Talk:Israel/Archive 101

Archive 95

←

Archive 99

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

→

Archive 105

Including a sentence in the lead, covering the pogroms, persecution and Aliyah

I started a topic a week ago, but really, I put my point across very poorly. Homer noted: "Zionism isn't just the result of anti-Semitism," which is true, but it certainly was the events in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe, which were the catalyst for modern Zionist organization in the latter 19th century, and implementing action for the actual Jewish immigration to Palestine that followed. Catalyst is the key word.

What do you guys think? I'm not quite sure how to word it, but I feel it's relevant enough to Israel's history to warrant mention in the lead. It's just how to compress the pogroms, persecutions, five waves of immigration (first Aliyah is of course most relevant here) into one sentence, which is difficult. Michael0986 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Pogroms, persecutions and antisemitism would basically be the same things in a very short sentence, I also don't think it's important to highlight any Aliyah in particular. To give context to the Zionist movement, perhaps you find the rise of nationalism during this period relevant. Mawer10 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Tough one. In essence the same, sure, but different kinds of persecution throughout Europe. Not all persecutions were violent like the "pogroms" in Russian Empire, Ukraine. I would like something like, as very rough examples: "the pogroms (or persecutions) sparked modern Zionism", or "hastened the acceptance of Zionism among many Jews," or "among Jewish intellectuals" Very rough obviously. I'm not a fan of the sentence: "The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism....", there should either be a preceding sentence, or a preceding line in the same sentence on what led or forced Zionism to implement their wish for an "establishment of a Jewish homeland". Here's a quick example in a paragraph on what I'm trying to get across: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1455350 Yeah, I very much find the rise of Nationalism during this period relevant, it seems slightly downplayed in this article. Michael0986 (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel the "only democracy in the middle-east"

So the factoid that "Israel is the only democracy in the middle-east" has been squirted into the lead, which is of course blatantly incorrect as worded, given the existence of Egypt, Iraq and Turkey in the geographical Middle East. If there are further criteria here, such as the only democracy approved of by US and other Western think tanks, then this needs clarifying. The whole thing also needs supporting in the body, where it is entirely absent, per MOS:LEAD. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be a blatant lie, rather than a factoid. Dimadick (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in favour of the statement. It's true that Israel is only country rated "free" in the entire region, but that's not what the claim says (note that Lebanon is rated "partly free" so I'm not advocating changing it to "free". Probably best just to remove it. Jeppiz (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

because 1. Egypt' government in the past was toppled by a coup. 2. Democracies don't rig elections. 3 Democracies don't jail their opponents. as is in the case in Iraq and Turkey. CViB (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead balance

Original heading: In light of the UN taking two months to acknowledge the crimes committed upon Israeli civilians..

I think we better rethink what message is being conveyed in the lead, in regards to one side "violating human rights", and committing "war crimes", while no mention of the crimes committed by the other side.

I think a can of worms is being opened up in the lead guys, seriously. Because then we must present Israel's POV, and then, which side is right, which side is worse, atrocities have been committed on both sides. So my suggestion is, shorten the sentence to: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN, or we must also present Israel's POV in the lead. Because it cannot be left simply as it is. Michael0986 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The UN said Hamas committed war crimes within a day of October 7th. And of course Israel's POV on these issues would be included, namely that it denies the accusations. nableezy - 00:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

But it's only now that the mass rapes, sexual violence and mutilations are finally being acknowledged by the UN and other organizations. So it's not just one side that has committed war crimes, and crimes against humanity. That one sentence throws the balance of the lead on its head, everything else is quite neutral in the lead. Michael0986 (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The article on Hamas includes that it has launched indiscriminate rocket attacks and killed civilians, even massacred civilians. You seem to think that but they do it too should be included as a justification for war crimes. Is that what you actually think? nableezy - 04:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to compare the Wiki lead of Israel, a sovereign country with Hamas, a militant organization or political party. You need to compare it with other countries, who have been done or are accused of colonialism meaning - France, UK, Spain, Morroco, Netherlands. All of the 4 countries still control territories outside of their home sphere. France has fully integrated French Guiana (Which is in South America) into France since 1946. So let's compare Israel with the leads of such European countries. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Both are accused of ongoing war crimes whereas France and those other countries you keep pretending like this compares to is not. Sorry, but no I do not need to accept your chosen framing in which you can fill the lead of Hamas with all sorts of hysteria but decline to include soberly written facts in this one. nableezy - 12:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

France does actions that are very grievous - coups d'etats in Africa, exploiting the natural resources of West African countries under its clout, holding on to colonies... And yet the lead is wide and varied and reflects more, why? Because it is a country. Israel is a country. The UK is a country. And I don't understand your meaning by "your chosen framing in which you can fill the lead of Hamas with all sorts of hysteria but decline to include soberly written facts in this one". Homerethegreat (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right that there are multiple issues in the Lead. I think one sentence is enough. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The existing and proposed are one sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we better rethink what message is being conveyed in the lead, in regards to one side "violating human rights", and committing "war crimes", while no mention of the crimes committed by the other side. There will be an opportunity for editors to opine on this in an upcoming RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed draft RFCs

Draft RFC (selfstudier version)

Should the existing lead sentence "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians." be amended?

Option 1 Include a linked references to war crimes.

(Example "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians. criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes."

Option 2 Include linked references to war crimes and crimes against humanity

(Example "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians. criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity"

Option 3 No change to existing wording.

This draft assumes that the existing wording has consensus. Comments on the draft? Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 is better, but 'the longest military occupation in modern history' is a disposable detail in all three options. This detail would be better utilized in a sentence like "Israel's status as a democracy has been questioned due to its military occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is the longest in modern history", which is one that I would support including in the fourth paragraph. Mawer10 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to keep everyone focused. Would you be open to adding my above proposal (Israel's policies and practices within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism, with human rights organizations and United Nations officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity) as a fourth option? Understandable if you're concerned about WP:RFCBRIEF, though.

I would also change options 1 and 2 to "sustained international criticism" which was in nableezy's initial suggestion but seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Mawer10's suggestions below are good, but I think we should focus on amending this sentence and then see about migrating the occupation part to a later paragraph.

I can post my own draft RfC but having seen the chaos that unfolded in the above thread, I'm cautious of doing so. WillowCity^(talk) 16:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What I am hoping is that between possibly several drafts and comments on them, there may be a combined draft that would garner a level of support that we could go forward with. You are right that we should try to ensure that any RFC does not produce yet another no consensus as that would mean doing the whole over again. Editors can still interpose their favored views as part of any !vote even if it does not specifically appear in given options. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, I've added a proposal below that I think accommodates the existing options to some extent. WillowCity^(talk) 16:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier Why did you not put up my version?? Which says simply that we should have this instead of the Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians.:

Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN Homerethegreat (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That version is a non consensus version, in other words it dilutes the existing consensus ie what is in the lead already. It or any other version can still be called for in a !vote. Also see my revised draft version 2, that provides additional options, for example an editor can vote 2 and select none of abcd which would in effect be a call for deletion of the existing sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

We are voting on propositions for a new RFC phrase, so I'm also proposing my phrase.

Every proposition that I saw, you put forward includes the addition of wording of either adding War Crimes or Crimes Against Humanity. And I'm proposing a version which states simply: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN

Instead of the sentence: Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians Homerethegreat (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Atm, we are not voting on anything, we are discussing various draft RFCs. No RFC is going to include every sentence proposed by every editor. It is best to start from where we left off at the last RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I like Homerethegreat’s version. It should certainly be one of the options on any RfC. Dovidroth (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Or, specifically, you could !vote for option 2ab of Selfstudier's Draft 2, which would be (almost) exactly what you're describing (human rights organizations would be the only addition). WillowCity^(talk) 13:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it actually adds wording of crimes against humanity etc... And I've already said I propose a different version. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing prevents your opening an RFC for that version. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought we were working on figuring out which version to propose for RFC no? Homerethegreat (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft RFC (Mawer10 version)

Opttions:

1) mention the Palestinian territories and human rights violations

(Israel's policies and actions on the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.

2) Mention the Palestinian territories, and no mention human rights violations

(Israel's policies and actions on the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.

3) No mention of the Palestinian territories and human rights violations

(Israel's policies and actions on the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.

4) actions in and outside the territories, no mention of human rights violation

(Israel's policies and actions within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, with human rights organizations and UN officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The options assume that there is consensus to include the mention of accusations of both war crimes and crimes against humanity, and attribution of the accusations to UN officials and human rights organizations. Mawer10 (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft RfC (WillowCity version)

Should the existing lead sentence "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians." be amended?

Option 1) no change to the existing wording.

Option 2) mention the occupation, actions, and accusations of war crimes:

Israel's actions, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn sustained international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians. criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes.

Option 3) mention actions and accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, with attribution:

Israel's actions in the longest military occupation in modern history have drawn sustained international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.

Option 4) mention the practices, policies, and accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, noting the occupation, with attribution:

Israel's policies and practices within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism, with human rights organizations and UN officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

(this is an attempt to synthesize the two drafts above, with the aim of encouraging further development and synthesis. Focused comments welcome as always.) WillowCity^(talk) 16:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 should be excluded because it's vague. It mentions criticism without specifying the place (Israel itself/occupied territories) or the victims of the crimes (Palestinians/others). Mawer10 (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Your option 4 is the same as my option 4, with the only difference being that my sentence omits "sustained" and uses "actions" instead of "practices". Mawer10 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft RFC (selfstudier version 2)

Should the existing lead sentence "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians." be amended?

Option 1 No change to existing wording.

Option 2 Yes (select the parts a, b, c, d of the sentence "(a)Israel's policies have drawn international criticism,(b) with accusations by human rights organizations and UN officials(c) that it has committed war crimes (d) and crimes against humanity.")

Example: A !vote of 2bd would signify a sentence similar to "Israel is accused by human rights organizations and UN officials of crimes against humanity." Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This is clever! I support a clause-by-clause breakdown for the RfC; I'd imagine that would make it easier for the closer to assess which aspects have consensus (e.g., “there is overwhelming support for 2b, and a clear consensus for 2d, hence…”). The only question is the omission of the occupation, but that may well be too many variables (I already count something like 15 possible outcomes).

That said, it seems there may be some comprehension issues with this. Also, what if, e.g., only 2b achieves consensus? That would yield something silly and vague like "Human rights organizations and UN officials have made accusations against Israel." But maybe we just need to roll the dice and trust the process. WillowCity^(talk) 15:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This is too convoluted to result in a change. If you want an RFC, do it like this: Should the sentence Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians. be changed to any of the following options:

• Option 1 - no change
• Option 2 - Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that is has commited war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials.
• Option 3 - Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN
• Option 4 - Israel's policies and actions on the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism [for violating the human rights of Palestinians], along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials. (or whichever version Mawer actually support)
• Option 5 - whatever else has some support on this page so far.

If Mawer10 or WillowCity wants to propose a (singular) sentence to include in the options they should do so. If anybody else does, they should do so. But make this a choice between the options, and not some competing rfc proposal set. The question is how should this sentence change. The options are all of the options that have some serious chance at gaining consensus. Thats how you start an rfc that actually is focused and has better than a snowball's chance in not ending in no consensus. nableezy - 17:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No notes or proposed additions, this wording looks good to me as is. WillowCity^(talk) 17:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

We've been here before. Accusations are not convictions. Appropriate for body. Not appropriate for lede. Mistamystery (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You are free to make that argument, but there clearly are people who disagree with you and the next step is to see where consensus lies. nableezy - 02:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Mistamystery is voting for Options 1 & 3. Options 1 & 3 omit the accusations. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That's what the RfC will be for, and this is not the RfC. No one is !voting yet, we're trying to figure out what editors will be voting on when the RfC opens. Option 2 is a valid option. WillowCity^(talk) 02:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Homerethegreat (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 5 - Israel's policies and actions in the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians.

Option 6 - Israel's policies and actions in the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians. United Nations officials and human rights organizations have accused Israel of war crimes. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wh15tL3D09N Thank you for putting up more options. I'm for option 5 , I don't mind however adding that the criticism is from the UN. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you pick one, the one you support? nableezy - 21:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I have decided to abstain from voting on this next RFC. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

For option 3 - - Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN Homerethegreat (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10:, Im going to open up an RFC shortly, could you please clarify if want what is listed as option 4 included? Or if there is some other option you would like to replace it with? nableezy - 19:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Yes, I'm in favor of option 4. But leave the part "for violating the human rights of Palestinians" in square brackets, symbolizing that the editors should say whether that part should remain in the sentence. Mawer10 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Think it would be much better if you could propose a sentence and not leave added complication to the proposal by asking for a sub vote on top of that. nableezy - 21:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so goes the full sentence. Mawer10 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? With or without the bracketed part? nableezy - 22:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Without square brackets. Mawer10 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw I'd include the square-bracketed part to further differentiate it from option 1 but I don't feel strongly WillowCity^(talk) 21:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Opened the rfc below nableezy - 17:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

population number

Hey , some editors have complained about the population number. “The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs from Israeli territory to neighboring countries, over eighty percent of the total. Over the next two decades after its independence, the majority of Jews from the Arab world emigrated, fled, or were expelled, with Israel absorbing approximately 650,000 of them.”

It can be replace with “The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of most of Palestinian which led to Jewish majority in Israeli territory”

Also about Jewish immigrants from Islamic countries I think it quite absurd to cover only one immigration out of many, I also read that most of immigrants in that years wasn’t from Islamic countries they were mostly European immigrant and also from South America.

@Mawer10 @Wh15tL3D09N

@Michael0986

@Homerethegreat

What do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with omitting the numbers. Person who you may have to convince is nableezy. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The second number is incorrect, thats the problem with that sentence. But the number of Palestinians expelled I think should stay. Its that number that gave a Jewish majority, allowed for the absorption of so many immigrants, set the stage for decades of conflict, remains one of the largest issues in a resolution of that conflict. I dont really get the reason why people want to remove the number. nableezy - 15:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@nableezy first of all, you are right, the numbers of the Jewish immigration from Islamic countries are not exactly accurate, and beyond that, various sources show that there was Jewish immigration in larger numbers in these years from Eastern , Western Europe and South American countries, and beyond that, as I said, it is not possible to specify just one immigration out of many. Secondly, I think that the numbers of Palestinians who were expelled does not necessarily allow the reader to understand that as a result a Jewish majority was created, therefore in my opinion it would be correct to present "the conflict resulted the expulsion or fled of most of the Palestinians which led to Jewish majority in Israel territory" Qplb191 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The emigration/flight/expulsion of Jews from Arab and Muslim countries was influenced by the 1948-1949 war and also followed it chronologically so it makes sense to mention it in that context. The other waves of emigration are mentioned in the lede as well. I have no opinion regarding the inclusion of numbers. What makes you think that the 650k number is incorrect? Alaexis_¿question? 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources say thats the total from the Muslim world, not the Arab world. nableezy - 22:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition to that, Nableezy is right, chronologically it is a bit strange to mention the deportation of the Palestinians and then mention the Jewish immigration from Muslim countries , I also don’t think that the number are actually makes the average reader to understand that a Jewish majority was created . Qplb191 (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

But it’s impossible to cover only one immigration out of many ,the immigration that had much more influence for example Second Aliyah which led to riots and the aggravation of the conflict, beyond that a reader who is not familiar with the subject may think that the only immigration was from the islamic countries because no other immigration is specified. Qplb191 (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should not mention numbers since we will be getting into lengthy sentences etc when the body should be the one providing numbers: I therefore propose: As a result of the war, Jews and Palestinians fled or were expelled. I think that's enough. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

“In the late 19th century emerged Zionism, a movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, [prompting waves of Jewish immigrants to Palestine]. Under the British Mandate placed by the League of Nations after World War I, Jewish immigration increased considerably, leading to tensions between Jews and the Arab majority population.” We don't need to mention specific aliyahs here, Jewish immigration during the mandate is definitely the most important to Israel's creation.

@Mawer10 I think that we simply should not mention specifically the immigration from Islamic countries, as Nableezy said, the numbers are not accurate and besides, it is not possible to mention only one Jewish immigration among many, it is subject to dispute whether that Jewish immigration from Muslim country is the most important and also chronologically it does not work out. I think an appropriate wording the anyone can understand and agree on could be "the conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of most of the Palestinians which led to Jewish majority in Israel territory" what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10 @Nableezy

@Michael0986 do you support changing to “most Palestinians were expelled or fled which led to Jewish majority in Israel territory “ ? Qplb191 (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

One can easily say that what led to a Jewish majority was the migration of 1 million Jews during those years... I'm sorry, I don't think that's a good explanation since there are multiple factors :) . Hope you're not offended, I know we're all trying to do our best here, so well done for the effort! Homerethegreat (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Until 1948 there was an Arab majority in the territories of Israel, after the war there was a Jewish majority regardless of the various Aliyahs and immigration . Qplb191 (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Homerethegreat Do you support deleting the population numbers of Palestinians and Jews from Muslim countries? Qplb191 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I support the following: As a result of the war, Jews and Palestinians fled or were expelled

The various Aliyahs are integral to modern Israeli history and should be mentioned. We must focus on Israel related content. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The Soviet Aliyah should be mentioned, but not right after the sentence of 1948 but later in the paragraph. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong but as much as I understood, @Mawer10 ,@Homerethegreat@Michael0986 and @Wh15tL3D09N agreed to omitting the population number . I think that we maybe can agree on “as a result of the conflict most of the Palestinians were expelled or fled, Israel absorbed Jewish immigrants which led to Jewish majority in Israel territory” Qplb191 (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me explain: First Israel-Arab war led to expulsion and flights of Jews from Muslim world and Palestinians from Israel/Palestine/Holy Land region. Therefore simply: As a result of the war, Jews and Palestinians fled or were expelled

If you simply state that Israel absorbed Jewish immigrants it may make people think it was just immigration and not that they were refugees, holocaust survivors... etc. The 1990s Soviet Aliyah should be included later on in the paragraph. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a good and short answer. What do you think about it @Qplb191? Homerethegreat (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a bit problematic to mix two different things, In my opinion, we should mention about the Palestinians and then about the Jewish imagination. Or mention only about the Palestinians because the lead is way too long. From an objective point of view, the first and second immigration or the Soviet immigration of a million people into a country of a total of 5 million people are more important, but the lead in my opinion should be short and effective. Qplb191 (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thing is it's not exactly a linear process. Both occurrences occurred also silmotenously. Perhaps:

As a result of the war, Jews and Palestinians fled or were expelled, with Israel continuing to absorb multiple waves of Jewish immigration in the following decades. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I too would prefer to mention the Soviet Aliyah, perhaps somewhere further along? Homerethegreat (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

That is a truly absurd equivalence. Palestinians were largely expelled, a much smaller number of Jews left, not expelled, from a much wider area over a much longer time. But this sentence gives preference to the much smaller number over much longer time that fled over the much larger number over a much smaller area and much shorter time that were largely expelled. No, the first Arab-Israel war did not lead to either of those things. The expulsion of the Palestinians from Palestine largely took place prior to May 1948, during the "civil war" phase, more like an offensive by the one well-armed faction as the British looked on but whatever, not as a result of the Arab-Israeli war. That is a. completely ahistorical, and b. absurd in its weighting. nableezy - 16:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is it absurd? Palestinians left for multiple reasons, some fled, some went to other countries and waited to return (and never returned), others were told by their commanders and leaders to leave, and others were expelled by Israeli troops.

Some Jews left due to persecution (Polish pogroms, Iraq pogroms, persecution in most of the Muslim world etc.), others left for Israel for Zionist reasons. Almost no one came to Israel for economic reasons (it was a very poor country in austerity etc...).

And all this occured silmotenously, with the Jewish part occurring before, during and after. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with omitting those numbers from the lead. Maybe the numbers can be migrated to the body, if they aren’t already there? Mostly though my view is based on readability because currently we have the 700,000 Palestinians expelled and then the 260,000 Jews emigrated/expelled… reading these two juxtaposed just makes me really frustrated… is the author trying to make me do math?? I know some people are good at calculating numbers quickly in their heads, but I need my calculator and will get really frustrated. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree I don’t think that the numbers help with something only confusing. does the immigration from Muslim countries help ? I don’t think so, we maybe can just state “ most of the Palestinians were expelled or fled which led to Jewish majority” @Wh15tL3D09N at the end the lead should be short and include only the important things , the Jewish immigration from Muslim countries and all other immigration already mentioned in the body. Qplb191 (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Who said the lead should be shorter than it already is? nableezy - 23:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that most editors in here agreed that the lead should be short and effective, also that the numbers does not really helpful and could be a bit confusing.

maybe we can agree on “the conflict resulted the explosion or fled of most of the Palestinians” what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Michael0986 @Wh15tL3D09N what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I said very early on I do not. nableezy - 20:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Mawer10 do you agree with “the conflict resulted the explosion or fled of most of the Palestinians” instead of the crunnet version?Qplb191 (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I am indifferent, I have no problems with omitting numbers, I agree that they are not that important. Consensus is needed to exclude the numbers of Palestinians and Jews together, not just one of them. I oppose the following proposals:

1) “The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of most of Palestinian which led to Jewish majority in Israeli territory” 2) '"as a result of the conflict most of the Palestinians were expelled or fled, Israel absorbed Jewish immigrants which led to Jewish majority in Israel territory" And I have no problem with specifying Jewish immigration from Arab countries after mentioning the expulsion or flight of Palestinians. The current phrase in the lead is correct now, with the number 600,000. Mawer10 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10I agree with you, most of the editors here agreed that the numbers are not that important and it is better to omit them, could you please give a suggestion to a better version ? Qplb191 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10 what do you think about: “ “The conflict resulted the explosion of flight of most Palestinians,Later Israel absorbed Jewish immigrants and refugees primarily from Muslim countries” Qplb191 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The absorption of Jews was also during the war and also from Europe. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat@Mawer10 @Wh15tL3D09N I think we all agree this shouldn’t be so long and confusing what do you think about

“The conflict resulted the explosion or flight of most of Palestinians,while Israel absorbed Jewish immigrants and refugees” Qplb191 (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I am ok with having numbers in the lead, just not so many numbers!! Right now we have 700,000 Palestinians, then 150,000 within the Green Line, then 260,000 Jews, and then 650,000!!!! So I am ok with the shortened version or a shortened version with less numbers. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You are right , it’s very confusing and besides that it’s already mentioned in the body.

“The conflict resulted the explosion or flight of most of Palestinians,while Israel absorbed Jewish immigrants and refugees”

just make it less confusing and more understandable, @Mawer10@Homerethegreat @Michael0986 do you agree? Qplb191 (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think it's better than the current version. Just a small fix, expulsion, not explosion :). Homerethegreat (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

My main concern is also that during the First Arab-Israeli war, Jews were also expelled by Arab forces (From Jerusalem and Gush Etzion...). Also there were pogroms against Jews during the British Mandate prior to the war and the Jewish population was evacuated by British Forces or fled (Hebron is a famous example). Therefore perhaps it is best to say that both were expelled and fled... By the way, I appreciate your efforts to reach consensus :). Well done! Homerethegreat (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"violating the human rights of Palestinians."? Too contentious to be included in the lead.

I think that sentence should read more neutral, something along the lines of: "Israel's practices in the longest military occupation in modern history have drawn international condemnation."

Something like that that would surely suffice, without being too inflammatory. Wiki editors know about balance, bias, and such things, so no need for lectures, and debates. There already is a link for the "international condemnation" page provided in the lead. Michael0986 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

About human right violations it reached consensus and I think it should be mentioned.

but it think both of your alternatives are great ,

I personally prefer “most of the Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled” Qplb191 (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I use the Germany page as an example of a featured article with a simple lead; all the atrocities of the Holocaust, the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis against not only the Jews, but also the Romani etc, and yet the lead for Germany is incredibly concise (perhaps a bit too concise), and not overly descriptive or detailed in these barbaric matters, just a link to the Jewish Holocaust page. I'm not sure what is expected of a good lead. Maybe because Nazi Germany is now in the past, and this issue is very much in the present, emotions are strong, and it's a different matter altogether. Michael0986 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should be shorter and the summary of the existing lead is quite complicated to understand . But regarding Germany it happened in the past and today the conflict is in the present so it is quite relevant to note.

as I said I support both of the changes you suggested but not on the human right violation that reached full consensus Qplb191 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we just say Just say: As a result of the war, Jews and Palestinians fled or were expelled . Otherwise we have to list everything... Homerethegreat (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a place to mention the conflict, however I do think that the lead deals too much with it and not enough about Israel itself, not its culture (a country of refugees from the Middle East, Ethiopia, Europe... all adapting and learning a new language - Hebrew). Not enough about the economy (Transition from Socialism to Free market). Not enough about the Aliya (immigration) waves. The Soviet Aliya is not mentioned (1 million people immigrated to a 4.7 million person country if I'm not wrong)... Regarding human rights violations, it ought to be kept since there is also consensus but I think the rest needs to deal with Israel. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The more I read over the lead, the more I feel the entire sentence that reads: "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians" should be removed entirely. It may as well read: "The bad oppressing occupiers, Israel, are committing crimes against the Palestinian civilians." More or less, that seems to be what it insinuates. I'm not here to say Israel are evil, neither are you.

Should the viewpoint of the Israeli's on the matter, of why they feel the occupation is necessary also be in the lead? Where would it end? This is why, and you agree, the lead should be much more concise. Yes, it is current and hotly debated, but Wiki should always remain impartial. Michael0986 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It reached full consensus and i believe it should stay that way, but I do believe most editors will agree with your alternatives you suggested Qplb191 (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats absurd, Israel is not Germany, and the conflict with the Palestinians is among the most widely discussed topics related to Israel in the world, and as both a matter of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV it is required to be in the lead. Notable controversies about a subject belong in the lead. We also are not to say Israel is the light unto the world and cover up all the things that sources focus on. There is nothing inflammatory about the sentence except to those pretending that Israel is this flawless beacon for all humanity and anything negative about it is unwarranted hatred. Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have been repeatedly condemned by the international community. It has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity repeatedly, by the UNSC, by the UNGA, by literally all of the world's leading human rights organizations, by countless scholars. Scholars have documented its sustained violations of international law for decades. It is a defining trait of the state of Israel. And covering it up is a blatant POV-push. nableezy - 01:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The example of Germany could be a reason for eliminating the exact numbers of Palestinians expelled in 1948. Unlike current crimes and controversies, old controversies do not seem to be written in as much detail in the introduction of country articles. Particularly, I have nothing against the numbers but since everyone here wants the shortness of the text this could very well be rewritten to "The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of most of the Palestinian Arabs from Israeli territory", since most is a word that represents something between 60 and 90%. Mawer10 (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree that the human right violations need to be mentioned .

Second , since 80-90% of the Palestinians were expelled it’s need to be written “The conflict resulted the expulsion or flight of most Palestinians Arabs from Israeli territory” I believe it’s just make the lead shorter and more understandable also the way I see it , it impossible to cover only one Jewish immigration (from Islamic countries) without mention any other immigrations (which is impossible because they were so many from 1882-till now) Qplb191 (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The number of Palestinians expelled directly led to a Jewish majority in Israel, I would object to downplaying that to most. nableezy - 01:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

“most of the Palestinians were expelled or fled which lead to Jewish majority in the Israeli territories” it’s also an option , what do you think about mentioning the Jewish imagination from Islamic countries? Qplb191 (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• “The conflict resulted the expulsion or fled of most of the Palestinians which lead to Jewish majority in the Israeli territories”

• erasing the Jewish immigration from Islamic countries because some people can think that the only immigration of Jews was from Islamic countries (it’s impossible to cover only one immigration out of many in my eyes )

what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Zionism led more Jews immigrate to Palestine. Under the British, Jewish immigration increased much more, leading to tensions with the Arab majority. The UN approved a plan to divide the territory between both peoples, prompting a civil war. Israel declared independence at the end of the Mandate. In the next day, neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandate, leading to war. The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of most of the Palestinian Arabs from Israeli territory. Following its independence, Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews, primarily from Muslim countries. This seems like a pretty easy narrative to understand without numbers. Mawer10 (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, @Mawer10

It’s much more understandable . Qplb191 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitely easier to read, not so many numbers hitting the reader. Michael0986 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Think that is quite poorly written. You go from prompting a civil war to leading to war (war was already happening?) Also the sentence structure is very halting. It may be easier to understand but this isnt the Simple English Wikipedia. nableezy - 20:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The text was not supposed to be included in the article, it is just a summary of what is already present in the lead to prove my point that the numbers are not as necessary as you say they are. Mawer10 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The first Arab Israeli War resulted in the expulsion and flights of Jews and Palestinians leading to a population exchange between the Muslim world and Israel.

I think that sums it well. Following this sentence you can add that waves of aliya from Europe and Ethiopia followed in the following decades. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable summary. It doesn't cover all the details, but it's impossible to do it in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 11:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense, there were barely any expulsions of Jews, and yet you lead with that lol. nableezy - 20:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Some people clearly don't like this, but both the expulsion and the contemporary human rights violations of Palestinians by Israel are due to include in the lead in the same way human rights violations are discussed in the lead of the North Korea article. To not do so would be a failure to have a neutral point of view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that North Korea is a good example, since it's consistently ranked as having one of the worst human rights situation. On the other hand, Israel is usually ranked somewhere in the middle (see here, for example), higher than many of its neighbours (e.g., Egypt of Saudi Arabia). So while we should mention human violations we should do it in a proportionate manner. Alaexis_¿question? 11:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  To take Turkey as an example, the lede mentions the genocides committed in the early 20th century but doesn't mention plenty of other problems, like the human rights violations against the Kurds or the ongoing occupations of parts of Syria and Cyprus. Alaexis_¿question? 12:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Israel consistently ranks among the worst human rights abusers in the occupied territories. Making your comparison facile.nableezy - 20:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Can you show such a ranking? Alaexis_¿question? 22:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Freedom House discussing "Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank entails onerous physical barriers and constraints on movement, demolition of homes and other physical infrastructure, restrictions on political rights and civil liberties, and expanding Jewish settlements that are widely considered to constitute a violation of international law". 23/100, including the partial jurisdiction of the PNA. Gaza: The political rights and civil liberties of Gaza Strip residents are severely constrained. Israel’s de facto blockade of the territory, periodic military incursions, and rule-of-law violations have imposed serious hardship on the civilian population. 11/100, includes the Hamas government. Along with the human rights organizations saying Israel is actively committing a crime against humanity and several war crimes. That do it for you? nableezy - 22:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Saudi Arabia is at 8/100, Russia is at 16/100, Egypt is at 18/100, China is at 9/100. I think this reinforces my point. Alaexis_¿question? 10:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  If this were about respecting "freedom" generally you might have a point, however it is about war crimes and crimes against humanity. If those states are being accused by the UN and human rights groups for years of ongoing war crimes and crimes against humanity that should be included as well. nableezy - 19:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there is substantial place to change the lead so that it follows the usual wiki norm in other pages. Do you have suggestions? Homerethegreat (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat hey, the way I see it I believe that the lead should be defiantly shorter , I think the existing lead can be a little difficult to digest and understand for an average person who is not familiar with the subject.

for example I didn’t see lead where almost half of it is about different empire ruled the region in the past. I think that @Michael0986 gave a good example about the ancient history. Qplb191 (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think its best we follow precedents of other wiki pages of countries. Also look at other countries such as the UK or France and see how much weight is given to controversial issues. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Are either of those engaged in a military occupation for decades and accused of ongoing crimes against humanity by the world's leading human rights organizations? Didnt think so. nableezy - 20:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There are at least 7 countries that are engaged in a military occupation. Also, a country can perfectly well commit atrocities within its own territory (e.g., Uighur genocide), so being an occupier doesn't automatically mean that they are the worst. Alaexis_¿question? 22:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Military occupation of territory which is considered either disputed or occupied in international law? Homerethegreat (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we must mention the topic, however there a lot of other topics just as important that need to be mentioned in a lead of a country. The Revival of Hebrew, Socialism -> Free Market, the Great Aliyah from the former USSR, the emergence of a globalized high-tech centered economy... Homerethegreat (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

We had a much wider consensus on including the number of Palestinians expelled. Ive trimmed it slightly, but the number should remain because that number directly led to the Jewish majority in Israel proper. nableezy - 20:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Mawer10 why did you restore the contested edit? nableezy - 21:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Which one? The numbers of Jews from the Arab world or the Jewish population in the first paragraph? Mawer10 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The numbers on the expulsion of Palestinians and that entire paragraph. You didnt just revert one edit in your revert, you re-reverted my revert as well. Also why did you remove several wikilinks and change the wording in this edit? nableezy - 21:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I misread the diff. nableezy - 21:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

But also, that 650k is misleading in the context. 650k is the total number of Jews Israel absorbed total. See the source, From 1952–68 about 600,000 Jews arrived in Israel, three quarters of whom were from Arab countries and the remaining immigrants were largely from Eastern Europe. nableezy - 21:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, in addition to the source used in the article, other sources influenced my writing, I mixed everything up. The number of Jews who immigrated to Israel was about 600,000 within a period of 5 decades, not two.

1. Basri, Carole. 'The Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: An Examination of Legal Rights - A Case Study of the Human Rights Violations of Iraqi Jews.' 2002: In 1945 there were about 900,000 Jews living in the Arab world." Jews constituted a stable and historic community in these countries, dating back at least 2,500 years, centuries before the time of Muhammad. Yet, between 1948 and 1997, this Jewish population dispersed: 608,799 Jews relocated to Israel, and an additional 260,000 Jewish refugees fled to Europe and the Americas.
2. Article Jewish exodus from the Muslim world: In the 20th century, approximately 900,000 Jews migrated, fled, or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries throughout Africa and Asia. Primarily a consequence of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, the mass movement mainly transpired from 1948 to the early 1970s, with one final exodus of Iranian Jews occurring shortly after the Islamic Revolution in 1979–1980. An estimated 650,000 (72%) of these Jews resettled in Israel. Mawer10 (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Iran isnt among the Arab countries however. And you have one paragraph that talks about 1948 and the immediate expulsions, then include 50 years of immigration next to it? That makes no sense at all. nableezy - 00:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Iran is a part of the Muslim world Homerethegreat (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Im aware? Did you read the the sentence? Here, Ill help: Over the next two decades after its independence, the majority of Jews from the Arab world emigrated, fled, or were expelled, with Israel absorbing approximately 650,000 of them. Do you see the problem? And do you see the timeframe? nableezy - 16:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The source for this is probably Beker's The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees From Arab Countries which says the nine hundred thousand Jews who were forced out of Arab countries have not been refugees for many years. Most of them, about 650,000, went to Israel because it was the only country that would admit them. I don't see the contradiction. Alaexis_¿question? 22:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well pointed @Alaexis Homerethegreat (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That is a single source that doesnt cite any of its sources and conflicts with many more sources that put the number from the Arab countries much lower. And it doesnt even give a time range, so your two decades claim isnt part of that anyway. So still a contradiction, even if we were to accept this source that conflict with many more sources on numbers. nableezy - 16:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Just putting it out here that between 1948 - 1952 around 750,000 immigrated into Israel. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Not just from the muslim world but also from Europe. If we're listing populations than we should mention it as well. Many immigrants were holocaust survivors, many even fought in the first Israel-Arab war. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

In total if I'm not mistaken around 3 million Jews immigrated to Israel. Major peaks were late 1940s, early 1950s and the 1990s after the fall of the USSR. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There were too many wikilinks, a person who reads the lead can access the article Israeli settlements and find all the details about it there and eventually access the article Israeli settlements and international law. There is a recommendation on Wikipedia, at least I saw it on Portuguese Wikipedia, which recommends avoiding too many links in the introduction: especially those links that are not important for understanding the subject of the article or those links that can be accessed within the articles already linked. Mawer10 (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

A lot of editors have complained about the population numbers, maybe it's better to just state "most of the palestinians were expleted or fled which led to jewish majority in israel territory"? Qplb191 (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We had consensus for that inclusion, removing it will require a consensus for that. nableezy - 00:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That's too simple an explanation. I really think we should give more space and effort for other items of interest just as important - Socialsm -> Free market. Or revival of Hebrew language or the Great Aliya from the former USSR. These things are just as important for a reader to understand Israel. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2023

Remove link Million_years_ago (under "History" section) Wholock3 (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2023

The area now know as Israel began being called Israel in 1948 - there were people called Israelites prior. The area was not known as Israel prior. 123.208.43.24 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lewcm Talk to me! 20:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request.

The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism, a movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, during which the Jewish people began purchasing land in Palestine.

i suggest changing this The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism, a movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, which was necessary for the Jews who survived the Holocaust. During which the Jewish people began legally buying land in Palestine.

Which was necessary for the Jews who survived the Holocaust. If this is not added I am confident that this is inciting Holocaust denial. Although this may seem like a jump to some It is true.

During which the Jewish people began legally buying land in Palestine. This is a important thing to mention as it may seem like the Jewish people illegally bought the land but the deals where all legal. DMPenguinTheJewishPenguin (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please do not throw around the term "Holocaust denial". Doing so weakens its meaning. Particularly when you misuse it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Um, you realize the Holocaust was in the 20th century right? nableezy - 20:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

As a jew myself I find 03000, Ret. to be wrong. But I do not want to fight. nableezy' no this is not accurate.DMPenguinTheJewishPenguin (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

When do you think the Holocaust occured? nableezy - 21:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I AM WRONG Holocuast was 20th century. I AM ONLY 14 but MB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMPenguin (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries thanks for trying to help. nableezy - 23:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The purchase of land by Jews was not in the introduction previously; it was introduced into the text on October 14 and removed on December 1 with a valid argument, but was added again later. It would be more relevant to mention what led to the rise of Zionism, as suggested by Michael0986 earlier. Mawer10 (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I added the Jewish land purchases. That was what I learned from an old documentary I watched on YouTube on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Jews were purchasing land even before the British Mandate, the largest being the Sursock Purchase. I think the land purchases began even before the rise of Zionism though, if the wiki page on land purchases is accurate, so the current sentence isn’t accurate. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No wait, according to the Zionism page, Zionism was from 1897 to 1948, and according to the Jewish land purchase page, the land purchasing was also around this time. I can’t find the original source where I learned about Jewish land purchase but here is a documentary I was watching on YouTube at the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=shared&v=cfkUE5Q0K04 and it talks about how originally the Jews settled on the shores while the Arabs were on the hilly areas and it also says something about Jewish agriculture and at 2:22 minutes into the video it says that the Palestinians who are now in conflict with the Jews were actually newcomers to the area. There is also a quote from Rita Hauser in the video that may not sound politically correct today. I learned stuff off Wikipedia that was very different from what I was reading on Wikipedia (like the UN Partition Plan statistic of 62% which was wrong on Wikipedia for idk how many years) so that is how I ended up editing in this area in the first place. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

From what I remember almost all land purchases were legal, and most of the land were actually owned by wealthy people who sat in Lebanon. @Wh15tL3D09N do you have by any chance other sources for a bit of spare time light reading ;) ? Homerethegreat (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think also some of the wealthy people sat in Syria too... However I do not accurately recall at the moment, will need to read up a bit :). Homerethegreat (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Jewish land purchase in Palestine

Sursock Purchases

https://ismi.emory.edu/documents/Zionist%20Land%20Aquisition.pdf

“ From the early 1880s to January 1948, Zionists purchased 2 million dunams of land in Palestine or 2023.45 square km. 45 Jewish land purchased was a relatively small sum of all available registered lands in Palestine, but without those lands, no viable nucleus for the state of Israel would have been created. The lands which became the critical core for Israel were provided by Arab sellers... The land area assigned to the Jewish state by the UN Partition Resolution was 14,900 square km. Thus, Jews had purchased 13.5 % of the area that was to be designated as the ‘Jewish state.’ Further, when the Arab and Moslem states refused to accept the 1947 UN Partition resolution, which might have established both Arab and Jewish states, and instead went to war against Israel in May 1948, Zionists, now Israelis acquired more land by the end of the independence war in 1949, referred to by Palestinians and others as the nakbah (disaster). When the armistice agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors ended the war, Israel controlled 20,500 square km, and with this as the arithmetic denominator, Jews had purchased 9.8% of the land that became the state of Israel.”

Also Wikipedia:SOURCESDIFFER because the Wiki land purchase page says purchases were 5.67% of the mandate total, the Wiki UN partition page says purchases were 7%, while the above Emory document says 13.5% then 9.8%. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources! Homerethegreat (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Percent of Ashkenazi Jews?

I noticed this claim in the article doesn't seem to have a citation.

"Jews from Europe and the former Soviet Union and their descendants born in Israel, including Ashkenazi Jews, constitute approximately 50% of Jewish Israelis."

This seems to contradict the Demographics of Israel article, which puts the number at 31.8%. TIA Aaronak (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed! Zanahary (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It seem to have been changed back. My concern with the "50%" phrasing is that it inaccurately makes it sound like a majority, or at least a plurality, of Israeli Jews are Ashkenazi. In fact, according to Demographics of Israel, Ashkenazi and Soviet Jews together account for a combined 44.2% of Israeli Jews, while Mizrahi Jews account for 44.9% of Israeli Jews - a plurality. Aaronak (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe that you have misunderstood the statistics. 50% are Ashkenazic or from the USSR = 30% are Ashkenazic, excluding those Jewish immigrants from the former USSR. Dovidroth (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the Demographics article says, no. It says that 31.8% were categorized as Ashkenazic (not 30%, though excluding those from the former USSR) and 12.4% as "Soviet." That adds up to 44.2%, not 50%, so this article should not say 50%. That is, unless there's another source you are using for that number. By the numbers in the Demographics article, a plurality of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi (44.9%), not Ashkenazic (44.2%). Additionally, I think care should be taken suggesting that all Soviet Jews are Ashkenazic. Certainly those from Eastern European parts of the former Soviet Union are likely to be, but Bukharan Jews would not be Ashkenazic, for example. There were also Mizrahi Jews in Armenia and Georgia, Mountain Jews in Azerbaijan and Russia, and Georgian Jews that constitute a distinct and separate group from Ashkenazic Jews. So, your math is wrong even if all Soviet Jews were Ashkenazic, and definitely wrong considering that wasn't the case. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should present it as it says: 31.8% Ashkenazic and 12.4% Soviet. Dovidroth (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

If we do that, then we should probably state as 44.9% Mizrahi, 31.8% Ashkenazic, and 12.4% Soviet. We should probably also be including Ethiopian Jews as well. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'm not sure how necessary it is to mention the small percentage of Ethiopians, but I'll leave that up to you. Dovidroth (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Error in ‘Religion’ pie chart

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

"Israhell" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Add German an official language

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2023

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

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

21st Century history section Edit Request

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Currently, the final paragraph of the section says this:

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

I would like it to be changed to say this:

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

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

Missing space

Since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai Peninsula, and with Jordan, and more recently normalized relations with several Arab countries. However, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded.Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians.

succeeded.Israel's practices

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

Mention of the ongoing war in the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

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

Fixed that.

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

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

I want to request an edit to this arcticle

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

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

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

Inaccurate and misleading information

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

Proposal for changes in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classification of Israel’s government

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

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

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

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

"Independence from Mandatory Palestine"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BanyanClimber aside, how do reliable sources refer to the event? Without having looked into common verbiages, I think “declaration of statehood” would be accurate. Zanahary (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Which English?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English Speakers (an advanced English class most schools here have) is more BrE while normal class is more AmE. TomGoLeen (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Lede RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

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

---

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

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

!votes

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also wikipedia’s Tel aviv article says mild winters. דולב חולב (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention beginning of israeli-palestinian conflict in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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