel's transition from Socialism to Free Market economy. Another vital lack of detail is regarding culture - The Revival of the Hebrew language. Therefore, clearly the topic is notable and should be short and to the point in order to give space to other important info as well as follows WP:NPOV and WP:Summary style. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [16]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose option 3. It misleads the reader into believing that the UN is the main source of criticism of Israel, and that other sources of criticism either don't exist or are not noteworthy, and I can't emphasize how false that is. VR talk 05:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Option 3 without the UN part is ok? That's plausible. By the way the UN is the most significant organization doing this. I don't mind removing the UN bit. The UN is considered biased by some. By the way all considering Option 3 is still most valid. Furthermore I referred to the UN once, and once to point out since the United Nations is the most notable critic per Weight. Furthermore, please note most of my arguments do not deal with the UN so please refer to my actual arguments. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [17]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've !voted below, would you mind removing bold from you comment in order not to mislead other editors and the closer? Alaexis¿question? 10:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does policy say? Whether to include something in the lead is WP:DUE-ness issue, and DUE-ness is determined based on "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. This means that if reliable sources devote more attention to Israel, then we should too. There can be various metrics for this, here is one: how many articles per country are in State Crime Journal (by International State Crime Initiative).
Number of articles in State Crime Journal'
Country Number of articles Comments
Israel 52 The first few articles are on "Settler Colonialism", "Evicting Palestine", [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/statecrime.5.1.0051 Apartheid against Palestinians, "This special issue is devoted not only to Israel’s state crimes...", "Child arrest in Occupied East Jerusalem" etc
Turkey 28 At least some of the articles are on EU crimes against migrants transiting through Turkey.
Russia 22
Saudi Arabia 9
China 39 At least 2 of the articles are on Japanese war crimes against the Chinese
VR talk 03:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for <country> "war crimes" in the three largest news agencies[21] (and which are regarded as reliable per WP:RSP), and here is the breakdown by country:

Number of news articles on war crimes and a country
Country Associated Press Reuters Agence France-Presse
Israel 2,890 50,600 340
Saudi Arabia 512 13,700 94
Russia 2,360 25,900 293
Turkey 743 14,500 54

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

How do you know if these are crimes against Israel or not? your search cannot be indicative at all. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The top links in the table above are about Israel accused of war crimes. Maybe this metric will convince you: "Israeli war crimes" is much more common to appear in books published after 1990 than "Russian war crimes", "Turkish war crimes" etc.[22] It is difficult to believe that "Israeli war crimes" is a term that can be used for war crimes against Israel.
Ngram views of Israeli war crimes vs Russian war crimes etc
Ngram views of Israeli war crimes vs Russian war crimes etc
VR talk 15:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing this data, but I believe that this is a flawed approach that is not in line with the letter and spirit of WP:DUE. The number of articles can depend on any number of things, like researchers' interests or the availability of data in Israel vs Congo or Ethiopia.
A much better approach is to use reference works and other sources which discuss this topic in general and check what weight a given country is given there. WP:TERTIARY sources are particularly helpful: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.
In our case, the Encylopedia of War Crimes and Genocide (published by Facts on File) dedicates a page and a half to Palestine, of which a part deals with *Palestinian* war crimes. This is similar to many other countries which have been mentioned previously (Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Russia, etc.). Alaexis¿question? 08:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that considering academic journals and highly reliable news agencies is irrelevant to WP:DUE.
As for the Encylopedia of War Crimes and Genocide it also gives exactly a page and a half to War criminals of Japan - and imperial Japan was one of the worst war criminals in human history. Of course, certain attention is given to Japan outside of its official entry - likewise attention is given to Israel outside of its entry: one page to Sabra and Shatila massacre; 1/2 page of the "human shields" discusses Israel use of Palestinian civilians as human shields; 1/2 page at entry "collective punishment" is devoted to "scathing criticism" against Israel; the entry on "deportations" accuses Israel of ethnically cleansing Palestinians; the entry on Jordan again mentions forcible expulsion of Palestinians during nakba; the entry on ICJ discusses cases against Israel; the entry on "humanitarian aid, barring of" accuses Israel of "excessive delays" of aid, etc. And this encyclopedia is just one source.
Do you have any objections to the google books ngrams I presented? VR talk 04:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 should do it Abo Yemen✉ 10:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Information about canvassing that targeted this discussion can be found here. Commentary on how editors who have edited another language Wikipedia have !voted a certain way is clearly commenting on contributor not on content. If there are concerns about further canvassing issues in this discussion WP:AE, WP:ANI, or WP:ARBCOM are the routes open to present your evidence. Such speculation does not belong on article talk pages, is not proof of canvassing, and only serves to derail discussions.
Aspersions about antisemitism have even less to do with the article and should not be made anywhere without significant evidence. Pointing out a trend in !votes based on involvement with another project when there has been off site canvassing although not constructive is not antisemetic and is certainly not the same as using triple parentheses.
To summarize, if you have evidence of disruption bring it to the right place. Don't speculate on motives or engage in present patterns. Don't cast aspersions. Assume good faith. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

i really don't understand what hebrew wiki has to do here Abo Yemen✉ 15:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVASSING, see the ArbCom motion linked earlier. nableezy - 17:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an ongoing problem. Is this being dealt with by administrators or ArbCom anywhere? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: Canvassing is persisting in this topic area. Well-intentioned editors are struggling to deal with this growing issue. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence that formed part of the ARBCOM PIA Canvassing case included canvassing to an RfC on this page in October. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the canvassing has persisted. But there's no evidence of canvassing to this RfC is there? Anyone who received canvassing emails should make that public and forward them to ARBCOM. Why wouldn't they want to do that to help the community? I wonder if the closer will take the ARBCOM PIA Canvassing case into consideration. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked close enough but there are worrying signs, and as you mentioned, the precedent here has been considered enough to raise some eyebrows. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the closer uses the canvassing case about another previous RfC to devalue votes in this different RfC, wouldn't that be antithetical to WP:AGF, part of a pillar? JM (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the closer does that, then argue with them about it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence, going back over a decade indicates to me at least, that a more effective pillar in ARBPIA would be 'assume nothing, including good faith'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except this RFC also had canvassing confirmed by ArbCom? nableezy - 15:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going off of what Sean.hoyland just said above, which was that there was no canvassing, so if there is an ArbCom case confirming it, neither of us have seen it. JM (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the evidence received by the Committee, the following discussions have been targeted: ... Talk:Israel#RFC on human rights language in lead nableezy - 16:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JM, there was irrefutable evidence of canvassing. There is no reason to believe it has stopped. Again, evidence that formed part of the ARBCOM PIA Canvassing case included canvassing to an RfC on this page in October, Request for Comment on apartheid charges. I don't know what evidence ArbCom has of canvassing to this RFC on human rights language in lead. My "But there's no evidence of canvassing to this RfC is there?" was a question that Nableezy has kindly answered. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're arguing that there's canvassing on the Hebrew Wikipedia itself (got a link?), you're basically using someone's linguistic knowledge to discredit their !votes. I don't think that's really appropriate. It's an ad hominem attack at best, and one which can also be made for many of the people here (such as yourself or the creator of this RfC) who have edited the Arabic Wikipedia and seem to take the opposite view. At worst, you're using "Hebrew Wikipedian" to mean "Hebrews that are also Wikipedians" which is even more of a personal attack. I don't think this analysis contributes anything to the RfC and you might want to consider removing it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His message is very clear that your at worst scenario is not accurate and adding it here serves no purpose other than to imply a racist intent in the message. Which is, obviously, highly inappropriate. nableezy - 20:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking other editors based on their knowledge of Hebrew isn't explicitly listed in WP:NPA but I'm pretty sure it isn't allowed, because language is often a proxy for nationality and Hebrew is spoken by mostly Israelis and Jewish people. There's been no actual evidence presented of this Hebrew (language) conspiracy beyond Hebrew speakers supporting a more pro-Israel viewpoint. This is not necessarily surprising but for the purpose of civility that's not something we want to bring up in discussions. Imagine if every article related to the other IPA (India-Pakistan) had editors looking at editing patterns to Hindi/Urdu Wikipedias and just tallying it up in the background.
If it's not intended as racist, it still disproportionately singles out editors likely to be of a certain nationality or religion, so that's the effect. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been numerous documented cases of canvassing by editors slanting towards the Israeli point of view in the past few months, which have disrupted dozens of discussions, and led to them being indefinitely topic sanctioned. Other editors here have every reason to be worried of this phenomena when they see similar signs. Please avoid trying to shift attention from the issue by claims of discrimination. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The canvassing has singled out editors based on the selection criteria of an obsessional, dishonest, ultra-nationalist, racist Israel supporter who has created and operated hundreds of sockpuppet accounts. There's nothing disproportionate about it because he's not doing random population sampling. It's targeted, albeit not very precisely. That would by why concerns about canvassing will tend to disproportionately single out editors based on estimates of the probability of having been canvassed. When there has been extensive canvassing why would a rational person blindly assume good faith? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: - I do not intend to remove it. I said "he.wiki editors" and "Hebrew Wikipedia editors". That means editors of the Hebrew language Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, because any race and any ethnicity can speak Hebrew, and speaking Hebrew is absolutely not a problem. Sure, you can consider my total of one edit on Arabic Wikipedia when I swapped a picture. I am just documenting a phenomenon and that is for the closer to intepret, certainly one possible intepretation is what you wrote, Chess: Hebrew speakers supporting a more pro-Israel viewpoint. That has nothing to do with race or racism. starship.paint (RUN) 06:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to agree with Chess above. Making a public note of the voting tendencies of Hebrew Wikipedia editors seems to have a discriminatory effect ("an act or failure to act that is otherwise that has the effect, regardless of intent, of ... discriminating on the basis of a protected classification"). This is because although technically anyone can speak modern Hebrew, it is a revived language with a strong link to Zionism, Judaism, and the Israeli people, and I can't find any significant number of non-Israeli and/or non-Jewish speakers. Now your comment isn't an issue unless it's made to try to devalue the votes of such editors, which others are effectively doing by alleging canvassing without evidence. JM (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply presenting a pattern. There is nothing inherently wrong from a person speaking Hebrew, or being a Zionist, or being Jewish, or being Israeli, and my observation should not be intepreted thus. The demographics of Hebrew speakers are not within my control, it is what it is. starship.paint (RUN) 13:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1, all this attempt to turn this into some kind of antisemitism allegation is complete nonsense. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite funny; maybe some journalist will read this discussion in the future and write about it, in which we end up incorporating the discussion into Weaponization of antisemitism article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I'm "weaponizing antisemitism" for calling out users complaining about how Hebrew speakers are !voting, you can try making that case to someone, but I have doubts that it would succeed. JM (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a complete distortion of what was being discussed. No one is seriously meaning that nor will anyone play within this frame and shame game either. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a distortion at all as far as I understand it. JM (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you concerned about the impact of canvassing on this RfC and do you have any suggestions for ways to address it? For example, do you agree that anyone who has received an email directing them to this RfC should make that public and forward the email to ArbCom? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: Tag all the people who were topic banned in the ArbCom motion for canvassing as having been (probably) canvassed. That is trivial and there are two major participants in this discussion that can be tagged that way that I didn't know about until Nableezy linked it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a distortion. The fact is that there has been a finding of canvassing and sock-puppetry, and sanctions applied, on this and related articles. The comment merely voices a concern about the legitimacy of the RfC process in these articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original comment did not mention canvassing at all. It specifically singled out Hebrew-language Wikipedia editors for some reason. That's the issue at hand. I'm not distorting that. JM (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue at all, despite efforts to make it one. Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not racist, I'm simply presenting a pattern is an interesting way to justify it. Should we start designating editors with some sort of symbol like triple parentheses if they contribute to the Hebrew Wikipedia? The creators of the Chrome extension which highlighted people with certain linguistic patterns (of German origin) in their last name called it a "coincidence detector".[25] Perhaps you are also only in the business of detecting coincidences by singling out Hebraic editors.
You can't just say "I'm just identifying patterns" when anyone can tell that your analysis singles out people that are likely to be Jewish or Israeli. I'm not even directly accusing you of anti-Semitism though. What I would like, is to hear your interpretation of the evidence since it's your burden to explain exactly what the pattern you've recognized is proof of. Otherwise your comment is meaningless to the closer since it's just random data unlinked to the issue at hand. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the closer will ignore it, all good. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay; sometimes it is useful to let other articles guide us as to what is appropriate, particularly for a topic with highly partisan editors like this one - if topics with less partisanship do something one way, it’s probably a good idea to do the same in topics with more partisanship in order to avoid that partisanship causing NPOV issues.
As for the full quote, I’m not sure what you think it proves? It doesn’t change the meaning or otherwise moderate the section I quoted. BilledMammal (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can @BilledMammal move his comment and replies to here and make his vote up there? nableezy - 14:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay on the deletion policy, here WP:Some stuff exists for a reason is much more relevant. Alaexis¿question? 18:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just blowin a hole in the favorite non argument. Followed by OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST as the second favorite. Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Homerethegreat's reference to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is not a strong argument to shorten a sentence by about 20 words, especially when that removed text is disputed. More relevant policies/guidelines for this issue would be MOS:LEADREL and MOS:LEADLENGTH, neither of which support removal simply for the sake of it.
Homerethegreat's use of WP:NPOV fundamentally misunderstands what it means to state an opinion as fact. The "seriously contested assertion" is "Israel has committed war crimes"; the fact (as Nableezy has established) is "human rights organizations and UN officials accuse Israel of committing war crimes". The solution here, as described at WP:NPOV, is to provide in-text attribution. (Though, per MOS:WEASEL, unattributed assertions can be put in the lead to be later attributed in the body.) The solution is not to simply remove all contested assertions.
Whataboutism (WP:OTHERCONTENT), an argument used by several !voters for Option 3, is also not a strong argument. It is not driven by reliable sources, policy, or the actual claims of the sentence. WP:DUE refers to content within an article, not content amongst articles. If you think it's wrong that Russia doesn't list war crimes accusations, go to Talk:Russia.
Alaexis' citation of Israel's Freedom House score is irrelevant. The claim we are !voting on is not really related to human rights in "Israel proper" at all, but accusations about Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Wracking talk! 22:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this is not a good faith response. First, the consistency argument is driven by WP:NPOV: we should not give undue weight to a certain aspect of the subject. The essay WP:OTHERCONTENT actually says While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.
Going to the talk pages of Russia and dozens of countries having worse human rights record than Israel isn't feasible. Have *you* tried adding this information to other countries articles? Alaexis¿question? 10:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV means respecting sources and option 3 doesn't, end of. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the above that even remotely suggests bad faith. Freedom House (in addition to being extensively funded by the US State Department) assesses issues like civil liberties and democracy; it's not a surrogate for a country's human rights record writ large. An ostensibly democratic country can still commit (or, more to the point for this RfC, be accused of committing) war crimes and crimes against humanity. WillowCity(talk) 12:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the initiator of the RfC brought up the Freedom House ratings, that's why I used them in my argument. You can look at Swedish-Canadian CIRIGHTS Data Project [26] which also shows that Israel is better than all of its neighbours (a very low bar indeed) and many other countries in Asia, Europe and Africa. Alaexis¿question? 13:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the scoring guide for CIRIGHTS, it notes: The primary data source is the US State Department (USSD) Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. But again, all of this is neither here nor there because we're talking about this article and what should go in the lead of this article. "XYZ country is worse!" is really just smoke and mirrors. I can't say it any better than Wracking: If you think it's wrong that Russia doesn't list war crimes accusations, go to Talk:Russia. WillowCity(talk) 14:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So CIRIGHTS gives Israel the second worst of seven ratings. But what does a rating of Israel relative to its neighbors have to do with the RfC options anyhow? When a kid is scolded by a parent, a common response is my brother did X. And you may disagree with Wracking's response -- but it is wrong to call it not a good faith response. WP:AGF O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom House is about ranking freedom, not about war crimes and crimes against humanity. You asked for rankings showing that the Israeli occupation is consistently ranked among the worst human rights abusers and I gave that. But this proposal is about war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not respect for freedom of speech or the press or any of the other things Freedom House looks at. And it is incredibly bad faith to accuse others of bad faith while you are so blatantly misrepresenting the proposal and its basis. nableezy - 14:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which English?[edit]

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

This page is written in American English. See the note at the top of this page. In general, variety of English is decided on a per article, not per topic basis. See MOS:ENGVAR. Jahaza (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza: The note at the top of this page was subsequently added by the original poster of this thread, after your reply. The article actually has a "Use British English" tag on top of it, to which I've just fixed the date because it was added by Ficaia in October 2022, not 2020 as it said on the tag. I have no opinion on which variant of English this article should use and am only passing by after dealing with disruption from the original poster. Graham87 (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article was started in British English, as can be seen from the early page history. But my bad on the date. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: By note, if you meant the ((AmE)) tag, it was added on Jan 22, before Jahaza's reply which was on Jan 23. Jay 💬 17:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: Oops, thanks, I meant "*before* your reply" rather than "after your reply". Graham87 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of Israeli English language newspapers, American English is what is considerably more commonly used there. So the article should follow that. nableezy - 17:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is my understanding as well. I will NOT be the one to add back an AmE tag if it is decided that one should be added back (I wrongly added one the first time around without first gaining a large consensus), but I think either AmE or BrE ought to be recommended for readers on a high traffic page such as Israel. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article's English variety can indeed be changed with a consensus decision. Graham87 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they teach a mix of British and American English here in school.
English Speakers (an advanced English class most schools here have) is more BrE while normal class is more AmE. TomGoLeen (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]
[27] 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[edit]

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]

Climate[edit]

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

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

Can you source references referring to it as mild? If so, I am in favor of inclusion FortunateSons (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.britannica.com/place/Tel-Aviv-Yafo דולב חולב (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica is not an optimal source, do you happen to have a second one, preferably from a more reliable sources? FortunateSons (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.accuweather.com/en/il/tel-aviv/215854/january-weather/215854
look, this is the January weather stats for Tel Aviv. You can see for yourself it is absolutely not cool, but mild and even warm. דולב חולב (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an RS for these purposes, and the article on Tel Aviv doesn’t use a source, but feel free to add it for now, if someone takes issue with it, we can still remove it later (using the first source) FortunateSons (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also wikipedia’s Tel aviv article says mild winters. דולב חולב (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede RFC[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus that the most recent RfC on this issue was too recent to warrant discussing this again now. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories, the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including the accusation that the state is committing the crime of apartheid." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

!votes[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

The charge extends to Israel as well, at least according to Amnesty. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the Kingsley NYT 2022-03-23 article (cited in WP article) notes Amnesty is an outlier in saying so. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the fact that Amnesty is an outlier, the bolded sentence doesn't seem to even imply Israel has instituted apartheid outside of the occupied territories anyway, although perhaps this is a bit unclear because of the wording of the sentence. JM (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. The outcome of the ICJ case(s) might prove decisive / tip the scales. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the ICJ is ruling on apartheid specifically (and they are not), it is unimportant to this RfC. And if it were to rule on apartheid, it would likely not change the lede prose -- just another opinion to add to the list, as they have no jurisdiction. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ICJ (International Criminal Court) has jurisdiction. I think you might be confusing it with the ICC (International Criminal Court), which nevertheless also has de jure jurisdiction in the Palestinian territories. They can't enforce their rulings by themselves, but the rulings still stand. It is not just another opinion to add to the list. The outcome is extremely relevant in this case, because — even though it isn't directly ruling on an accusation of apartheid — no matter which way the court rules, the ruling will probably influence the discussion about Israel–Palestine and possible human rights violations in all areas, not just genocide (among them the accusation of apartheid). TucanHolmes (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I mixed up the ICC investigation, which is futile, with the ICJ proceedings, for which Israel has indeed agreed to be under their jurisdiction. Regarding the ruling will probably influence the discussion about Israel–Palestine and possible human rights violations in all areas, that needs someone with expertise backing it up, since from the sources in our article the analysis beforehand seemed pretty clear (and indeed results show) that the court isn't making any dramatically new decision. What may be more interesting is their upcoming advisory opinion, should they actually choose to address apartheid as a legal question (which as it is not specified, they probably(?) won't). SamuelRiv (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well, one leg is in, the genocide case, and that would seem supportive of some hr language, we might as well wait for the 1 month "report back" thing and the second case re the occupation and then see where we are.Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC) The sourcing on human rights abuse/war crimes/potential genocide just keeps rolling in. The one month "report" is looking like Israel's idea of a joke, we'll see what the court says about it. And the apartheid accusations are piling up as well. Options 2 and 4 in the ongoing RFC are beginning to look like an understatement.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Independence from Mandatory Palestine"[edit]

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

Important to note that Israel declared independence (effectively a state establishment declaration), it did not achieve independence since it had never been a state prior to 15 May 1948. I wonder what RS say about this supposed "independence". Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could remove the "Independence from" statement completely, similar to Kosovo. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to that. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important to note that even the Israeli "independence declaration" was a declaration of state establishment. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BanyanClimber: Please discuss before reverting. How do you declare the independence of a state that didn't exist up until its "declaration of independence"? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BanyanClimber: Refusing to engage in the talk page to build consensus is a sign of disruptive editing behavior that is not taken lightly in ARBPIA articles. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BanyanClimber aside, how do reliable sources refer to the event? Without having looked into common verbiages, I think “declaration of statehood” would be accurate. Zanahary (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

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 History of Israel page is the place for overly redundant ancient history, as has been pointed out numerous times before, and as you will see in the archives. However, if you attempt to trim ancient history on the grounds of relevance (on any country page), objections will rapidly emerge from the woodwork. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[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.[28][29][30] 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 WP:COATRACK of papers and works on the ancient archaeology of the region, discussions of ancient Israel, the history of the Jewish people, etc., but without reference to any kind of source attempting to nit the material together with the subject of the page. To be honest, it shouldn't be that hard to find a passionate book source saying that Israel traces its history back to ancient Israel, but even this basic step has simply not been done. What the history section actually should be doing is referencing high quality secondary or tertiary reference works, such as Israel: A History by Anita Shapira (2015), the blurb for which reads: ”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) 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 Palestine (region) at that point, not the history of the state of Israel. 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[edit]

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]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2024[edit]

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

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it was unclear what you wanted to change. Please form your request in the following form: Change X to Y. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:ARBECR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



From the first sentence... 2A06:C701:4EF7:7D00:9DBF:F33F:9F22:5CB3 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:3800:863:ADED:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention beginning of israeli-palestinian conflict in lead[edit]

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

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

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

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

There is an argument to be made (though I disagree) about adding half a sentence regarding fears of a state, but your new versions lacks sources and accuracy: while we can’t know, it is pretty likely that a dislike of the 'new' immigrants was definitely one of the primary sources for the conflict. FortunateSons (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is already established either in the article itself, or in the citation that's used on the page. From Morris: "The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well)."
Your point about the new immigrants is purely speculative. DMH223344 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several issues here. Morris is a great historian but it doesn't mean that we should ignore all other views on this topic. Saying that a separate economy was established is an oversimplification, this was indeed one of Zionist goals but it was never fully achieved. Alaexis¿question? 12:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khalidi also describes this. Also, the article itself mentions: "although the Second Aliyah included Zionist socialist groups who established the kibbutz movement based on the idea of establishing a separate Jewish economy based exclusively on Jewish labor." The edit I proposed above uses the word "established", I don't suggest that it was a fully functioning and independent economy. DMH223344 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And from Masalha 2012: "its policy of employing exclusively Jewish ‘labour’ and excluding the indigenous inhabitants from the Jewish economy and land purchased by the Jewish National Fund, were linked in the minds of David Ben-Gurion and other Mapai leaders with the concept of ‘transfer’ as a key component of Zionist ideology and strategy (Masalha 1992: 22–3). Therefore it is precisely these distinct features of the Zionist colonisation of Palestine, the ‘exclusive’ nature of the European Yishuv and creation of a pure Zionist colony, which led to the destruction of Palestine and the Nakba; as we will see below, Zionist ‘ethnic cleansing’ and the premisses of ‘maximum land and minimum Arab’, and Arab ‘transfer’, led to the massive Zionist ‘territorial expansion’ in and conquest of Palestine (from 6.6 per cent in 1947 to 78 per cent by early 1949)." DMH223344 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the success of establishing a separate economy, from Khalidi 2020: "Additionally, a separate Jewish-controlled sector of the economy was created through the exclusion of Arab labor from Jewish-owned firms under the slogan of “Avoda ivrit,” Hebrew labor, and the injection of truly massive amounts of capital from abroad.16 By the middle of the 1930s, although Jews were still a minority of the population, this largely autonomous sector was bigger than the Arab-owned part of the economy."
and: "During the 1930s the Jewish economy in Palestine overtook the Arab sector for the first time, and the Jewish population grew to more than 30 percent of the total by 1939. In light of fast economic growth and this rapid population shift over only seven years, combined with considerable expansion of the Zionist movement’s military capacities, it became clear to its leaders that the demographic, economic, territorial, and military nucleus necessary for achieving domination over the entire country, or most of it, would soon be in place. As Ben-Gurion put it at the time, “immigration at the rate of 60,000 a year means a Jewish state in all Palestine.”52 Many Palestinians came to similar conclusions." DMH223344 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And from Pappe: The Jewish settlement, the Yishuv, became a separate economic entity. DMH223344 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis, @FortunateSons, if there are no additional objections then I'll make the proposed change. DMH223344 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please establish consensus first. FortunateSons (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we have consensus, I don't see any unaddressed objections. DMH223344 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There are minor issues (such as the definition of Zionism) and the fact that immigration itself was already a source of tension. Adding it to the article and a half sentence about the impact of that is fine, this broad change leaving out this important of a detail (general opposition) is not. FortunateSons (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to be more specific. DMH223344 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the economic part, it strongly sounds like that is the necessary requirement for the following sentence, which isn’t the case, made even clearer due to the fact that it didn’t exist. FortunateSons (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
/wasn’t quite successful FortunateSons (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand what you are saying. DMH223344 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s the opposite side of our argument on the other topic: the separate economy/the flight was the symptom, the immigration (IMO actually)/the expulsion (IMO partially) the cause FortunateSons (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite specific sources to support your claim. Otherwise I won't consider your opinion a valid objection to my proposal. I've already made a convincing case represented by the scholarship. DMH223344 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This quotes land as a significant source for conflict: https://www.bpb.de/themen/migration-integration/laenderprofile/english-version-country-profiles/58400/historical-development-of-jewish-immigration/ FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This states resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937. While economic dispossession may have been a motive, the immigration itself is stated by RS to be the cause. FortunateSons (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with mentioning that there existed a Jewish-controlled sector of the economy in the 1930s and 1940s. This is important as it served as an economic base for the Jewish side in the war. Still, I don't think that all the concerns have been addressed. Khalidi and Masalha have similar positions, even more extreme than Morris, so adding them doesn't help with NPOV. Your version makes the Zionists the only ones responsible for the conflict, ignoring the proclamation of jihad and calls for attacks against Jewish settlers. Alaexis¿question? 21:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify details about explusion in lead[edit]

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

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

Oppose parts of them were evicted, parts fled for reasons equivalent to eviction, parts did not. Your solution removes that nuance. FortunateSons (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also excluded from the original statement. DMH223344 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
expulsion or fleeing is vague, but your version is just incomplete, sorry FortunateSons (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The version I proposed is more accurate than the current version, as I explained. DMH223344 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would hesitate to add so much detail without a specific reason. DMH223344 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, which is the argument for the original version FortunateSons (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My justification as per above: "Rewriting in active voice for clarity. Also be more precise, since the civil war was just the first phase" DMH223344 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The civil war as the first phase is fine, disagree with the rest FortunateSons (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my proposed version does not suggest that zionist militias and paramilitary were the only reason, only that they were a major reason (which is not contested by serious historiagraphy). DMH223344 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it strongly implies that, which is not consistently supported by the sources. In my opinion, the passive voice is fine, particularly as there is a significant group where there is strong but not fully conclusive evidence for the cause of their action (though to be fair, my reading is a few years old, so if there are clear percentages on expulsion, flight based on reasonable fear of non-permitted harm and flight from the conflict/to not be under Jewish rule/other optional reason, I would be willing to reconsider my position.
If I’m still up to date, 6 (?) villages definitely “purely” left, a few dozens were aggressively cleansed (read: none or few people could have remained without an overwhelming likelihood of directed and significant harm), and there is a wide range of everything in between, which is a good reason for passive voice if you ask me.
If you are willing to actually look up the specific numbers (I seem to recall Morris having those, but am not sure), I think shorting the section, linking to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight instead of Nakba, changing the order of sentence 2 and 3 and softening 2 would significantly improve your suggestion and make it significantly more likely to be included in the article.
Otherwise, still oppose FortunateSons (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

In the current version, it sounds like people fled simply due to the war, but no well-respected historian claims that. We don't need to know an exact breakdown of the reasons people left to know that the main reason was attacks and fear of zionist attacks on civilians. Everything in history is multifactorial, but when there is a well-known and broadly accepted major reason something happens, we should mention it. There are of course some historians who do try to estimate the number who left due to various reasons:
"Meir Pa’il, the widely respected Israeli historian of the 1948 war, estimates that, of the total Palestinian refugee population, ‘one third fled out of fear, one third were forcibly evacuated by the Israelis …, [and] one third were encouraged by the Israelis to flee’ (Palumbo, p. xviii). Palumbo’s study reaches roughly the same conclusion as Pa’il." Finkelstein 1995
DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Finkelstein 1995: Indeed, according to the former director of the Israel army archives, ‘in almost every Arab village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’. The number of large-scale massacres (more than 50 murdered) is put by the archivist at a minimum of 20 and small-scale massacres (an individual or a handful murdered) at about 100. Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs’
From Shlaim (iron wall): Although the wording of Plan D was vague, its objective was to clear the interior of the country of hostile and potentially hostile Arab elements, and in this sense it provided a warrant for expelling civilians. By implementing Plan D in April and May, the Haganah thus directly and decisively contributed to the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem.
Finkelstein 1995 quoting Morris: The attacks themselves were "the most important single factor in the exodus of April-June from both the cities and from the villages... This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during and in the immediate wake of each military assault. No town was abandoned by the bulk of its population before Jewish attack." DMH223344 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Masalha 2012: In 1948 more than half of the Palestinians were driven from their towns and villages, mainly by a deliberate Israeli policy of ‘transfer’ and ethnic cleansing. DMH223344 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Shlaim (iron wall): There were many reasons for the Palestinian exodus, including the early departure of the Palestinian leaders when the going got tough, but the most important reason was Jewish military pressure.
Ben-Ami (2005) describes "hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who were evicted from their villages". DMH223344 (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to look for the scholarship. I generally dislike using Finkelstein due to the quality of his scholarship (particularly in areas where I have decent knowledge, so it’s quite possible that those are localised issues). That being said, I think the first quote could be usable: estimates say that one third was forcefully removed, 2/3 fled. I think if you restructure your request (I left a few suggestions above, but feel free to follow the spirit instead of the letter, and cite Meir Pa’il (preferably directly)), you will have good odds of reaching a consensus (barring issues with the sources for other claims, other issues and that you have your EC again, which I think you do?). FortunateSons (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the need to describe a specific breakdown since most scholarship does not give an explicit estimate and it's unclear what "encouraged by the Israelis to flee" means specifically or to what extent we should have faith in this breakdown of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. The scholarly consensus supports the portrayal in my proposed edit.
As for Finkelstein's scholarship, it's not particularly relevant here since he is quoting other sources. I don't think his work on this topic in particular is described as low quality, although of course not everyone agrees with his conclusions (in particular, he disagrees with at least Morris and Shapira on important conclusions as is highlighted in the cited book). If you can point me to respected and relevant scholarly criticism of Finkelstein's scholarship, I would be grateful. DMH223344 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have gone for Morris and my own anecdotal experience, and there is a list of people on his wiki page, but I’m not informed enough for an in-depth comparative analysis of his work. Some of his assessments on law are not great, but I am quite hawkish in my international law interpretation, so it’s possible that him and I are just on opposite side of a bunch of implied and explicit disputes (though to be fair, what I read from him was a while ago, so I’m uncertain on the details.)
He also made a bunch of questionable statements, but that is an issue of character and not of scholarship.
I disagree with your proposal in its current form, as it implies expulsion as the overwhelming cause (at least to the uninformed reader), something not broadly supported by scholarship to the best of my knowledge and your sources. If you can appropriately address that issue, I’m happy to have you include it, otherwise I am still opposed. FortunateSons (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say "I disagree with your proposal in its current form, as it implies expulsion as the overwhelming cause (at least to the uninformed reader), something not broadly supported by scholarship to the best of my knowledge and your sources." when DMH223344 just presented 5 scholars stating variations of "In 1948 more than half of the Palestinians were driven from their towns and villages, mainly by a deliberate Israeli policy of ‘transfer’ and ethnic cleansing."?
People primarily only fled in order to avoid the violence of their imminent forceful eviction.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving my point: driven from and expulsion are not the same thing. FortunateSons (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? nableezy - 16:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is being "driven from their towns and villages, mainly by a deliberate Israeli policy of ‘transfer’ and ethnic cleansing" not the same as being expelled? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is a difference between abstract fear and concrete use of force. FortunateSons (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "abstract fear"?

"They were either expelled or fled from their homes for fear of being killed, as had actually taken place in a number of villages."[1]

And also: "as scores of historical documentation has since revealed, the Yishuv encouraged the flight or directly forced 750000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the population at the time) from their homeland"[2]

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a detailed explanation by Morris in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Fear that isn’t acute/concrete is abstract. FortunateSons (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to imply that many fled irrationally or unnecessarilly. How is "fear of being killed, as had actually taken place in a number of villages" an 'abstract' rather than acute/concrete. They were concretely and specifically afraid of the Irgun, Lehi and the Haganah, and their campaign of massacres, terrorism and ethnic cleansing. Hardly abstract fears.
And as we've already gone over, Morris is not the best source for these details. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morris is considered one of the best, and you haven’t provided another broadly recognised historian who disagrees, so even if he wasn’t, he would still be the BESTSOURCE here.
While those fears are definitely understandable, a fear of conflict or harm is generally considered flight and not expulsion even when rational, of which a few villages undoubtedly were, a few most likely weren’t, and everything in between is disputed. FortunateSons (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a few villages undoubtedly were, a few most likely weren’t, and everything in between is disputed."
Not sure what you're saying here, and what exactly are you claiming is disputed?
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59651683-the-massacre-that-never-was
https://www.asmeascholars.org/the-massacre-that-never-was Wafflefrites (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a book that every academic publisher Tauber approached to publish declined. And Tauber doesnt even dispute the events, just claims that they somehow do not add up to a massacre, but never says what would be. Tauber's view on Deir Yassin is firmly in extreme minority territory. nableezy - 00:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Given how the Boston Massacre and Goingsnake massacre are called massacres and put into the same category as the Crow Creek massacre and the atrocities during the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922), I no longer really know what how a massacre is defined either. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book The Massacre That Never Was: The Myth of Deir Yassin and the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem is a work of historical denialism (specifically Nakba denial). The Deir Yassin massacre was an extremely obvious massacre and we call it such on Wikipedia for good reason. You might review the article we have on it and check the references. The pages Nakba and Nakba denial are worth reading also, and are very thoroughly and well sourced. Especially the Nakba article. @FortunateSons, you may want to read the Nakba article as well and read up on its references. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. The Deir Yassin article actually has a section called “Propaganda” Deir Yassin massacre#Propaganda, which is what I think what Tauber discusses. Tauber is listed as source 77.
In regards to the other discussion about whether or not most Palestinians fled or were expelled, I found this section in the Deir Yassin Wiki article:
'There was no rape.' He [Hussayn Khalidi] said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews.'" "This was our biggest mistake," said Nusseibeh. "We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. They ran away from all our villages." He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."
A villager known as Haj Ayish claimed that "there had been no rape." He questioned the accuracy of the Arab radio broadcasts that "talked of women being killed and raped", and instead believed that "most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters." Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that ... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade. They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin." Wafflefrites (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on the Deir Yassin massacre is not of a very good quality unfortunately (Tauber for example probably shouldn't be a reference there per WP:FRINGE). Like I said, for more and better references about this topic please see Nakba or 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the recommendation; I believe I read both a while ago, were any major changes made? FortunateSons (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In some villages, there was clear expulsion, in others, clear flight; everything else is considered somewhat unclear depending on who you listen to, and therefore disputed.
Citing specific examples is interesting from a historical perspective, but for this discussion, the total breakdown is the only relevant factor, unless you are willing to take the time for 600 separate villages, which I personally am not. The (first) Finkelstein citation provides such a breakdown and Morris provided approximations, but if you have another one as an alternative, I welcome you to cite that. To the best of my knowledge, most historical sources state that the majority of Palestinians fled (often for good reason, but voluntarily). FortunateSons (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can one be said to voluntarily flee from danger? Sources sinply do not describe the Palestinian flight as 'voluntary' but as compelled. But we're going in circles and you're persisting in disagreeing with the reliable sources. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider also that during the ethnic cleansing of Haifa for example, "the Haganah made effective use of Arabic language broadcasts and loudspeaker vans" and "called on the populace to 'evacuate the women, the children and the old immediately, and send them to a safe haven'", and used "tactics [...] designed to stun and quickly overpower opposition" where "demoralisation was a primary aim. It was deemed just as important to the outcome as the physical destruction of the Arab units. The mortar barrages and the psychological warfare broadcasts and announcements, and the tactics employed by the infantry companies, advancing from house to house, were all geared to this goal." (per Morris by the way), and that "Historian Walid Khalidi described "the mass exodus of Haifa's Arab population" as "the spontaneous reaction to the ruthless combination of terror and psychological warfare tactics adopted by the Haganah during the attack."" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and you (and others have) can make the argument that this specific conduct amounted to expulsion, but even if we were to assume that as true, it still wouldn’t account for a majority of other instances. FortunateSons (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think discussing with you further on this will be productive. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I actually disagree. Maybe to a reader who is not careful they might go away thinking it was the overwhelming cause, but the proposed version does not state that or imply it. The main difference (in content) from the current version is explicitly stating who performed the expulsions. And as stated by the sources quoted above, expulsions and attacks were the most important factor, so stating who performed them is critical. DMH223344 (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we already have a confused editor above, so I would doubt that. Having said that, adding who performed the expulsions is fine, the rest is the issue. FortunateSons (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is "the rest"? That this was the first phase? DMH223344 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current version:
The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war between these groups which would see the expulsion or fleeing of most Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine.
  • Your suggestion:
The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups. This conflict marked the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine by Zionist militias and paramilitary units. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine had either been expelled or had fled.
  • My preferred version:
The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war between these groups which would see the expulsion or fleeing of most Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine, of which around a third is estimated to have been forcefully removed (alternatives: expelled, evicted) by Zionist militias and paramilitary units and the rest to have fled.
  • Suggested compromise:
The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine had either fled or been expelled. This conflict is generally considered the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians by Zionist militias and paramilitary units. FortunateSons (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts? FortunateSons (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per above: I disagree with the need to describe a specific breakdown since most scholarship does not give an explicit estimate and it's unclear what "encouraged by the Israelis to flee" means specifically or to what extent we should have faith in this breakdown of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. So I won't consider your "preferred version" further.
Comparing your suggestion with my proposed version:
  1. Your version swaps "fled" and "expelled".
  2. Your version puts the statement about forceful eviction after the description of demographics in 1949.
  3. Your version adds a qualifier of "generally considered" rather than stating it as fact.
Both points 1 and 2 serve to highlight the fleeing and de-emphasize the expulsion. Additionally, both points 1 and 2 lead to an awkward flow in the reading. Point 3 introduces a sense of uncertainty which is not needed and is unsupported by the scholarly consensus.
So I still think my initially proposed version should be used. DMH223344 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy found the actual RS claiming that involuntary expulsion is considered to be main cause (compared to voluntary flight) by at least some RS, so the issue has been solved anyway. FortunateSons (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that "RS claiming that involuntary expulsion is considered to be the main cause" means that any flight was therefore voluntary is both OR and badly illogical. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to try again? FortunateSons (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you could look at my response to him? FortunateSons (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a whole bunch of made up special pleading and OR being put up as a roadblock here, but here is an actual summary of estimates from an actually reliable source: Slater, Jerome (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6. There is no serious dispute among Israeli, Palestinian, or other historians about the central facts of the Nakba. All of the leading Israeli New Historians—particularly Morris, Shlaim, Pappé, and Flapan—extensively examined the issue and revealed the facts. Other accounts have reached the same conclusions. For example, see Ben-Ami, "A War to Start All Wars"; Rashid Khalidi, "The Palestinians and 1948"; Walid Khalidi, "Why Did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited"; Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians; Raz, Bride and the Dowry. Reviewing the evidence marshaled by Morris and others, Tom Segev concluded that "most of the Arabs in the country, approximately 400,000, were chased out and expelled during the first stage of the war. In other words, before the Arab armies invaded the country" (Haaretz, July 18, 2010). Other estimates have varied concerning the number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled before the May 1948 Arab state attack; Morris estimated the number to be 250,000–300,000 (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 262); Tessler puts it at 300,000 (A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 279); Pappé's estimate is 380,000 (The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 96). In another recent review of the evidence, the Israeli historian Daniel Blatman estimates the number to be about 500,000 (Blatman, "Netanyahu, This Is What Ethnic Cleansing Really Looks Like"). Whatever the exact number, even Israeli "Old Historians" now admit that during the 1948 war, the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians, though they emphasized the action as a military "necessity." For example, see Anita Shapira, Israel: A History, 167–68. In July 2019, the Israeli government sought to cover up the extensive documentary evidence in its state archives that revealed detailed evidence about the extent of the Nakba—even the evidence that had already been published by newspapers and Israeli historians.

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

You are wrong on not being allowed to return = expulsion, but you did provide sources showing that at least some RS consider direct expulsion to be the primary cause, so the order of flight after expulsion can stand, at least until I take the time to look for the specifics of actual academic consensus. I maintain that the link should actually aim to causes and not not nakba (or maybe both?), but the removal of passive voice is fine. FortunateSons (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I maintain that the link should actually aim to causes and not not nakba"
By what stretch of logic should 'event x' link to 'causes of event x' rather than to our article on event x itself? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, we should just continue with “expulsion and flight”, as it is now. FortunateSons (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks nableezy, this is a great summary and clearly resolves any open issues brought up so far. DMH223344 (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swapping fled and expelled is done by quantity (According to your citation). If you can find a way to fix 2. without altering the content, feel free to do so. 3. is friendly to your 'side', including evictions of tenant farmer etc., but can be removed if you don’t care for it. Regarding „encouraging to flee“: it can indeed be a wide range, but as the contrast is expulsion and the main categories expulsion and flight, we can therefore logically say that it isn’t expulsion.
It is unfortunate that you don’t like my compromise, let’s hope we find a consensus for another version then. FortunateSons (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your key issue is with the ordering of flee and expelled? DMH223344 (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the scholarship you provided, you have made a convincing case for including the actors responsible (therefore inclusion in my proposal).
My key remaining issue is with anything that - while factually accurate - leads to inaccurate interpretations, most notably that expulsion far the primary or even disproportionate cause beyond what is broadly supported by RS, instead of being an equal or lesser cause compared to flight. Due to the fact that English isn’t my native language, some of my phrasing can be rough, so I’m open to altering those as long as content remains preserved.
Regarding civil war as the first phase, that’s up to interpretation but probably fine. FortunateSons (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is your interpretation, not what is represented in the scholarship, which is in agreement that expulsion was the primary factor. DMH223344 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, me, Morris, the old Israeli Historians, Pa‘il and Palumbo (cited by you above) disagree with it being primary in the sense of making up more than flight (I could be wrong on the scholarship, so take that with a grain of sand.) Do you disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you accept those estimates as accurate, the key question is what is the most important factor. As we saw, it is the forceful expulsion.
You mention the qualifier "in the sense of making up more than flight". But that's not the question here, we are concerned with the primary factor of the exodus, which is the expulsions. DMH223344 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a language barrier on my part, but if something makes up less than half of something and another thing makes up more than half, then the second one is the primary factor, no? FortunateSons (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BESTSOURCES - Don't you think it's ironic to support the old historians over the new? (Obviously the difference is more complex than old and new but still). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mostly rely on Morris (and the source kindly provided by the other editor), but the old ones definitely contribute to disproving the existence of consensus on expulsion being primary. As long as we are using Finkelstein, we can probably use the old ones too ;) FortunateSons (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Benny Morris does not represent the latest scholarship.
Also reminder to editors here to use the ((outdent)) template. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for using outdent, but please do not remove my comments that do not violate policy without permission.
Morris is still considered up to date by many, and while not newest, he still often considered current (enough). FortunateSons (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he's "often reliable enough" but that doesn't mean there aren't issues with his work which later historians have improved upon.
And apologies for removing your comment (which consisted of only "thoughts?"), it was out of place in the discussion and I thought clearly insignificant enough that removing it was easier. I was in a rush also to implement my outdent edit (which I was doing manually, changing the number of indents on each subsequent comment) without a conflicting edit, which had already happened the first time I tried to implement it. But of course at this point I'll restore your comment for you immediately.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s fine, just ask next time.
There are no historians without issues, but he is still broadly considered one of the best. Are you aware of someone who you consider comparable or better who disagreed later regarding the topic at hand? FortunateSons (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expulsions lead to fear which leads to fleeing. So expulsion can be the primary reason even if it's the case that fewer than 50% of people who left were directly expelled. DMH223344 (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an argument of why expulsion may have been a factor for flight, but not an argument for Expulsion as the primary factor: someone fleeing due to fear of expulsion is still fleeing. We can still go with the phrasing used by your first Finkelstein citation if you think mine is also misleading? FortunateSons (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a good idea to mention the systemic violence which people were fleeing from. Only saying people fled without mentioning from what is rather whitewashy in my opinion. Also the great number of massacres and acts of violence perpretrated in these expulsions and flight is likely due for inclusion in this summary anyway. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you are in favour of including the first Finkelstein citation? FortunateSons (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, you don't agree that expulsion was the primary factor leading to the exodus? Is the phrasing you're referring to "The attacks themselves were the most important single factor in the exodus"? DMH223344 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t that generally written in cases where there are considerations of a multitude of factors, or cases where „attacks“ also include the capture of villages. Attacks generally are not the same as expulsions. FortunateSons (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Likewise agree, the sourcing is very clear here, and the only reason to keep it vague is to obscure. nableezy - 16:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons, @Wafflefrites, if there are no additional objections, then I'll make the proposed change. DMH223344 (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would change the link from nakba to the other page, and may take the time to actually dig up the research in the future, otherwise no. Please remember to cite RS where applicable. FortunateSons (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post your version again? This thread has gotten too messy. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the first post here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Clarify_details_about_explusion_in_lead DMH223344 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, your second sentence has also added additional details and weight to the lead with regards to forceful military expulsion. As FortunateSons and I have pointed out, there is historical debate and inconsistencies about whether most Palestinians were forced out of if they fled. Especially after Deir Yassin, both Arab and Jewish leader inflated the number of dead and encouraged rumors, the Jewish leaders I believe in part did this to encourage flight. Your version seems a bit unbalanced in this regard giving more weight to forceful expulsion and feels a bit POV pushing,
especially this comment,
“Expulsions lead to fear which leads to fleeing. So expulsion can be the primary reason even if it's the case that fewer than 50% of people who left were directly expelled.” seems a bit like roundabout logic to conflate fear of expulsion with direct expulsion and attribute expulsion as the direct reason.
So in sum, I prefer Makeandtoss’ version. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thank you. Nableezy posted some sources that seemed to consider it the primary direct source, but if it isn’t, I’m still opposed FortunateSons (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources disagree? Sources, not personal opinions of Wikipedia editors. nableezy - 19:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Morris: https://web.archive.org/web/20081207221932/http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2008/02/benny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html FortunateSons (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt really challenge expulsion as the primary cause. He doesnt break it down at all, only to say that most fled because of the "flail of war". nableezy - 20:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone flees, they aren’t expelled FortunateSons (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn’t true and you just saying it doesn’t make it true. nableezy - 20:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the causes article: “ In the first decades after the exodus two diametrically opposed schools of analysis emerged; Israel claimed that the Palestinians left because they were ordered to by their own leaders, who deliberately incited them into panic, to clear the field for the war, while the Arabs claimed that they were expelled at gunpoint by Zionist forces who deliberately incited them into panic.” Expulsion (similarly used in the Morris letter) generally refers to the latter.
Per Cambridge: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/expulsion; that doesn’t cover situations where you have a choice, or leave before getting forcefully removed. FortunateSons (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the point you're trying the make. In any case, the claim Palestinians left because they were ordered to by their own leaders, who deliberately incited them into panic, to clear the field for the war has been almost universally debunked. DMH223344 (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point (responding to the other user) are that flight and expulsion are diametrically opposed when it comes to the mode of flight (but not to motive) FortunateSons (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Flight and expulsion are diametrically opposed" - This isn't true at all and is completely out of line with the RSs (many of which have already been provided to you in this discussion). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that your response is not covered by the second half of my contribution? FortunateSons (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't my interpretation, it is the interpretation represented by the scholarship (as I've shown in this thread), as I've said multiple times in this thread. Expulsions were the primary reason for the exodus. You and fortunatesons are interpreting "primary reason" as meaning "50% or more of people were removed with direct force from their homes", but that isn't what is being discussed here. DMH223344 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idea for a compromise: Morris uses displaced, which is shorter anyway, right? FortunateSons (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about this version :
The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups, which was the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians by Zionist militias and paramilitary units.
Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. By the first Arab-Israeli war's end in 1949, Israel was established over most of the former Mandate territory. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled or fled.
I have tried to combine @DMH223344 @FortunateSons and @Makeandtoss edits Wafflefrites (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested displaced (as used by Morris) as an alternative to expelled or fled. Are you opposed? FortunateSons (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your comment on 19:10, 5 March 2024, you used “fled or expelled”. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the dispute is the order of the words. Today I found Morris using displaced for both, which fixed this issue. Sorry, the thread has gotten quite hard to follow. FortunateSons (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I am opposed, the phrasing pushes the traditionalist (and now debunked narrative) of the Palestinians being displaced as a consequence of war, rather than primarily as a consequence of expulsions. See Khalidi: "This argument furthermore ignores the fact that in many cases Palestinians were driven out of areas where there was no fighting, where there were local truces, or where fighting had long ended, and that the vast majority were not allowed to return to their homes even after the fighting was over."
For @Wafflefrites, why did you add this sentence: "By the first Arab-Israeli war's end in 1949, Israel was established over most of the former Mandate territory." DMH223344 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was from Makeandtoss’ edit but nw I am thinking it’s not the best since he dropped the link to the 1949 armistice Wafflefrites (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Displaced refers to both, no? At least the way it’s used by Morris. FortunateSons (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your suggestion of the use of 'displaced', please familiarizse yourself with WP:BESTSOURCES on this topic, and I have to remind you that Wikipedia:Competence is required. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you don’t seem to have read the essay you are citing: Alleging incompetence: It is generally inadvisable to call a person "incompetent" or their editing "incompetent". While being direct with problems is advisable, it is possible to be direct without being insulting. Telling people their work displays incompetence often does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them less receptive to instruction.
Morris is considered one of the best historians on I/P, it's not like I’m citing some random newspaper FortunateSons (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you of incompetence. If I feel the need to so I will do it at AE or another appropriate venue.
I am asking you to strongly consider the essay I linked to however, and we've gone over your overreliance on Benny Morris multiple times now. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not concerned about my competence, what purpose does citing WP:Competence have?
If “overreliance” on one author is your primary concern, we really should also stop people from trying to work Finkelstein (who is significantly more controversial on quality and character) into every possible situation, no? Morris is broadly cited (including by Finkelstein). If it makes you feel better, I can include a bit more Shlaim and old historians if it makes you feel better.
Morris is/was (?) considered one of the best on the causes and motives and expulsion, per Pappe: “ Were these atrocities and conduct a consequence of the war itself or were they the result of premeditated expulsion plan? Some Israeli “new historians,” such as Benny Morris, who wrote the most important scholarly research on the question, tend to talk about this immoral chapter as emanating from the war atmosphere.“ [1] FortunateSons (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote reads "Were these atrocities and conduct a consequence of the war itself or were they the result of premeditated expulsion plan? Some Israeli “new historians,” such as Benny Morris, who wrote the most important scholarly research on the question, tend to talk about this immoral chapter as emanating from the war atmosphere. Others, like this author, tend to see it as an outcome of a master plan prepared by the Jewish leadership before the war. Palestinian historians see it as a direct result of the Zionist settlement in Palestine. Ultimately, the establishment of a Jewish state could have become a reality only through an act of expulsion. 1948 was the opportunity, although the intent had been there all the time." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That really isn’t relevant to the claim I have cited here, no? FortunateSons (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Warf, C.; Charles, G. (2020). Clinical Care for Homeless, Runaway and Refugee Youth: Intervention Approaches, Education and Research Directions. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-030-40675-2. By 1948, the majority of Palestinians, about 700000 to 800000 people from 500 to 600 villages, were displaced. They were either expelled or fled from their homes for fear of being killed, as had actually taken place in a number of villages.
  2. ^ Petersen-Overton, Kristofer J.; Schmidt, Johannes D.; Hersh, Jacques (27 September 2010). "3. Retooling Peace Philosophy: A Critical Look at Israel's Separation Strategy". In Carter, Candice C.; Kumar, Ravindra (eds.). Peace Philosophy in Action. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 49. doi:10.1057/9780230112995. ISBN 978-0-230-11299-5. as scores of historical documentation has since revealed, the Yishuv encouraged the flight or directly forced 750000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the population at the time) from their homeland in 1948 and destroyed 531 Palestinian villages

Lede[edit]

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

@Eladkarmel, regarding your reversion with edit summary "Restoring previous lead versions before deep changes made without reaching discussion. Please reach consensus before making such changes", please see Don't revert solely due to "no consensus".
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank for your careful reversion @Wafflefrites: [31]. Can you explain though why the recent changes? The first Arab-Israeli war and the 1947 civil war were both part of the 1948 Palestine war, aka both the first and civil war were responsible for the Palestinian expulsion that had occurred. But the first war mention was removed by you and moved to the following paragraph, where it seems as if the war was due to an act of aggression by neighboring Arab countries, which is not an accurate representation of history, nor an accurate summarization of body. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Makeandtoss! I put it in chronological order. First the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine happened from 30 November 1947 – 14 May 1948. If you go to the civil war page, there’s a section called “First wave of Palestinian refugees” and the Nakba infobox. And then Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948 after the civil war. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war was from 15 May 1948 - 10 March 1949 (after Israel declared independence).
This was the out of order version:
The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine triggered a civil war between the two groups, and the first Arab–Israeli War with neighboring countries, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of the mandate's predominantly Palestinian Arab population.
Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and its borders were drawn in the wake of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which saw Israel established over most of the former Mandate territory,
I think this version is confusing because it reads as though Israel declared establishment after the wars, and immediately after its declaration the armistice line borders were drawn. The armistice borders were drawn not immediately after Israel’s declaration of establishment on 14 May 1948, but after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, formally ending the war.
But you are right, both wars saw expulsion of Palestinians. And I believe you are right about the act of aggression. The Arabs didn’t see it as an act of aggression but an act of defense, while the Israelis thought otherwise.
Here is a third version:
The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine triggered a civil war between the two groups, which saw the first wave of expulsion and flight of most of the mandate's predominantly Palestinian Arab population.
Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, in an act of defense, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. During the Israeli offenses, additional Palestinians fled or were expelled. The 1949 Armistice Agreements saw Israel’s borders established over most of the former Mandate territory
What do you think? Does this fix the chronological issues, and is it representative of both sides of the war? Wafflefrites (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the issue with the chronology but this presents unnecessary details such as "first wave" and POV language such as "act of defense" and "offense". Makeandtoss (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible solution, something around:
"The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.
Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. By the first Arab-Israeli war's end in 1949, Israel was established over most of the former Mandate territory, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of its predominantly Arab population." Makeandtoss (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that’s a good solution!! Wafflefrites (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons, @DMH223344 Makeandtoss’ version is here Wafflefrites (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same issue with flight and expulsion, should probably include the 5 armies, otherwise good. (Assuming sources are fine) FortunateSons (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"in an act of defense" would violate WP:NPOV, this doesn't represent the scholarly consensus in any way.
Discussing the two waves of expulsions is too much detail for the lede. There are many things we could mention, for example the exodus of the Jewish population from the Arab countries as a result of the same conflict, but it's just not suitable for the lede. Alaexis¿question? 17:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you all work on the version that is in the section “Combined version” down below? I keep reading different things from different editors and scholars so I don’t know what is the consensus either, and I may be interpreting the scholars incorrectly. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history and scholarship are especially difficult here.
See for example the historiography section of this article.
We should probably have a whole article dedicated to the historiography of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea, there is History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, not quite the same thing, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would also help resolve the endless disputes about the historiography which take place across all related articles. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Discussing the two waves of expulsions is too much detail for the lede."
Do you mean that we shouldn't mention that the expulsion(s) happened in two waves or that we shouldn't mention the expulsion(s) in the lead at all?
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

If only it was that simple. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no consensus, more discussion will ensue, till there is. EB is not a solution, though. Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering getting an uninvolved administrator to review this and a few other recent discussions here for disruptive editing. Would I be alone in thinking that would be appropriate / a good idea? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything here that isn't the usual tbh, more focus on sourcing would certainly help. Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that to say that you consider dealing with disruptive editing in this area to be the norm or that you don't think there is any significant disruptive editing here? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are different dispute resolution processes, not sure which it is that you have in mind. And yes, this is just the usual rough and tumble in my view, although some might disagree. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your input. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "invaded" in lead[edit]

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

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

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

I suggest we update this sentence to:

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

Disagree with the full change, but partially approve of the last sentence. The invasion into the mandate is still an invasion, but yes, the degree of relative success is relevant here. Additionally, I would encourage you to add which armies (temporarily) advanced into area that is modern-day Israel, just for the sake of completeness. FortunateSons (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mobilized their armies" is still more appropriate. But I can see a case for using "invasion" to describe the Egyptian army.
Even Khalidi in this more detailed description does not mention the details of the temporary advances; I don't think its appropriate for the lead. DMH223344 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khalidi is a pro-Palestinian historian, the question for this would be what the new (and old) historians and contemporary news reporting think, which (as far as I know) is invasion. Additionally, even an invasion just into the mandate is an invasion. FortunateSons (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is Khalidi a "pro-Palestinian historian" and what do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that his work is biased and inaccurate or unreliable? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are elaboration on his political views on his wiki page, I think he is clearly considered pro-Palestinian (at least by western/english-speaking standards). He is a historian writing about I/P, therefor being a pro-Palestinian historian.
  • He is definitely biased (but so are the new/old historians), that’s not an issue per se. He seems to be well respected, but relying exclusively on a biased source in the lead to a contentious topic is not appropriate even if it is a respected source.
FortunateSons (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every human being has biases and personal opinions. Khalidi may be a "pro-Palestinian" private person, but that doesn't mean that he is a "pro-Palestinian historian", nor that his professional work is inaccurate or that it should be dismissed.
Also, no one is suggesting that we base the lead exclusively on any one source.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A historian who is a staunchly pro-Israeli private person (say: Morris, despite being pretty moderate) is not a pro-Israeli historian? FortunateSons (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss has also proposed a solution in the section above. What do you think about his version? I sort of prefer Makeandtoss’ version because your version has introduced some more details to the lead, and I think the lead is supposed to be more of a summary. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where? FortunateSons (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the section above
Possible solution, something around:
"The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.
Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. By the first Arab-Israeli war's end in 1949, Israel was established over most of the former Mandate territory, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of its predominantly Arab population." Makeandtoss (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
Are you missing the part about the other armies? That may be obvious to us, but is relevant here. FortunateSons (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so Makeandtoss hasn’t actually commented in this thread. I just pasted his comment and username down here and I think it has caused some confusion. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, makes sense. Could you link to the comment directly? I can’t seem to find it on mobile. FortunateSons (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wafflefrites (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons Can you take a look at Makeandtoss’ version. I think his is a good version that uses neutral language. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a partial improvement over this, but I think a compromise between both could be optimal here. FortunateSons (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More urgently, I would strongly encourage you to cite at least some pro-Israeli historians directly, particularly when basing the narrative on them, and not make changes about Israeli history exclusively based on historians with significant bias.
I may be scarred because of Finkelsteins “use” of quotes, but let’s use sources directly where they are either broadly supported or cited by people on the other cite, not where they are considered to be “narrow” by the cited person. FortunateSons (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would you consider "pro-Israeli" sources? The traditionalist history has been thoroughly debunked and disproven, so we shouldnt be treating such sources with the same weight as more modern understanding of history. DMH223344 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd the idea that pro-Israeli historians are not biased too. nableezy - 19:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They definitely are, which is the reason why we wouldn’t solely rely on them for something in the lead of the Palestine article either, right? Particularly when it comes to disputed facts. FortunateSons (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be cautious of the old, and directly cite the new where appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the change here is to improve the accuracy of the lead. It's not "pro" either "side". However, as Khalidi points out, the inaccuracy present in our lead is part of a traditionalist Israeli myth of origin. Which he does by citing Israeli sources. DMH223344 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus for that academically, you should have no trouble directly citing major contemporary historians on the Israeli side. If there isn’t, you can’t put it in the lead. FortunateSons (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt how this works, if you think something is incorrect then bring sources that challenge it. nableezy - 19:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word “invasion” is broadly used by the sources cited at 1948 Arab–Israeli War, for example footnote 18, 19, 22 FortunateSons (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the article itself says "entered" DMH223344 (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And calls them invading forces FortunateSons (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've refused to answer my question about what sources you consider "pro israeli". And as nableezy says, you have to support your challenge with sources. DMH223344 (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Direct citations to a few (read: multiple) new historians would be a start, otherwise reputable professors at universities in Israel or old historians FortunateSons (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of "direct citations" here other than to give me extra work?
As for your other points, bring some references to specific passages from said professors or historians then we can discuss concretely. DMH223344 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to address the wording issues in the thread below, which doesn’t use invaded per the source you provided and uses the alt wording that you suggested. Can you take a look please? Wafflefrites (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are citing a book, you can just follow that citation, it takes one minute max. I just don’t have access to any without going to the local library (or piracy), and particularly Finkelstein has a habit of poorly citing FortunateSons (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khalidi is flat out wrong about the Iraqis. They attacked and occupied Geulim which was in the Jewish part (see Morris's 1948, p. 248). Our own article about the 1948 Arab–Israeli War#Arab states says that there were Saudi and Yemeni contingents, as well as some limited action on part of the Lebanese army. The Saudis in particular were incorporated into the Egyptian army which undoubtedly invaded the Jewish part. I don't have time to examine all the sources that article is based on but they seem legit.
I'd support changing the exact number to several to resolve this issue. Alaexis¿question? 17:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Alaexis. I am good with using the exact number, “several”, just neighboring, or even listing out all the major Arab players. We could probably discuss more but I am currently waiting for Makeandtoss’ response because he was also involved with the changes to this section of the lead. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The full paragraph from morris reads:

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

which if anything supports the change I am suggesting. The Iraqis were "largely inactive" once in Samaria (of course not the area allotted to the Jewish state). As for Geulim, it doesn't change anything about my suggestion.
"there were Saudi and Yemeni contingents, as well as some limited action on part of the Lebanese army" also does not change anything about my suggestion. The Egyptian army was the only significant invading army. As morris says, the lebanese army did not cross the border. DMH223344 (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Combined version[edit]

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 [32] Fawzi Darwish Husseini, another "respected figure" and cousin of Jamal al-Husayni, "had worked with Jews to advocate a binational state". He was murdered in 1946.[33][34] Wafflefrites (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[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”. [35] 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[edit]

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 MOS:EDITORIAL and bring in other sources that disagree with the apartheid characterization 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 [36], and could probably be used as a source for the body paragraphs as well. I could help you balance the sentence. It seems like those that disagree with the label are Israel, US and other Western allies, the ADL, the European Commission. Other editors may argue that these are irrelevant and unreliable sources, however Vox (which I believe is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia) has deemed these other sources as relevant enough to reference and balance out their article on the Israel apartheid topic. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[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”[37] .
The conclusion that I came to from this reading. is that there seems to be inequality between Arabs vs others within Israel but I am not sure if it amounts to apartheid. The history of security issues is another confounding variable , not sure if I am using that term correctly, DMH223344 should be familiar with that term. That is why I asked about apartheid in Israel proper. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[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” [38]. Israeli citizens also clash with the IDF who try to secure passage for the aid.
Since the aid is going to Gaza, which is outside Israel and governed by Hamas (not Israel), I don’t think that Israeli citizens blocking aid is a related example of apartheid. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[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 [39] 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]

RFC[edit]

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

Add the Israel Name in Hebrew[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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” [40][41][42][43]

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. [44] 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.[45][46] 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 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine: the intervention of foreign forces merely internationalised the existing conflict. 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 1949 Armistice Agreements per 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 1949 Armistice Agreements per 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 declared its establishment on 14 May 1948 and the 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[edit]

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 [47]
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[edit]

@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"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 WP:FALSEBALANCE. 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. [48] 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"[edit]

@Qplb191: Palestine was part of Arab caliphates/empires and was not subject to its rule. Please self-revert unexplained changes and restore consistency in dealing with all empires that Palestine was part of per original text: "Rashidun, Umayyad, 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[edit]

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 [49]
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]
[50]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%.[51] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 @Makeandtoss for this as well because he added the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and 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]

Proposed versions discussion - March 24 2023[edit]

@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."[52]

"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."[53] 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" [54]
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 [55] 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.”[56] 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. [57] 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[edit]

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]

Categories