Talk:Israel

This should be corrected

Gaza is no longer occupied by Israel, but the infobox shows it as occupied.

Parham wiki (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This is why I say that the current depiction of the map of Israeli territory is invalid. I think the current Wikipedia is not neutral at all because it does not depict the actual facts. Mahawijaya Wisnuwardhana (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Neutrality is especially important considering the situation currently, and we are talking about territory here. Xradicon (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That Gaza is considered occupied is clearly sourced in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Capital

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

---

the limited recognition as Jerusalem should be removed. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel it is a fact. All govt functions are based there.96.81.123.61 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Limited recognition means that a limited number of countries recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Only 6 countries recognise it, and two of them qualify it as West Jerusalem, so the tag is definitely valid. Whether the government functions from there or not is irrelevant to external recognition. AryKun (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Limited recognition designator with regard to the capital of Israel being Jerusalem should be removed. There are nine UN countries that officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, not six. They are: Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo, and the US (https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/22/middleeast/jerusalem-vote-united-nations-list-intl/index.html). However, this is again inconsequential as other countries do not decide where a sovereign nation can or cannot place its seat of government. "Limited recognition" here is inappropriate. That would be like Great Britain deciding to tell Ireland that Dublin could only be given "limited recognition" as multiple territories in that area have been the subject of generational armed conflicts for centuries. 141.126.64.83 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Sovereignty over Jerusalem is disputed, technically it is a Corpus separatum and there are many UN resolutions declaring any change to character of Jerusalem as illegal and void. Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You make a fair and valid argument. Too bad these biased left wing moderators and editors are unable to see past their inconsistent logic 2604:2D80:4302:5D00:180F:D46B:E8FC:1BBB (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The place were the govt functions are based and were the capital is are not automatically the same thing. For example the Capital of Netherlands is Amsterdam but the Government is in the city of The Hague. Switzerland's government is in Zürich but it doesn't have a capital. Bolivia had it's government functions based in La Paz, but the capital is Sucre. Also the UK very much recognitions Dublin as the official capital of Ireland, as far as i could find every single official UN member-country recognitions Dublin as the official capital of Ireland. Atomicegalewing (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter who recognizes it. The govt functions are there. Too much anti-semitism is being allowed on this page.2607:FB91:D7F:4B67:20B3:3087:CDD:7C91 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

proper neutrality and factual truth for encyclopedic purposes is not anti-semitism (and neither is anti-zionism but that's a different story), stop mending the definition of words to hide the truth.

it's simply true, there is limited recognition on the proclaimed capital of israel by a significant number of countries - 28 in fact - and that's worth noting in the encyclopedia, just as how it's worth noting that palestine's capital also being proclaimed jerusalem has limited recognition too - by about 55 countries - check both pages if needed, they both have 'jerusalem' with '(limited recognition)' next to it. ballads^one 22:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as the capital, it is where the National Govt is located. That is aNational Georgraphic refrence which has a lot more basis in fact than the opinion of the socalled international community. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/capital/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unselfstudier (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

International recognition is not a requirement for the capital designation. This is just more of the holding Israel to a different standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.7.174 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please show another article about a nation that has a dispute over its capital, where that nation is treated differently. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Admin note: The following user comments and debates represent Wikipedia user views and do not discuss empirical verification or cite specific issues with documented citations. Both users suggest bias but do not cite specific portions of the full entry. Contested historical events may and should be cited with competing sources, but the users do not do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MandelaKingFanon (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is not neutral

Clearly the text mainly talks about the “crimes” of Israel, I’m sure when you go to a Wikipedia page about the US you don’t see the stuff they did first thing in the article, and they did a lot. 2001:4DF4:308:3A00:C431:A077:A2BB:D2A0 (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The US page may have the wrong balance, although it certainly mentions slavery. Not mentioning the only historic use of nuclear weapons on civilian populations is a bit of an omission though. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

As usual, concerns about 'Israel's wrongdoings' are both way out of sync with the reality, scope and context of the actual situations, and they consume far, far more of its general description than wikis of dozens of countries who are truly, consistently and endemically awful human rights abusers with problems that are worse by orders of magnitude in terms of scale, brutality and normalization by sanction of policy. Wikipedia is in general a purveyor and amplifier of misinformation, division and hate, and little more. 208.98.222.25 (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

WP is not a forum for your personal opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The lack of parity with the articles for other countries is at least in part because Israel is not simply the name of a country. It is also the name of the site of significant international political turmoil and in some ways an active war zone. The idea that its representation in an encyclopedia should be identical to that of a country significantly less embroiled in conflict misses this fact. This is not just an article about the nation as a political entity. It is also about the land it claims and the things that happen there. It is also about the people that reside there and the things they have done. Anything less is deceit in the form of reductionism. ZephyrCubic (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss concerns about the United States article at its talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Don’t be dishonest. They’re identifying an inconsistency across pages. Zanahary (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

And they should go to Talk:United States to address those inconsistencies or start a broader discussion at WP:VP. Bringing up inconsistencies means little without proposals for action. Thanks for your views. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The implication is that the crimes ought to be de-emphasized in the Israel lede. Not that the U.S. article ought to have its crimes emphasized in lede. Zanahary (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would this be the correct course of action? De-emphasizing the crimes of any state is a disservice to the people who suffered them as well as to people who wish to learn about them. Sophie (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Because I am evil. I am the evil Wikipedia editor and I make changes to the project to mess with victims of state crimes. I'm covered in hair that is not mine. Zanahary (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment

The IP user is correct if they indeed identified an inconsistency in how different nations are treated with regards to crimes against humanity mentioned in the lead section. Inconsistencies between how Israel is covered and how comparable nations are covered in comparable situations, especially in the Middle East, is indeed inappropriate and constitutes a double standard, which is unacceptable. However, this alone doesn't justify either downgrading the mentions in this article or upgrading the mentions in the US article, if no consistent standard is yet defined or can be applied. To prevent this discussion from going round in circles, I suggest that

(a) editors stick to relevant policies and guidelines. If no consistent policies/guidelines exist, editors should not make up standards on the fly but discuss the problem of standards centrally, at the appropriate place in Wikipedia. The talk section of this article is not an appropriate place.

(b) all editors remind themselves that these are controversial topics, and that Wikipedia oftentimes suffers from Anglocentrism (because many sources and editors have an Anglo-centric viewpoint and bias; this includes a US bias), which means a comparison between the leads of Israel and the US or Great Britain is especially inappropriate, due to potential double-bias problems. A more apt comparison would be the lead sections of, e.g. Turkey or China.

(c) inconsistencies are pointed out specifically, with examples, in the form "page A mentions X but page B doesn't mention Y, even though these are comparable". TucanHolmes (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you strike your suggestion of antisemitism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarified my point. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing the word and replacing it with a link to an article on antisemitism is no better. I could just as well argue that the double standard is anti-Arab. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you appear to have a bone to pick. So lets pick it: I did not just [remove] the word and [replace] it with a link to an article on antisemitism, my aim is to put the IP user's issue with the article into context. So yes, the suggestion of secondary, Israel-focused antisemitism remains. That's why I immediately qualified my comment by adding point (c) to make clear that if demonstrable instances of a double standard can be found, the situation should of course be resolved; but that the discussion can and should proceed only on such a factual basis, and not on the basis of a vague "but other articles". I do not understand why you have a problem with that, and I also do not see how this is anti-Arab. I am well aware that this definition of antisemitism is also weaponized to silence criticism and critics of Israel, but that is not what's at stake here. This is about how we cover, in the lead of an encyclopedic article, the complex geopolitical history and human-rights situation (to put it mildly), as well as the current status (de jure and de facto) of the territories of Israel and Palestine, referencing the history of crimes against humanity, as well as past and present conflicts. This current conflict as a whole has a simple, evidently colonial core (resistance to Zionism), with a complex, tangled, muddied web of additional factors on top (religion, racism, imperialism, ...). This is all a lot to cover, but it is also not much more complicated than other national histories involving a lot of crimes against humanity. We should neither heighten nor downplay the c.a.h. of Israel relative to those mentioned in the article leads of other nations, because heightening them could be construed as antisemitic, just as downplaying them is rightfully construed as anti-Palestinian/Islamophobic. Israel is of course not a country just like any other country, but so is Northern Cyprus or the PRC, or Northern Ireland for that matter (no, I do not want to open that can of worms). Covering these entities and conflicts – especially in a neutral way – is never easy.

See, this is why I insisted on only discussing this issue on the basis of demonstrable instances of a double standard. Otherwise, ours are just empty words, theoretical follies, completely inconsequential, leading us nowhere, in circles. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No bone to pick. But thank you for the clarification. I still have a problem with the paragraph linked to. I'll look at that entire article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

Hey , can u please update the ethic group and population to 2023 data?

73% - Jews 21% - Arabs 6% - others Population - 9.795 Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-population-numbers-9-795-million-on-rosh-hashanah-eve/amp/ 2A06:C701:457A:CA00:E84A:68D6:AA2C:7EED (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Was done by Qplb191 on October 7. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox maps

Under the first image that shows Israel on the globe, I suggest changing the caption from "Israel within internationally recognized borders shown in dark green; Israeli-occupied territories shown in light green" to "Israel within internationally recognized borders shown in dark green; Disputed territories shown in light green", since it depicts both the areas claimed but not controlled by Israel, as well as the areas controlled by Israel and claimed by its neighbours (Palestinians and Syrians), adding the note that would explain the current status of each disputed region (West Bank partially controlled by the PNA; Golan Heights controlled by Israel but claimed by Syria; Gaza Strip controlled by Hamas and claimed by Israel). The second image that shows the map of Israel is totally irrelevant, since it shows West Bank and Gaza as disputed territories, while ignoring the Golan Heights. I suggest changing this image with File:Israel de facto territories.png, that shows the actual situation in the region, as well Israel's internationally recognized borders. CapLiber (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No, they are widely regarded as occupied territory. "Disputed territories" is a made up term used by Israel to attempt to detract from that near universal agreement that these territories are occupied. The second map shows Israel proper, it does not include the West Bank or Gaza in it. White is Israel, grey is outside of Israel. Beyond that, Israel does not even claim wither the West Bank or Gaza, and whether or not they claim the Golan, while logically obvious, has been historically left ambiguous by the state so as not to draw even more international condemnation for the unambiguous violation of international law of annexing occupied territory. nableezy - 13:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

In this case the term "disputed territories" is not chosen for some sake of neutrality, but rather to unite both the territories claimed by other states that are currently under Israeli control (Golan Heights, parts of West Bank) and territories claimed but not controlled by Israel (Gaza Strip). To call them all "occupied lands" is simply misleading as not all of them are under Israeli military control. This change is not rhetoric-driven to neither Israeli nor Palestinian side. A link to the article Israeli-occupied territories in this caption would help people who are unfamiliar with the whole thing to get a proper insight on the situation. CapLiber (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Gaza has the same status as the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan, that being Israeli-occupied. There is more dispute about that than the others, and that is laid out in the text, but Gaza remains widely considered occupied territory. See for example Amnesty International or the ICRC ("The ICRC considers Gaza to remain occupied territory on the basis that Israel still exercises key elements of authority over the strip, including over its borders (airspace, sea and land – at the exception of the border with Egypt). Even though Israel no longer maintains a permanent presence inside the Gaza Strip, it continues to be bound by certain obligations under the law of occupation that are commensurate with the degree to which it exercises control over it.") nableezy - 15:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Uh you cant just decide the sourced responses provided to you are irrelevant and insert your own POV. And yes, it is POV, you are specifically espousing the POV of Israel that these are "disputed territories". See for example here. The view that these territories are occupied is a super majority view in reliable sources, and our map shows that. nableezy - 04:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I am slightly confused, why is Israel referred to as having universal suffrage?

Can those in Gaza and the West Bank vote in Israel's elections? I think perhaps there should be some clarification here on what is meant by universal.

If they cannot vote, then I can't see how that claim is true unless you adopt a tautological approach that everyone that can vote in Israel can vote.

The British Empire never had universal suffrage, for example, even when British men and women could vote, since Indians never had seats in the British parliament. 2A02:C7C:37B8:BF00:F493:27E1:7A05:6758 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What matters is not our own interpretation of who can vote in Israel, but what independent reliable sources describe as who can vote. If the sources provided say that Israel has universal suffrage, then thats what we say. If the sources are in error, that needs to be taken up with them. If the sources are not being accurately summarized, please detail those errors. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The picture is certainly more conflicted in reliable sources than the page previously prevented, and given this, I have clarified the discussion around this and removed the wikivoice claim in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The comparison to the British Empire is flawed at best, and that actually goes to the root of the question regarding Israeli universal suffrage. Gaza and the West Bank (outside of East Jerusalem) are not considered part of Israel by either the international community (which doesn’t recognize East Jerusalem either) or Israel itself (which, outside of East Jerusalem, does not officially or legally consider the West Bank or Gaza as part of Israel itself, individual Israeli citizens’ opinions not withstanding). Israel has only annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem (international recognition of such annexations also notwithstanding). US citizens in Canada can vote in US elections, but Canadian citizens in either the Canada or the US cannot. The definition of universal suffrage regards the extension of the right to vote to the citizens of said country, and not those who are not citizens. While the Palestinian Authority has chosen to not hold elections since 2006, Palestinians were able to vote in those elections, and Israeli citizens living in the West Bank were not. Which makes sense, since those Israelis living in settlements in the West Bank were obviously Israeli citizens and not Palestinian citizens, and thus rightfully should not have been allowed to vote in Palestinian elections. This is where your comparison to the British Empire breaks down, as Britain ‘’did’m formally and legally annex those territories of the Empire, but did not extend the right to vote in those annexed territories it legally considered to be a part of the British Empire. It may seem a small difference, but it is an important one specifically for the discussion of suffrage. I would add that Arab-Israelis (Arabs who have Israeli citizenship, constituting about 1/4th of Israel’s population), including those who call themselves Palestinians, do have the right to vote in Israeli elections. They have political parties and, when winning enough votes, representatives in the Knesset. In the government immediately preceding the current one, an Arab party was even part of the ruling coalition. So, yeah, is it a sticky issue that depends very much on specific legal issues? Absolutely, but the same is true in most countries with “universal suffrage,” including the US (with issues of access to voting locations, eligible voter list purges, those convicted of felonies that have served their sentences still being extra-judicially denied the right to vote, etc). There are other topics of human rights where these specific legal principles likely do not take precedent, but in the issue of suffrage, they do. Universal suffrage is the right to vote among all citizens, not those without citizenship. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

All Israeli citizens above 18 can vote. No matter what their gender, religion, orientation etc. is... You can refer to Knesset Election Law. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

All Israeli citizens above 18 can vote. But who can become a citizen? Palestinians are not allowed to return to their homeland, despite UN declarations, and become citizens under the Law of Return. Permanent residents who are not Jewish and not already citizens cannot become citizens without swearing that it is a Jewish state. The definition of Jewish is complex under the Law or Return excluding many who believe they are Jewish but not orthodox or of mixed religions. This is not as simple as your one sentence. Hence the confusion of universal suffrage. Of course we will still go by RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: The sentence you're restoring is not "well cited" as it gives a broken link. And it misleadingly suggest that some Israelis can't vote, and introduces a fringe description of ethnocracy, while most reliable sources call Israel a democracy. I also believe that you violated the remedies by reverting me twice. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The link isn't broken. It is behind a paywall on that site. It can be found at [1] and citating literature (141 cites) can be found at [2]. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel Studies is available on JSTOR as well, which you can access through the Wikipedia Library. You can access it here if you register for the library access. The quote is on page 261 and is as follows:

settlers remain fully enfranchised Israeli citizens while their Palestinian neighbors have no voting rights and no impact on Israeli policies that control their own regions. This has somewhat changed following the Oslo agreement, although most Palestinian residents and lands in the territories are still under Israeli control to various degrees.

Also, two consecutive reverts are counted as one, so no I did not violate a thing. Read WP:EW for further explanation on what a "revert" is. nableezy - 15:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is given undue weight in the article. This is far from being a scholarly consensus, and now most of the paragraph just restates this particular article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Bald assertion with no evidence. nableezy - 20:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Undue in the sense of what exactly? The scholarly sources are insufficient? You would like to see more? The disparities raised here are widely broached in sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a due weight issue. Now the position of those who "question" whether Israel has universal suffrage has a disproportionate weight in the section. One article is definitely not sufficient. Alaexis_¿question? 06:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be an exaggeration for there to be an article on whether or not Israel has universal suffrage. A paragraph would suffice. Israeli citizens above 18 have the right to vote. Palestinians above the age of 18 have the right to vote for their own government (although there haven't been elections for several years). Homerethegreat (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The point is Israeli settlers in the West Bank get a vote on who manages the Israeli occupation of the West Bank while the Palestinians in the West Bank do not get a vote on that. nableezy - 14:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Did Israeli settlers vote in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election? As far as I am aware, they did not. That the Palestinian Authority has not held an election since then is an issue to be taken up with them. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The settlers arent governed by the PLC, Palestinians are governed by the Israeli Civil Administration, therein lies the difference. nableezy - 14:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That's quite a generalization. Hamas, as far as I am aware, governs Gaza, and at least within Area A of the West Bank, the Palestinian National Authority is the governing body. So no, you cannot make the blanket statement that "Palestinians are governed by the Israeli Civil Administration." We aren't living in 1985. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The source is talking about the West Bank, and yes all of the West Bank remains Israeli-occupied and is under the authority of the Civil Administration. Yes, the PNA has some responsibilities, ones that can and are usurped at will by the Israelis. And the source is post-Oslo. nableezy - 15:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose you need to correct several other articles here, then, because that is not what is reported on Wikipedia at all. Also, aren’t Palestinians in Gaza still, you know, Palestinians? —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a good place to start would be a paragraph at Elections in Israel about suffrage? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

All the personal opinions aside, do reliable sources say that Israel had universal suffrage or not? To the best of my knowledge, they do. Jeppiz (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The reliable source cited in the article says otherwise. Again, here (Wikipedia Library link). nableezy - 14:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Which is already in this article in the section regarding criticism of the status of universal suffrage. So... what are we discussing here? Seems NPOV is well established as the article is currently written on the topic. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Somebody removed it. Then it was restored. nableezy - 15:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

So again I ask, what are we discussing here? —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Is there no page about the current events in Israel? If there is, please ad a box on the top of this page, so people can find it, thanks. AidepikiWeerF (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

See October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict, which is linked on the Main Page in the In the news section. General Ization ^Talk 00:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. AidepikiWeerF (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Area of Israel

I get it, there are many border disputes with the neighbor country of Palestine, but i have something to ask y'all: Can somebody please correct the area of Israel from 20770-22072 sq km to 21937 sq km? Because The World Factbook says that Israel is 21937 sq km (Source: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/israel/). I know they do have some outdated info that has been updated but some parts of The World Factbook are still accurate right now. The edit will also make the area of Israel more neutral, but it's worth having an efn within it. 2601:280:5000:D2F0:A3ED:7895:E701:7D9F (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats with the Golan, which an overwhelming majority of sources do not include within Israel. We include the entire range, what is Israel proper, and what would it be including East Jerusalem and the Golan. nableezy - 03:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

doesnt really talk about how they are jewish

jewish 2600:8800:39A:6000:F88A:523B:3E03:EECC (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If by "they", you mean the residents of Israel, "they" are not exclusively Jewish. Read the article, in particular Israel#Religion. General Ization ^Talk 01:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023

There is some misinformation i want to edit Yanis-Ali (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023 (2)

I want to requesting straight-forward changes like grammar, spelling, formatting and some mistakes I found in the articles FreelancerTop1 (talk) 18:38, 8 October 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. General Ization ^Talk 19:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Time for the 'a'-word yet?

The more time that passes since the landmark reports in 2021-2022, the more remiss it feels to not mention the greatest criticism of the country in recent years (the 'a'-word) in the lead, and it seems like it would be most apt to continue on from the end of the third paragraph where it says "have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians" by specifying ", including the accusation that the state is committing the crime of apartheid." The current softballed phrasing of "drawn condemnation for violating human rights" alone is pretty much the coyest terminology possible - to the extent of being borderline euphemistic. The UK, for instance, could equally be said to have "drawn condemnation for violating human rights" vis-a-vis its treatment of refugees, etc. Drawn down to this level of vagueness, where all specifics are abandoned, almost all meaning is lost. Israel stands accused of operating an open-air prison, a litany of human rights violations and crimes against humanity - are readers meant to simply read between the lines here? The literature on the topic is now legion. Time surely, to give the most prominent specific? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a neutrality tag on the article for a while now and this is at least a part of that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering the number of times the word appears in the text and the separate article, seems reasonable to be mentioned in the lead. It will meet with stiff resistance. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: re: the wording of the RFC below. Did you see this thread and the proposed wording? Just wondering. Also, might be worth including more of the preceding sentence for context. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Just saw it and edited accordingly. Seems like this discussion is being avoided, so an RFC seems appropriate and necessary. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

the name should be changed to zionist entity Freepalestine45 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Parham wiki (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023: Lead

Change "Israel [...] is a country in West Asia." to "Israel [...] is an apartheid state in West Asia."

Another possibility is "Israel [...] is a Jewish ethnocracy in West Asia."

In particular, allowing the lead continue to call it just "a country" is not tenable. It amounts to a lie by omission. KetchupSalt (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Parham wiki (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Mental asylum

what happened to test subjects 2603:9008:1907:E0BC:F582:1CB5:AA27:6223 (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Excessive quoting in references

Refs 644 and 645 (link) have very long quotes, which look to me like they might violate copyright. We should limit them, and any others with similar concerns, to only the text needed to support the claims made in the article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR CONTIUNED WATCH / VANDILISM WATCH

Some people may vandalize this page due to the Isreali conflict. I believe it is a threat to this page. Makerofepic (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is already protected to prevent vandalism, and is monitored by probably thousands of editors. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

2,719 watchers. Check "Xtools" in Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance. Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

On 7 October 2023, Palestinians from Gaza launched a major attack on Israel.[274]

Wouldn't be more accurate if "Palestinians" is replaced by Hamas? 2A02:A210:29C1:9580:20CB:F1A8:7AE9:755B (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No, because it involved multiple groups. It could say "Hamas-led". Iskandar323 (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, agreed, Hamas-led is a valid option and describes what really happened, if replaced in the initial text, in the future, any wikipedia users, will learn what really happened. 2A02:A210:29C1:9580:20CB:F1A8:7AE9:755B (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it was poorly worded. I've tweaked the sentence. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Not neutral

In this article, it says that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory. That is not neutral. In different religions, Israel belongs to certain groups. For example, in Muslim religion it might say Israel belongs to the Palestinian people. However, in the Christian religion, Israel belongs to God’s people, the Jews. As well, it mentions the Palestinian people having their human rights violated by Israel, However, in the bible, it says that actually Israelites have been consistently attacked for being God’s people. The Egyptians had even enslaved the Jewish people. Hence the pyramids. So this is not a neutral article, unless you account both religions and change it to also acknowledge the Christian/ Jewish religion not just the Muslim. please support both sides not just the Palestinians, as this is more of an opinion rather than a fact. thank you. Caitace (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Most independent reliable sources state that Israel occcupies Palestinian territory. They also note that Israel disagrees with this view. You are free to personally feel differently, but here we summarize what independent reliable sources say. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not an article about religions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

After World War I, the allied powers assigned the Mandate for Palestine to Britain, which during the war made a declaration of support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Following World War II and the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and placing Jerusalem under international control. In the final months of the British Mandate, a civil war broke out between the Palestinian Arabs and the Yishuv, beginning the first stage of the 1948 Palestine war. The British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, and Israel declared independence that day. 69.166.116.239 (talk) 01:49, 13 October 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. lizthegrey (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

False information

Israel occupied Palestine🇵🇸 so Israel wasn't named Palestine Under the British Mandate and don't forget that not everything written Is true there can be mistakes (I will not talk about Israel and Palestine wars ect) any way......160.177.158.201 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If the sources cited in this article are not being accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors in how they are summarized. We don't claim that what is presented is the truth, only that it can be verified, see WP:TRUTH. Only you can determine what is true for you. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel delinked

@Triggerhippie4: Please help me understand this edit - you say in this edit that "countries don't have this" in reference to linking Criticism of Israel, and I'm struggling a little with the ontology of this. The criticism page clearly exists, so I assume you are saying that there is some sort of either spoken or unspoken rule that countries with dedicated criticism pages shouldn't be linked to them through criticism sections, even though that is how you normally link an obvious child article. If this is the case, I would appreciate it if you could direct me towards the policy or consensus stating this, or otherwise explain. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There are no such sections in articles about countries. The attempt to add one is an example of bias and demonization of Israel. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The statement above is not true. Other countries do have such sections, they are usually nested under (approx.) "~Politics § ~Human rights" (see e.g. the articles for China or Russia).

Having said that, a section titled "Criticism [...]" is indeed unusual, and not appropriate for the encyclopedic article of a country; countries are not works, people or entities which you can just criticize as a whole, they're not a monolith. — A state and its government (regime), its official and unofficial bodies, may be criticized, their actions may be criticized, but "criticizing" a whole people (a country and its inhabitants) is kind of weird if you think about it, and doesn't make any sense. Any criticism of an entire country seems entirely out of place, discriminatory even (since you're at that point judging an entire group by the action of individuals or subgroups).

Think about it from another angle: Criticism is often subjective, i.e. coming from a specific person or viewpoint. If we list criticism in an article or mention controversies, we attribute that criticism, and are specific, i.e. note what was criticized and for what reason, under what circumstances (context). If we examine the removed section, we find that it mainly deals with the conduct of Israel as an occupational force, as well as its conduct under international law, meaning the "Criticism" is exclusively devoted to "Government and politics". Why should we include an additional section called "Criticism" for the whole country, if only the politics and government of Israel are being criticized?

Also note that we already have a section titled "Apartheid accusations" under "Government and politics", as well as a section titled "International opinion", meaning critical voices are already present in the article. This is how "criticism" is appropriately placed in the article of a country, see also WP:CRITICISM. Any additional material which merits inclusion in the main article should be added to those sections. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Given Criticism of Israel is a clear "Criticism of X"-style child article, it seems extraordinary to not link it to its clear parent. Open to alternative suggestions as to where it can be linked. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Link should be restored, obviously. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments should hold no sway here. Besides, if other countries have criticism articles, they should likely be summarized in and linked from the parent per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Striking the above, at least for now. I did think this was just about a link, based off a misremembered diff from days ago. I don't yet have an informed opinion about the more substantive addition. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Country articles normally fallow the best approach as per WP:STRUCTURE....that is an Integrated Style Wikipedia:Criticism#Integrated throughout the article.Moxy- 22:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Right. Criticism should be integrated throughout the article; a brief skim suggests this is already the case. I don't know why this discussion is framed as being about a link, when the revert wasn't about a link, it was about a full top-level section being added (and added boldly; I checked the archives and multiple past discussions opposed it). The Criticism article is already linked in a {{See also}} hatnote under the "Government and politics" heading (I see it's been added more than a decade ago) so this reframing of the dispute as being about linking has no basis. DFlhb (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2023

Minor correction in the Economy section: "It has the highest number of billionaires in the Middle East ranked 18th." Was very likely meant to be something like "It has the highest number of billionaires in the Middle East and is ranked 18th in the world." Kab95 (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done I used even clearer wording than yours. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Does number of billionaires living in a given country meaningfully reflect or have bearing on that country's economy? I.e. the "process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought in a country or region." Do the Economy sections for other countries include the number of billionaires? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.64.121.81 (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Two things in need of fix

First, in the Legal System section:"...citing concerns about the ability of the court to remain free from political impartiality." is an OBVIOUS error! "free from impartiality"? LMFAO! Second, the Religion section fails spectacularly to mention the FACT that the basic foundational laws of Israel state it is the Jewish State. That that religion is the ONLY one directly supported by the legal system. Who can honestly argue that this factoid should be ignored when discussing religion in Israel??? 98.17.44.45 (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the "impartiality" sentence - the problem there was a function of allowing a Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement to act a source: it allowed the public relations spin to slip through the gaps. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Expulsion of Palestinians in the lead

Atbannett, please see that the lead has contained material on the expulsion of Palestinians for over a year (here, based on this discussion). You are right that it wasnt an RFC, it was a well attended discussion that ended with a consensus for inclusion and the material has been stable since. You are edit-warring it out now, along with a couple of users who have been using disingenous edit summaries. Kindly self revert and seek consensus for your change from the stable consensus version we have. nableezy - 14:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for linking. I read the previous discussion and I agree with those who said that it should be mentioned, just not in the lead. Since it's impossible to add it without the entire context, which would make it too long. It's already mentioned later on, with a lot other details. Atbannett (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You can seek consensus for that as you wish, but right now you and Eladkarmel are edit-warring and that is not an acceptable tactic to change an article. nableezy - 16:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I support a return to the status quo ante. Edit warring to re-enforce a new change to the article is disruptive, and I urge Eladkarmel to self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

As this is an article about the State of Israel, I would expect the lead to include a reference and/or quotes from the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Specifically, I agree that the tensions between the non-Jewish population and the Democratic state is a central characteristic of Israel, and should be mentioned in the lead. The following quote from the Declaration is one way of mentioning the fact that this challenge was obvious to the founders from the beginning of the State:

"WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions."

(Disclaimer: I am a "newbie" in the wikipedia world, so I apologize in advance if I have inadvertantly strayed from correct practice. Would appreciate gentle guidance) Ettig65 (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Eladkarmel are you going to self-revert your continued edit-warring without discussion or consensus? Just need to know so I can decide what would need to be reported. nableezy - 18:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Does my editing violate some rule that I don't know about? If so, of course I will revert it. Eladkarmel (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Just the general WP:EW and WP:CON rules, not a one-revert rule. But edit-warring is prohibited, and if it is not self-reverted I intend to report it. Guess we can find out if playing tag-team works or not if you want *shrug*. nableezy - 19:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Eladkarmel, it does not belong in the lead. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats cool, we can have a discussion and see where consensus goes. But as of now that is the consensus version of the article and edit-warring to change it is not acceptable. nableezy - 19:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm on Wikipedia to add knowledge, not to fight. I did a self revert. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. nableezy - 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Classy move! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

There must be some rule against the bad spirit and the hostile way nableezy interacts with users here. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the consensus for the previous version, as it's not clear from Nableezy's link. Nonetheless, it's apparent that many editors support a change in the current version. The existing content is too detailed, unfocused, and unnecessary in its depth regarding 1948 population movements. Eladkarmel, Atbannett, Lilach5, and Homerethegreat share a similar sentiment, and I agree with them on this matter. Let's collaborate to avoid hindering progress, and stay clear from stone-walling. The preferred direction for improvement couldn't be clearer. HaNagid (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No one is stone-walling or attempting to hinder progress. Just following guidelines. Your direction is not clear to me. The events a few wish to remove are at the heart of decades of problems. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The history of Israel goes beyond the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This article is not about those "decades of problems", but about the country named Israel. Focusing only on the conflict is a mistake and goes against Wikipedia's principles. Our goal is to share neutral and objective knowledge, not to correct historical wrongs. Let's focus on a balanced representation and avoid unnecessary details about population movements. We cannot talk about the 1948 movements without mentioning atrocities such as the 1936-9 revolt and the 1929 riots. Endless debates about blame and atrocities have no place here. Let's shift our focus to neutral and constructive information without getting caught up in assigning fault. The proposed version cuts through all the noise and achieves that goal seamlessly. HaNagid (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that we "focus on the conflict"? Where did I talk to "blame and atrocities"? Where did I talk to "assigning fault". Where did I talk to "correcting historical wrongs"? Accusations of stone-walling and strawmen do not contribute. The stable text talks to the formation of Israel. Rather an important part of an article on Israel. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The 1948 exodus isn't more significant than the 1929 Hebron riots, 1936-1939 pogroms, and the Al-Aqsa Intifada, all of which are excluded. There's no justification for including the 1948 exodus when these events are not covered. HaNagid (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The population movements are a huge part of the formation of the state of Israel. I'm in favor of shortening the lead history summary where possible, so who has a proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You can add me to the users you listed above. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The main issue is the need to focus the text on Israel. The text should be about Israeli history, Israel's initial socialist period, Israel integrating about 1 million refugees in its first few years... There's no mention of this at all in the summary text. One ought to expect that the article focus on Israel. In a similar sense, the summary on The State of Palestine does not mention the Jewish refugee problem, the holocaust and more Israeli topics.

It only makes sense that the article on Israel focus on Israel.

If one wishes to include more details regarding Palestinians then of course do so in the history section in the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel's entire history pivots on an expulsion event, much as Turkey's does (also with similar denial). Iskandar323 (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Who says? Israel's history pivots on a long list of events, each carrying a huge mark on its trajectory. See my below answer to Nableezy. HaNagid (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, Israelites are one of the ancient inhabitants of the Israel/Palestine territories. There is a belief they were ultimately expelled out by the Roman Empire. From Origin of the Palestinians wiki page “ During the Bronze Age, it was inhabited by the Canaanites. In the early Iron Age, the Israelites emerged as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region,” Also I read somewhere on Wiki that some of the Palestinians are also descended from Israelites. Also from the Origins of the Palestinians Wiki page, I found this “In recent years, genetic studies have demonstrated that, at least paternally, Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians are related to each other.” So there is a shared common ancestor. History of Israelites people living in the territory and there expulsions far outdates 18th century and later. However, If you want to exclude ancient history expulsions, should this article be renamed to “Israel (18th century to current)” with Ancient Israel being a separate page? Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

History of Israel is a different page. You can go haggle about ancient history and its relevance there. Israel is a modern country and its modern history begins with expulsion. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I support keeping the number of expelled Palestinians in the text, but I think using percentage data would be better: "During and after the 1948 Palestine war, more than 80% of Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled Israeli territory to neighboring Arab countries, [with around 150,000 Palestinian Arabs remaining within Israel]." As for the number of Jews who emigrated to Israel, I find the current number to be very misleading because it doesn't provide the whole picture. A vague phrase like "In the decades after its independence, Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, primarily from the Muslim world" or a more precise one like "In the X decades after its independence, Israel absorbed X thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, primarily from the Muslim world" would be more ideal. Mawer10 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The focus is on Israel, the expulsion and flight of the Palestinians formed the basis for a Jewish majority in the territory Israel would come into control of. Major works about Israel focus on those events and their foundational relevance to the topic of Israel. You want to include ancient empires that had and have nothing to do with the modern state but excuse material about its defining features, which include its conflict with the Palestinians. nableezy - 22:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Off of the top of my head, the sources that treat the removal of the Palestinians as a significant topic in the foundation of Israel, we have

• 1948 by Benny Morris - devotes substantial space to the removal of Palestinians and the barring of their return
• Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (and Revisited) by Morris - I dont think I need to be specific on how much space he devotes to the issue (all of it)
• The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappé - I dont think I need to be specific on how much space he devotes to the issue (all of it)
• Mythologies without End by Jerome Slater - devotes substantial space to the expulsion, to the concept of transfer among early Zionist and Israeli leaders, and to the denial of a right of return

These are all full length books that deal with this topic extensively and all treat it as foundational to modern Israel. Im fine with reworking how it is included if people want to work on that, but there has not been any actual justification based on anything besides personal feeling as to why the expulsion of the Palestinians should not be included. nableezy - 03:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The 1948 population movements are just one event among many that impacted Israel's history. The Second Intifada, the Yom Kippur War, the Lebanon Wars, endless waves of terror attacks, the 1977 Israeli legislative election, the 1990s post-Soviet aliyah and more have had a significant impact on Israeli history, lasting to this very day. However, these events are not included in the lead. While there are books emphasizing the importance of the 1948 movements on Israel's history, similar books and reliable sources make similar claims about each of the mentioned events. It's unclear why all of these are excluded, and only the 1948 exoduses are included, unless you approach Israel's history from a Palestinian perspective. Nevertheless, this paragraph focuses on the history of Israel, not the Palestinian viewpoint on Israel's history. HaNagid (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That’s simply assertion, not evidence or argument. Those are books on Israeli history, none written by a Palestinian, so I’m not sure how you can fairly describe them as a Palestinian viewpoint on Israel’s history. And why wouldn’t we include that viewpoint even if it were true? NPOV demands the inclusion of all significant views. Do you think the displaced are not holders of a significant view? Which of those events do sources treat as foundational to Israel? Which of those continues to reverberate to now? The right of return remains an intractable dispute. Hell, of the 2.1 million people in Gaza 1.7 million of them are Palestinian refugees. You think the dispute with Gaza isn’t relevant to the topic of Israel? nableezy - 05:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The current situation in Gaza has been shaped by a series of events, not only the 1948 exodus, but also the Egyptian occupation, the rise of anti-Semitic Islamist militant organizations, the 2005 disengagement, the violent Hamas takeover in 2007, and more. While the right of return is a disputed issue, there are many other factors not mentioned in the lead. The 1990s post-Soviet aliyah, for example, brought approx. 1 million migrants to Israel, but you still insist the Palestinian exodus in more important. Prioritizing one over many may not be justified, considering this article is focused on Israel, not the Palestinians. The proposed new paragraph mentions the conflict in general details (competing national claims, remains unsolved after progress made in the 1990s, and the human rights criticism thing). That should be more than enough. HaNagid (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that this article covers Israel in general, while all of those sources cover a narrower topic (the broadest, Mythologies without End, covers only the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts), I don't think they are ideal for determining what is WP:DUE in the lede. I would suggest using sources that cover Israel in general; one that may be indicative is Britannica; they make no mention of the expulsion in their lede. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Benny Morris is a reliable source, Pappe has been shown (by Morris himself) to make things up completely and lie in his book. He should be considered a Partisan source not WP:RS Jacker1968 (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This isnt an article in which only avowed Zionists may be cited, sorry. Pappe is an excellent source as WP:SCHOLARSHIP and what you wrote is a BLP violation. nableezy - 21:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It's evident that a consensus to add the 1948 population events no longer exists, (and there might not have been one to begin with). Seven editors (including myself, BiledMammal, TaBaZzz, Eladkarmel, Atbannett, Lilach5, and Homerethegreat) are opposing its inclusion. HaNagid (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Well you can remove yourself from that list. nableezy - 12:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It's stable content that has been in place for more than a year, and there is no consensus for its removal. You're totally welcome to launch an RFC on whether the Wikipedia community wants to affirm reflecting the facts of Israel's origins in 1948, as covered in all reliable sources on the topic, or to indulge in Nakba denial. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that from the view mentioned above, the 1948 sentences are not to be mentioned in the lead. Ovedc (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the new changes, the updated version is much more neutral and balanced. Snorka2 (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, this isn't a vote, and if it were an internal project discussion, which is still about consensus, not voting, non-WP:ECP editors such as yourself would not be able to participate. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead has to focus on Israel. The 1948 population movements are important in understanding the background of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And clearly they have to be included in the article. But this is just one issue related to Israel's history and many other important, even crucial topics, are not mentioned. For example, the Holocaust, where around 6 million jews were killed - a pivotal event for undertanding the background for the establishment of Israel - is not mentioned in the lead.

To sum up: I think the sentences about the 1948 population movements are not to be mentioned in the lead, only in the main text. GidiD (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is not "background" information. It partly began prior to the Israeli Declaration of Independence, with the likes of Plan Dalet, executed by the men who would become the senior leadership of Israel, and similar strategies continued throughout the 1948 Arab–Israeli war. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The removal of Palestinians from the territory which became Israel is foundational to the country, and must be in the lede. In the mid-19th century there were only 3% Jews in the country. By 1947 the area which was to become Israel in 1948-49 had 40% Jews (vs. 33% in the wider Mandatory Palestine), so still a minority. If it had not been for the expulsion of Palestinians, Israel would not have been a Jewish majority state when it first came into being. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It should also be made clear that the expulsion of Palestinians was the causus belli for the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The current drafting assigns blame to the Arab side for "starting" that war, so is unacceptable. Given the tragedy of what we are currently living through, it should be clear to all of us that assigning unilateral blame to either side for "starting" almost any conflict is unlikely to be NPOV. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Ive struck the comments of a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 12:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the version in which the story of the deported Arab / Palestinian population (in 1948 war) isn't in the opening of this article. Such a complicated topic deserves a long historical introduction before it is discussed- therefore I believe it should be discussed only in the history section of the article. I also find the newer version (the one that I support) more neutral and therefore more fitting to Wikipedia. Omri2424 (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The long historical introduction is at the corresponding wikilink. Integral to Israel's founding and consequently leadworthy. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not simply re-revert to the stable version, as I probably should have, but I have toned down the hagiographic material that was inserted. And I see no reason presented why the number of Palestinians forced from their homes should be removed, so I added seven to the start of the hundreds of thousands sentence. nableezy - 21:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Chief Justice Update

I request the infobox for the Chief Justice be updated to Uzi Vogelman (acting) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 20:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

Several editors are trying to make the overblown lead shorter, so I want to remind that the most recent and extensive discussion about what should be in the lead was in March and is spread across several archives: 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98, but I don't see it implemented. It should be continued from there to finally shorten the lead. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note that some of the information presented is inaccurate and liable to be misinterpreted. For example, Israel has disengaged from Gaza in 2005. Furthermore, the second paragraph seems to deal much more with the Palestinians than with Israel's development. Of course there is place to speak of the Israeli-Arab conflict, yet it doesn't define Israel.

Indeed, one must assume that the deifinig features of that era for Israelis is the transition from a Socialist Economy in which Agriculture and industry were the main economic engines into a Free Market economy in which the Service sector and High Tech industry now play the major role.

Furthermore, I find it astounding there is no mention the Great Aliya/immigration from the former Soviet Union into Israel, another defining moment.

I therefore must insist that the lead is not ample and unbefitting and does not reflect or teach one regarding Israel's development. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip is still considered occupied territory under international law, so this is irrelevant. Perhaps a note on Gaza's disputed status could be included in the text, but I don't see that as so important. Mawer10 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Creating consensus

“ Israel is located in the southern part of the Levant, a region known as Palestine – the biblical Land of Israel or Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea. The region was conquered by many regional powers before coming under Roman rule, during which Jews became a minority in Palestine. In the medieval era, the Arab conquest established caliphal rule. The region was contested during the Crusades, but returned to Muslim control and remained so until the Ottoman defeat in World War I. After that, it was placed under British mandate by the League of Nations. In the late 19th century emerged Zionism, a movement advocating for the reestablishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Under the British, Jewish immigration to the region increased considerably, leading to tensions between Jews and the Arab majority population. After World War II and the Holocaust, Britain turned to the United Nations, which in 1947 recommended the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states, sparking a civil war between the two peoples. The British ended the Mandate on 14 May 1948, and on the same day Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence.

On 15 May, rejecting the partition plan, armies of neighboring Arab states began entering the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The war concluded with an armistice in 1949 leaving Israel in control of more territory than the partition plan had called for, and no new independent Arab state was created as the rest of the former Mandate territory were occupied by Egypt and Jordan, respectively the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The conflict resulted in the expulsion or flight of over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs from Israeli territory to neighboring countries, leaving fewer than 150,000 within Israel. Over the next two decades, Israel absorbed approximately one million Jews who emigrated or fled, primarily from the Arab world and Europe. Despite a rapid population increase, Israel managed to survive and consolidate its territory and economy. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has established settlements in the occupied territories and annexed both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, actions the international community rejected as illegal. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalized relations with several Arab countries, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved as peace efforts have failed. The Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories is the longest in modern history and has drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians.

”

I propose adding the text above to the introduction. Excluding notes, hyperlinks, and references, it has 2,862 bytes compared to the previous version's 3,273 bytes. I've highlighted some points in the text that could potentially be discussed. As for the information it provides, I considered inputs made in the article's edits and on this discussion page. Mawer10 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The Balfour Declaration need to be brought up as well, in my opinion. Leaving it at "Under the British..." is too vague IMO. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

After that, the League of Nations assigned the Mandate for Palestine to Britain, which declared its support for the reestablishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. The declaration aligned with the goal advocated by the Zionist movement, which had emerged in the 19th century. Under the British, Jewish immigration to the region increased considerably, leading to tensions between Jews and the Arab majority population. Good this way? Mawer10 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10: Apologies for the delayed answer. Yes, sounds good to me. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment on apartheid charges

Is this additional sentence in bold to be added to the lede an accurate summarization to the body's apartheid section?

Main argument for its inclusion, MOS:LEDE: lede is a summary of the body, including any prominent controversies.

"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) 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Warning for closing editor users with pro-Israel viewpoints have been canvassed en masse to this RFC specifically. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If the sentence is preceded by "have drawn international condemnation for," then it would be poorly phrased because it might suggest that the international community (i.e., international organizations like the UN and a significant number of countries, especially important ones) has accused Israel of this crime. I could be wrong, but as far I know, this is not yet the case. Mawer10 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mawer10: I understand and sympathize with your point; and thus have removed "international" to make it less restrictive. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree with @Mistamystery 1000%. EytanMelech (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose An accusation doth not a crime make. Appropriate for the body, not the lede. The current “international condemnation” line is sufficient and neutral to the point. The apartheid accusation has plenty of territory in the body of the article, and on other articles focused on the topic. Wholly inappropriate imo to put in the lede. Mistamystery (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We already had an RFC about this less than six months ago and the result was not to include the apartheid accusation in lead. If you want to change that, you need to wait and then start another RFC on the same subject, although I think it was pretty clear the general consensus was against it and there's no reason to believe it has changed since then. Dovidroth (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, that RFC was never even closed, so I'm not quite sure how you are determining consensus there. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Plus this is a different phrasing. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That there is "plenty of territory in the body", as noted above, is the principal reason why, as noted below by O3000, it should be in the lead, which is expressly a summary of the contents of the body, per MOS:LEAD. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: This is 100% the single-most notable claim and controversy regarding Israel at this point in time. It is such a notable complaint that the Israel and apartheid page is overflowing with content. There is also ample reference to it here, on this page, in the summary of the child article. Following the most basic principle of proportionality and what is due in the lead based on the contents of the page, per MOS:LEAD, the 200 words on apartheid on the page account for roughly 1.2% of the total volume of readable prose on the page, which would be equivalent to 8 words of the 660 words in the lead, which is not far off what is being requested. And again, that is before one even considers the notability of the controversy in question and the 12,000 words on the child article. Notable controversies are to be included in the lead, per MOS:LEAD, and this is obviously a notable controversy. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Without the context of the peace negotiations that started in the 70s, peace treaties with neighboring countries, various agreements, and a multitude of offers and suggestions - the term "longest" is a misinterpretation and even misleading the thought of the reader. I may also be perceived as a bias that violates the NPOV and erode the trust of the readers to receive a well rounded picture.
2. Palestinians and other that don't allowing Jews into the Jewish historical Holy Lands is in deed a Palestinian Apartheid against Jews, which is worse than the definition at the article Apartheid as a system of institutionalised racial segregation, but still even more worse when Jews are posed with danger of life in Palestinian areas. Nothing like that exists in Israel, neither the sovereign Israel nor internationally accepted boundaries of Israel, or any other definition you'll come up with.

TaBaZzz (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What is your source for Palestinian Apartheid against Jews? O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

None of what you said negates the main argument; that the lede is a summary of body including any prominent controversies. "Palestinian Apartheid against Jews" is unsourced. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. I oppose both the wording of the sentence as you suggested it for the lede, and the inclusion of the said details in the body. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose.

1. A disproportionate amount of the lead section is already devoted to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which does not provide a balanced overview of the state. Israel, as a nation, encompasses much more than this conflict, and it is essential that the lead reflects a more holistic representation of the country. While it's undeniable that the conflict is a significant aspect of Israel's current situation, and the lead has ample coverage of this notable controversy, there are myriad other facets of the nation that should be elaborated upon to provide a well-rounded introduction.
2. The suggestion to feature accusations of apartheid against Israel in the lead, which remain as yet unproven allegations, are essentially used as no more than a pejorative and derogatory term. For a balanced portrayal, it is imperative to provide due weight to other dimensions of Israel's geopolitical, cultural, and societal landscape.
3. Moreover, a comparative analysis with other articles such as USA and UK, where similar accusations of imperialism and state-sponsored terrorism respectively, have been made, yet are not featured in the lead sections of their articles, underscores a potential inconsistency in editorial approach. This inconsistency may inadvertently lead to a biased representation, which is against the principles of a neutral point of view as stipulated by our guidelines.
4. Other, reputable sources such as Britannica [3] and CIA world factbook [4] do not use the word 'Apartheid', and for a good reason.

Marokwitz (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Google Israel in any given year and you will find nothing but articles on the conflict, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Actually, they are not accusations, but I have included this as a concession, these are reports that have conclusive findings after decades of research. When USA and UK have sections dedicated for imperialism and state-sponsored terrorism, you will find it in the lede, since the lede, is simply a summary of the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Support Something in the lead, per WP:LEAD, to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies", that this is a prominent controversy is not in any doubt, this RFC notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - @Marokwitz makes very fair points. I'd advise to read them. Indeed, one must pay attention to how major trusted encyclopedias such as Britannica and the CIA world factbook refer to this topic. They indeed DO NOT use the word Apartheid.

Most countries, especially countries recognized as Free and democratic do not accept or claim that Apartheid is happening in Israel. Furthermore, other countries with discriminatory practices towards minorities such as China, Russia, India etc. do not have Apartheid in their lead.

Furthermore, countries with well known discrimination against minorities such as Iran, Turkey, Iraq (against Christians, Kurds... etc.) do not have Apartheid in their lead.

Therefore, it seems only logical that Israel which most countries (especially democratic countries that adhere to human rights) do not claim that Apartheid is occurring there should not have in its lead the word Apartheid.

On discrimination and Racism in international indexes such as [5] ,[6],

Let's be as professional as possible on this topic and act in accordance to for example: Freedom House, or follow the lead of Britannica and the CIA World Factbook. I must say that this is incredibly important in order to ensure that Wikipedia remains a trusted encyclopedia.

I recommend reading the Freedom House Report [7] Homerethegreat (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion here is about whether this statement in the lede reflects the body content accurately. Your arguments revolve how apartheid in Israel, which has a dedicated Wikipedia article Israel and apartheid, doesn't exist. You are fighting problems irrelevant to this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read once again my comments. I'm ascertaining that in accordance to rankings regarding discrimination against minorities Israel does not rank in a place that is reflective of the need of the use of this terminology. One would expect this word to first be brought up in regards to discrimination against Christians in several Muslim countries, discrimination against the Uyghur Muslims by China etc.

Please refer to international data. I believe that FREEDOM HOUSE is far a better expert on Freedom than most of the panel here and therefore I refer you to read their passage. There is no use of the word Apartheid. Please refer to BRITTANICA etc. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Freedom House is funded by the US state department and is nowhere near to be as reliable or comparable to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations. You're arguing against existence of apartheid, which is not the main discussion here about how accurately this sentence in the lede reflects the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

To put things in perspective, Gal Ariely (2021). Israel’s Regime Untangled:Between Democracy and Apartheid. Cambridge University Press. gives a full description of the competing descriptions of the Israeli regime on page 1 of Chapter 1 "Israel has often been considered and classified as a democracy. In his classic study Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries, Lijphart (1984) included Israel in the category of “clear and unquestionable cases of democracy” (38). Ever since then, however, scholars from a range of disciplines – sociology, geography, philosophy, history, and political science – have been challenging Israel’s status as a democracy. While many still regard Israel a democracy (see Arian et al. 2003; Neuberger 2000; Yakobson and Rubinstein 2009), some have questioned the verity of this classification, suggesting that Israel is an “ethnocracy” (Yiftachel 2006), a “herrenvolk democracy”(Benvenisti 1988), or an “apartheid regime” (Davis 2003; Greenstein 2012; Pappé 2015). Between the two poles of democracy and non-democracy, others have classified Israel as a type of diminished democracy, labeling it an“ethnic democracy” (Smooha 1990), “illiberal democracy” (Peleg 2007), “hybrid regime” (Harel-Shalev and Peleg 2014), “Orthodemocracy” (Giommoni 2013), or a “theocratic democracy” (Ben-Yehuda 2010)." So the naysayers were on the rise when this book was written and which is prior to the HR/Amnesty and other reports of recent date. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

But that's just it, there's massive disagreement, as you yourself have pointed out. The case is enough to have mention in the article, but that level of massive disagreement, doesn't pass the level for lede inclusion. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said below, if one believes Israel is a democracy, there is nothing further to be said. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

First, that's not what you said below, second, you literally cited other sources yourself saying that it is a democracy, so clearly there is disagreement with your viewpoint on that. Are you sure that you have the objectivity to be part of this discussion? You seem to be making this about me as an editor and not about the topic of the article. I would again ask you to strike your comment. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDYOU Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

{{{1}}}

I have cited sources and policy, I see nothing wrong with that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You have no cited sources in the diffs I just showed you, and you violated the very policies that you are claiming. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, the first convo I initiated was with a source and the second with a quote from policy. Downhill from there. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Cite the source saying that I personally do not believe this to be a prominent controversy. Otherwise, strike the comment that you yourself have said was at least "perhaps" a misunderstanding of what I said. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that you do believe it to be a prominent controversy? It would be good to have an answer to my question, although it's not obligatory. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the first point raised by Marokwitz. I would argue that the status of Arabs in Israel itself is more prominent for the introduction than the accusation of apartheid, which is widely used to refer to the status of Palestinians in the occupied territories. The introduction already informs that their human rights are violated and settlements are being built on their land. Israel's status as a Jewish ethnocracy essentially relegates 20% of its citizens to second-class status. Mawer10 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and Close the request. This RfC was already conducted less than a year ago: Talk:Israel/Archive 97. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  A discussion that closed with no consensus regarding any specific wording. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  That was the same RfC, asking if the lead should include accusations of apartheid, and the conclusion was no. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to the international and accepted definition of Israel's governance, which is a Unitary parliamentary republic and recognized as free by Freedom House.[8] The use of the word Jewish ethnocracy reflects a POV. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not a particularly unusual or even minority POV; it is essentially the same thing as saying "Israel is a racist state", which has been a popular conclusion ever since the voting in of the extremely widely decried as bigoted Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, so much so that the US House felt compelled to counter it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Highly disputed accusation by partisan sources. No other country currently accused of apartheid has such a thing in lead. Dovidroth (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: And exactly how many of those other countries have a dedicated, substantive page on said apartheid accusations akin to Israel and apartheid - apart from the whataboutism of this, it's apples and oranges. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

China has some pretty lengthy sections of article text on their treatment of Uyghurs, but it is not mentioned in the article lead. Considering that China is accused of setting up internment camps with up to a million people in them, and credible accusations of organized forced sterilization, sexual abuse, and forced labor, yet none of this is in the article lead, I don't think this is entirely "whataboutism." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If you think that's a prominent controversy that ought to be mentioned in the China article, then go edit that article. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article. It just isn't mentioned in the lede. Possibly due to the similar issues we have here over how contentious the accusations are on an international level. I'm not calling for removal of content here anymore than I am there. I'm opposing a change being made here. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposing a change being made here Based on the China article. Which is not an argument about whether something should be in the lead here. Do you agree that it is a "prominent controversy"? Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Enough to be mentioned in the article, but too contentious and overly partisan to put in the lede, which elevates it to a more defining quality of the state itself. I do not find it universally accepted anywhere near enough to do that, no. Thus, I am not calling for its removal from the article, but opposing it being put in the lede, which is a similar treatment being done in other articles with prominent controversies. To use the China article again as an example, the events of Tienanmen Square in 1989 are mentioned in the lede, and outside of China itself, are near universally recognized to have happened as described by the international community. The same cannot be said here for this article. WP:WHATABOUTISM does not mean that we cannot use other articles to illustrate a point that we are trying to make. I'm making an argument about the issue here, and using another article as an example point, but not as a precedent. To quote, "...an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."--OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If you don't agree that it is a prominent controversy, there is nothing more to say. Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

That's an outright dishonest characterization of what I said, and I would ask you to strike your comment. Literally my first seven words in the post you just responded to call out your response as dishonest, false, and bordering on WP:NPA. Assume good faith, and that people are responding to you honestly, and do not lie about what they have said. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I asked a straightforward question, Do you agree that it is a "prominent controversy"? and the reply indicates not. Perhaps I misunderstood. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how an answer of "enough to be mentioned in the article" can possibly be construed as saying "no, not at all." Furthermore, you are making this about me as an editor and not the topic being discussed or how it is characterized among reliable sources and international acceptance. I am asking you again to strike your comment. You did not "perhaps" misunderstand. Whether intentional or not, you have twice now made defamatory comments directed at me. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, WP:AVOIDYOU. Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Then sue them for defamation in a real world court or take them to a noticeboard. This is not the venue to be making vague legal threats in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support Many organizations/countries vociferously claim apartheid and many vociferously deny. That makes it a prominent controversy that belongs in an article summary. One of the arguments here opposing is The apartheid accusation has plenty of territory in the body of the article, and on other articles focused on the topic. Wholly inappropriate imo to put in the lede. That would seem to be an argument supporting inclusion in a summary, not exclusion. Kinda like saying there is so much text in the cows article about cows that there is no need to mention cows in its lead. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support, per Iskandar323--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some good arguments have been made before (there was a recent RfC, general state of human rights in Israel, other countries that are accused of apartheid not having it in the lede). There is no reason to single out this particular accusation of human rights violation. Consider China, despite the accusations of apartheid against the Uighurs, we (rightly) only mention the overall state of human rights in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Again, the case of the Uyghurs is a red herring. The famous accusation there is of a Uyghur genocide, not apartheid. There is not a 12,000-word page about Uyghur apartheid akin to Israel and apartheid. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Besides the fact it is whataboutism. Different articles are different O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, the lead for China does mention the man-made Great Chinese Famine, and it should mention Uyghur genocide very briefly.VR _talk 11:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The accusations of apartheid are based in legal and technical language, but they also carry strong echoes of the South African apartheid. While there are similarities between the Israeli and South African situations, there's a distinct context to be recognized. Given the need for a better contextualization, it appears more appropriate to keep these accusations in the main body of the article. In fact, these accusations primarily pertain to the situation of Palestinians in the occupied territories, not Israel proper, within the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At this point, the privileged status of Jews in Israel proper that led the country being accused of ethnocracy seems more relevant to add in the introduction, which gives to the reader a better understanding of the country and an initial insight for why is it being accused of apartheid. Mawer10 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The actual conflict is already given prominence (probably excessively) in the lede and highlighting these particular politically motivated charges that are part of the propaganda campaign to delegitimized Israel as part of this conflict would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Note that no other country facing allegations of apartheid, however, substantial it may be, mentions this accusation in the article's introduction (see Allegations of apartheid by country -- China, Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the United States; it is of course, mentioned in the lede of the South Africa article, where it is undisputedly recognized as having been practiced, i.e. isn't only an accusation,). Chefallen (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  No other country has a page like the 12,000-word "Israel and apartheid". Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Most of the countries you list do have their most serious allegations in the lead. For example, the lead for Sudan says "widespread human rights abuses, including torture, persecution of minorities, alleged sponsorship global terrorism, and ethnic genocide in Darfur from 2003–2020. Overall, the regime killed an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 people." The lead for United States mentions its slavery. North Korea's lead says "The country is widely considered to have the worst human rights record in the world."VR _talk 11:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Weasel words and unbalanced. Ar2332 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  From MOS:WEASEL: "[so-called weasel words] may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." WillowCity^(talk) 00:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I would oppose if more words than this were being proposed or if it were inserted in an unduly prominent place in the lead, but this is a concise and due summary; I don't see the problem. We are not saying in our voice that the allegation is correct, but simply relaying an important debate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is a prominent area of controversy and relevant to any encyclopedic discussion of Israel in 2023. At the time of writing this comment, the body of the article includes the word "apartheid" 7 times: approximately the same number as "Canaan", and more times than "OECD" and variations of "normalize" (i.e., normalization of relations with Arab states), all of which are mentioned in the lead. The MOS:LEAD is clear: we include "any prominent controversies". A single clause in a single sentence is not undue. The proposed sentence does not pass judgment, but points out an accusation and presages further discussion (i.e., exactly what the lead is supposed to do). I could continue to reiterate points that other editors have made (more eloquently) above, but I think the point is made. WillowCity^(talk) 00:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. MOS:LEAD is cited heavily as supporting the inclusion of controversies, but my response is that the particular sentence is footnoted with do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. The salient issue here for the closer is whether or not this particular accusation is prominent. I don't believe it is. No other major encyclopedia treats the "apartheid" accusation as prominent enough to include in their own leads. This is important, because the closer shouldn't be judging what controversies are prominent based on secondary sources, they should be judging based on tertiary sources. Tertiary sources are the only kind of sources that evaluate the relative prominence of different subtopics to a broader one, as they summarize the agreements/disagreements within a broad field. Right now, the only tertiary sources given (Britannica, World Factbook, Freedom House) don't consider the specific accusation of apartheid to be relevant. United Nations resolutions are primary sources, by the way. And Amnesty Intl believes in the destruction of the Jewish state. [9] It's a pressure group with an ulterior motive. Not a reliable source.

I should also point out that this isn't any kind of accusation. The crime of apartheid is defined by the accusers as a crime against humanity. We can and should compare this case to other cases in which a country was accused of crimes against humanity. This is something done by other oppose !voters, and all of the other examples do not have specific criminal accusations levied against them in the lede. "Genocide" is not mentioned in our articles on Myanmar or China. The subject of racial tensions is not even mentioned in the lede of our article on the United States. No mention of segregation in the United States. Adopting the proposal above would be applying a standard to Israel that no other country in the world is currently subjected to on Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hard to see how the topic here is a "less important controversy". The point about tertiary sources might have seemed reasonable, if it hadn't been followed up by the attempt to smear Amnesty, when what the director in question actually said is that Israel shouldn't exist as a racist state, in the context of it's passing of a racist nation state law, which, ironically, is one of the very things that has helped cement its status as an apartheid state. And then we have the usual whataboutism. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Bold take that doesn't change the fact that Amnesty international is a non-neutral pressure group which has been confirmed at RfCs at WP:RSN (global consensus!). [10] Even if you agree with their goals about Israel (your opinions that Israel's nation-state law makes it an apartheid state is irrelevant), they're still an active party to the dispute over Israel being an apartheid state. They don't get to decide that their own opinions are prominent by the word & intention of the policy. That has to be done by neutral tertiary sources. You've more or less acknowledged "tertiary sources" is a reasonable standard because your only justification as to why it isn't is because I supposedly smeared Amnesty as in your view Israel really is an apartheid state.

And "whataboutism" doesn't apply to extracting principles from quality articles on Wikipedia. The amazing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains better than I can that comparisons are valid when made with articles that have been through previous discussions, because it gives an understanding of what principles most of the encyclopedia run under. Not every recent controversy is important enough to include in the lede of an article about a nation with a 2000+ year history. The use of the word "apartheid" is a relatively minor segment of the overall debate over Israel, given our dozens of articles on the broad subject of the Israel-Palestine conflict. [11]

If you want a better compromise I would propose to include something like how Israel is defined as a nation-state for the Jewish people. That's something Britannica acknowledges in their lede, and in your view has helped cement its status as an apartheid state. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Are we reading the same RFC at RSN and the global consensus that Amnesty is indeed a generally reliable source but also that it is biased against human rights abuses? And no, the crime of apartheid is not defined by its accusers as anything, it is defined by the Rome statute as a crime against humanity. That phrase seems to engender an emotional response, but it is just a class of crimes under international law. And no, Amnesty is not an active party to anything, they are definitionaly secondary to what they are reporting on. Amnesty International "believes in the destruction of the Jewish state"? Wow lol, hell of an interpretation of ‘No I don’t believe that Israel should be preserved as a state in which one race is legally entitled to oppress another’. That sort of hysterical and nonsensical reading of a comment opposed to racial subjugation doesnt make your argument stronger. nableezy - 00:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Go read comments at the RfC and you'll see plenty of people other than yourself calling it an advocacy organization. And he pretty clearly said in representing Amnesty's views that We are opposed to the idea — and this, I think, is an existential part of the debate — that Israel should be preserved as a state for the Jewish people. As an advocacy organization, it advocates that Israel is bad and shouldn't exist as a Jewish state. They have a point of view. They don't get to decide that their own point of view is prominent. They're the people who put out a report calling Israel an apartheid state. Using that report (or any books on why Israel is an apartheid state) as evidence the controversy is "prominent" is circular reasoning. You need to provide sources that give a broad overview of Israel and acknowledge prominently the apartheid controversy.

I think your comment would be better if you said why we shouldn't focus on tertiary sources, rather than zeroing in on Amnesty Intl and calling my comment "hysterical and nonsensical". I would like to know if you agree with emphasizing tertiary sources.

In response to what you said about whether or not apartheid is a crime against humanity, you haven't really addressed the actual point I've made which is whether or not we should compare it against other allegations of crimes against humanity. If apartheid is on the same level as genocide we should look to examples of other countries with high quality articles that have been accused of genocide and check if they include this material in their lede. Our article on Canada doesn't mention genocide of the indigenous in the lede despite being a featured article. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they advocate for human rights. And yes, they are generally reliable. Your own source says O’Brien reportedly said in a luncheon with the Women’s National Democratic Club in Washington and then says My exact words were as follows: ‘No I don’t believe that Israel should be preserved as a state in which one race is legally entitled to oppress another’ and The rights group official added, “Amnesty supports the right of the Jewish people and Palestinian people to self-determination.” You can keep pretending like the source actually supports what you claim, but that is not true, and people should know it is not true. Yes, Amnesty criticizes human rights violations by Israel (gasp!). That does not make them a primary source on those human rights violations, they remain secondary to what they are covering (and reliable). You can pretend that means it advocates that Israel is bad, but that is likewise not true and people should know it is not true. Our article on Canada, or the United States, or Japan, are largely hagiographies that dont discuss things that they should, but also Canada is not accused of actively committing genocide or any other crime against humanity. So, no, that isnt anywhere close to analogous. You could say China or Myanmar or some other states accused of active crimes against humanity, but, as always, another article's faults dont mean this one should be poorly written as well. As for why we should not be emphasizing tertiary sources, well because WP:SOURCETYPES tells us we should prefer secondary sources. We are the tertiary source, or task is (largely) to summarize the secondary sources. nableezy - 00:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of fabricating the quote in [12] there's not a lot more I can say. He denied he said it, but anyone can click the article and see that exact quote in the third sentence.

Re: Canada, a govt inquiry concluded that Canada committed genocide. [13] Go read WP:OSE (which you linked) and you'll see that comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case. Canada is an FA. Canadian Indian residential school system is an FA. The Canadian House of Commons unanimously agreed that system was genocide. I'd like to know why this isn't analogous, because it's a controversy not included in Canada's lede.

In terms of emphasizing tertiary sources, those are the sources that determine if a controversy detailed in secondary sources is prominent. I can find hundreds of secondary sources on almost any aspect of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's our task to summarize secondary sources, but when the summarization itself is controversial, shouldn't we be following reliable tertiary sources that know more about summarizing secondary sources? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, anybody can, and they can see that the source only says that he reportedly said this, not that he did. And beyond that, so what? So what if somebody does not believe in an ethnocracy? Why is that relevant? Its misdirection, an ad hominem, and also completely irrelevant. As far as Canada, I believe you missed the point. Nobody is accusing Canada of actively committing genocide now. It is history, not present tense. So it is not analogous to this accusation of what not just Amnesty but HRW and Btselem and UN agencies and experts and scholars and and and have said about an ongoing crime against humanity being committed in the present tense. And no, your bit on tertiary sources is simply not true. You dont know Britannica's, or any other tertiary source, editorial policies on these topics, and you also are not in a position to judge its own biases. We aim to proportionally describe significant views as our editorial policy, not mimic some other tertiary source. nableezy - 01:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree entirely with nableezy. Canada is not relevant, nor other examples of bad behavior in past history. Different articles are about different things. Older tertiary sources are not summarizing recent secondary sources and we prefer secondary sources anyhow. Amnesty is considered generally reliable for facts. It is an excellent source for such determinations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Since pretty much everybody considers the nation state law a racist piece of legislation, that would be correct, I could certainly find sources saying as much. Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the reader should decide that, and that it's possible to develop a vague/inconclusive wording that acknowledges the law and controversy over Israel being a Jewish state. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. We're not saying it in the article voice; we're saying that it is an accusation people make (which is detailed in more depth in the body, so it isn't weasel wording.) And it certainly is an accusation people make, so the only question is whether it is WP:DUE for the lead. Given the massive amount of high-quality sourcing over an extended period of time, it plainly is; WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY also says that the significant coverage in the body has to be reflected in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as unbalanced and singling out Israel unfairly and in a non-neutral manner. This proposal is raised here by the same actors and has been rejected here before. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• I prefer something like 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. I see no reason why this specific crime against humanity should be emphasized over other violations of international law, such as the settlements, the wall, the blockade of Gaza, the collective punishment, the restrictions on Palestinian fishermen, and yes the apartheid. All of those have drawn sustained international criticism, so much so that I cannot imagine how somebody can claim it is not a defining trait of modern Israel. But I personally dont get why so many people harp on this one crime, and yes I understand that as a crime it contains elements of other crimes, but you are just scratching the surface with this sentence, and it gets emotional, for whatever reason, on all sides of the topic. But the current wording downplays the criticism, and the proposed wording still undersells it while trying to use people's emotional, but generally uninformed, response to that word. Something should be included, I dont necessarily think it is this though. What I propose, in addition to being accurate, succinct, and generally brilliant, actually summarizes the topic as covered in the article as well. nableezy - 16:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  While I clearly disagree with you on virtually everything related to this conflict I can agree with enough of your logic to work with the proposed wording. The only issue I have is with the implication that the United Nations accused Israel of crimes against humanity. It's the United Nations Human Rights Council that accused Israel of war crimes and "possible crimes against humanity". There are United Nations officials who have taken positions on both sides of the conflict, it's WP:UNDUE to highlight a few. The institutions themselves that have officially criticized Israel are more important. The criticism also hasn't been "sustained" and has gone up/down according to Israel and the United Nations. The word "practices" could also be changed to "actions" for clarity of prose/simpler language. Ditto for "against the Palestinian people" since it's redundant if they're in the Palestinian territories and if the previous sentence is kept.

  A better wording might be Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism along with accusations that it has commited war crimes from the United Nations Human Rights Council and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations.

  I'd argue this is more accurate, succinct, and spotlights the institution of the United Nations Human Rights Council rather than a few officials. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Chess: It looks good, just a few tweaks for more cohesion and a smoother flow of information: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and the UNHRC. Voilà, c'est tout. Additionally, some information about the state of Israeli 'democracy' could be placed in the fourth paragraph. Mawer10 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Mawer10: the UNHRC hasn't formally accused (i.e. Passed a resolution) Israel of crimes against humanity which is why I worded it the way I did. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Since the UNHRC has not formally accused Israel of committing crimes against humanity its mention should be excluded, and only reference the human rights organizations, which have accused the country of both committing crimes against humanity and war crimes. Mawer10 (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  War crimes and crimes against humanity are both Atrocity crimes so you could shorten it up a bit that way. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe "additionally accused Israel of crimes against humanity?" I think the presence of the United Nations or some body under it is something people wanting to add stuff to the lede feel strongly about. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Then the accusations from the Rapporteurs and the UNHRC Commission of Inquiry should be mentioned. Alternatively, do not mention specifically where all these many accusations are coming from, since it has been dealt with in the article body in any event. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  I said United Nations officials, which I would include Volker Turk (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, not a part of the Human Rights Council) and the various Special Rapporteurs who have said Israel has committed a number of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is not just the Human Rights Council, it is the professionals working for the UN and consulted by UN agencies, not the states that make up some political agency. nableezy - 18:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think you should open a new Talk topic, since this is a request on comments on the use of the word Apartheid, and you're trying to reach a formulation regarding sentences on War Crimes.

  Just saying this since perhaps that way it will be more transparent and clear for other editors that this new discussion is going on. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  People are allowed to offer alternative wordings in an RFC. nableezy - 19:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  It would be better to open a new topic though? Since there is so much content here you can go amiss and not notice. I Just think it helps the editors' process. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's a part of the RFC, not a new topic. Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Request for Comment on apartheid charges" is the title. You're discussing War Crimes. Just saying it'll better to open a new talk topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  So you said, three times. Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I am suggesting some other wording to cover the accusation that Israel is committing apartheid. Can we stop with this meta where should this comment be part of the conversation? nableezy - 19:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Professionals working for the UN ≠ the UN. For a statement to come officially from the United Nations it has to be voted on by the states that make up the United Nations. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Statements from US gov't agencies are not votes on resolutions by the legislature. But they still have meaning, often more meaning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  US govt agencies have far more power than random UN officials. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Acts taken by Israel in its occupation of the Palestinian territory have been condemned by the UNSC as early as 1968 through 2016. They have been condemned by the UNGA from as early as 1969 and yearly for at least the last 15 years on settlements and the status of East Jerusalem. So yes, the condemnation has been sustained. nableezy - 02:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Neither resolution you have sited, nor the UNGA one, use the word "apartheid." To use them in support of this suggested edit would violate WP:SYNTH. Certainly, they can be used in an edit in support of "international condemnation" in general, but not accusations of apartheid specifically. At least, not without a secondary source connecting them to a statement regarding "apartheid," and even then that would have to be done carefully so as not to assume one person or one expert's opinion is taken as factual. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Those resolutions were cited in relation to the proposal above, which is different from the RfC proposal and does not specifically refer to apartheid. WillowCity^(talk) 03:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, and? Im citing those in response to Professionals working for the UN ≠ the UN. For a statement to come officially from the United Nations it has to be voted on by the states that make up the United Nations. Which was a response to my proposal of 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. nableezy - 04:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Condemnation doesn't equal accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. I can't find examples of the UN as a body accusing Israel of crimes against humanity. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ok but that isn’t what the proposed sentence says. But yes, the UNSC has called the establishment of Israeli settlements a flagrant violation of international law (UNSC 2334). They have also said the same about the Jerusalem Law (UNSC 478) and deportations of Palestinians (UNSC 799). The UNGA has repeatedly said the same, yearly for a decade plus, regarding the settlements (including, incidentally, today). Anyway, I was showing that the condemnation is sustained, but the accusations in my sentence are from UN officials and human rights organizations. nableezy - 15:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  "UN officials" can refer to anyone working at the UN, not necessarily experts in international law. It would be better to say "scholars" or "law scholars", or just leave the mention of human rights organizations which, because they are an organization, have more importance than certain individuals. Mawer10 (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, that would be UN employees. A UN official is somebody who is authorized to speak on behalf of the UN or its sub-agencies. nableezy - 19:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Imo, this suggestion is good, but it’s no more succinct or accurate than the subject of the RfC, or if it is, it’s at the expense of precision. I’m certainly not opposed (it definitely bolsters NPOV and improves on the current wording) and I agree in principle that it’s silly to emphasize one crime against humanity over others. But there is some logic to that emphasis here; apartheid has its own subheading in the body, plus MOS says “the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.” Rightly or wrongly, Israel’s apartheid practices have become something of a touchstone; an English Google search yields 40.7m results for “Israel apartheid” and 23.8m for “Israel crimes against humanity”; when you narrow it to Google News, it’s 2m vs. 148k; on JSTOR it’s about 14.8k vs. 14.7k. To be fair, on Google Scholar, it’s ~2:1 the other way, and “Israel war crimes” blows all of these numbers out of the water. I don’t have time to do a full analysis of coverage by RS, but intuitively it does seem like the word “apartheid” should really be represented. What about something like:

Israel's practices in its occupation of the 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, including the crime of apartheid.

The part after the last comma could also be parenthetical. This is actually one word shorter than the suggestion and the RfC proposal, and it's broad enough to encompass Israeli war crimes committed against (e.g.) Lebanon in 2006. The only question my suggestion raises is whether it's strictly correct to describe a Special Rapporteur as a "UN official". WillowCity^(talk) 21:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

We've already the whole comment section above debate the use of the word Apartheid. And again as before, a majority seems to be against this use. Just look above, I also understand a similar commentary was held a year ago with the same result. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Less precision is a virtue precisely because it can deal with WP:NPOV. A suitably vague wording can be interpreted by everyone to support their position. The easiest way to resolve this would be to compromise on such a wording and stop having these RfCs every 6 months. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m not aware of anything in MOS:LEAD or the NPOV policy/guidelines that requires vague/inexact wording when a more specific claim is of particular “importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.” I’m not opposed to compromise, but I also wouldn’t hold my breath that this wording will prevent revolving-door RfCs in the future. WillowCity^(talk) 03:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The crime of apartheid is merely inserted into the sentence out of nowhere, with nothing beyond the occupation to explain the reason for the accusation. The Israeli civil law being "channeled" into the settlements, the expropriation of Palestinian land, and racist laws are context that cannot be included in the text, and without this context, the sentence is simply misleading. The sentence also confines the crime of apartheid solely to the occupied territories, which is not entirely true. Additionally, the next paragraph merely describes Israel as a normal democracy, which, regardless of whether the accusation is included or not, should be changed to provide more informative content about the democracy in the country. So, your proposal is not very accurate at all. Mawer10 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I was just trying to preserve as much of the original suggestion as possible out of courtesy. Other than restriction to the occupied territories, though, I fail to see how any of this is misleading; the allegation is noted and the interested reader can find greater information further down, or in the article on “Israel and apartheid” that will presumably be linked. It's not out of nowhere to mention a specific crime against humanity at the end of a sentence about alleged crimes against humanity. Moreover, this RfC is not about the following paragraph, so that's not really relevant to my suggestion.

But anyway, what about: “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 (including the crime of apartheid against Palestinians).” This adds three words to nableezy's suggestion, so we're hardly sacrificing much in the way of concision. WillowCity^(talk) 23:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Look above, editors have voiced against the addition or use of the word apartheid. Try and formulate something without it. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

How about:

Israel's practices, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians.

The paragraph is already very long. Shouldn't be more than a sentence. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The text already notes human rights violations. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

So why add more information about that? Do it in the body then. There's clearly lots of very important info lacking in Israel's lead regarding Israel itself (socialism, Soviet Aliya and more). Homerethegreat (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This thread already explains why. Read it. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment We should be careful using sources from throughout the history of the conflict between Israel and Palestine to support the addition of this edit regarding apartheid specifically. Condemnations about human rights abuses constitute that, condemnations of human rights abuses. Unless they specifically use the word "apartheid," they shouldn't be used to defend the addition to the lead being discussed. At the same time, we should be careful of defenses of Israel that also are not defenses against the accusation of "apartheid." Remember WP:SYNTH. Just because a condemnation (or defense) of Israel meets the accepted definition of "apartheid" does not mean is it an RS in support of this addition. Without mentioning the word "apartheid," such condemnations or defenses (even if meeting the definition) would be synthesis for us to use in the article, and I would argue, in this discussion. We should try to have some objectivity on this (and by objectivity, I also mean following WP policies, regardless of our own feelings or current events or past condemnations/defenses), and I fully admit that is incredibly difficult. As can be seen in this debate, I am definitely guilty of getting heated in this argument. I've largely stayed away from this debate for just that reason, but I am seeing some arguments being made here using sources that don't actually include the word "apartheid," which is what we are discussing. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  The comments you are critiquing are related to a proposal that does not include the word apartheid in it. nableezy - 04:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Can this discussion be split into sections, then? It's very long as it is, and if people are discussion (or "voting") for multiple proposals, it's quite confusing to follow. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agree on this point. This needs to be split up. I saw overall majority vote has gone against the use of the word Apartheid above. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  How about:

  Israel's practices, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians.

  The paragraph is already very long. Shouldn't be more than a sentence. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Why have you re-posted the same comment (x2). Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  People are losing track in this huge huge discussion, wanted to make sure it's seen. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also relevant to both points. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle the mention in introduction of the apartheid accusations, however the wording of the proposal must be changed. "condemnation... including the accusation" just does not make sense. Some of the opposing arguments come from a fantasy world where what Israel does in the occupied territories has not received criticism from UN reports and resolutions. Place Clichy (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  That’s the condemnation part… —OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:LEAD. Accusations of apartheid are sufficiently substantiated in the body to warrant their inclusion in the lead. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)non-ec editors may not participate in RFCs in this topic area

Summary of RfC

The current RfC addresses whether to include a specific sentence in the lead section of a Wikipedia article pertaining to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. The proposed sentence asserts that Israel's actions have been condemned for violating Palestinian human rights and have led to accusations of apartheid. Opinions among editors vary significantly.

Proponents of inclusion, advocating for adherence to the Manual of Style (MOS:LEDE), argue that the lead is a summary of the article's body and should encapsulate all significant controversies. They emphasize that the term "apartheid" is a pivotal point of international discourse and, thus, merits mention in the overview.

Opponents counter that such an inclusion may not reflect a universally endorsed perspective and could contravene Wikipedia's neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), potentially imparting undue prominence to a singular standpoint. They voice concerns that the term "apartheid" could be misconstrued or taken as a statement of fact without adequate consensus or legal adjudication. The representation of other nations with analogous allegations on Wikipedia is cited as a comparative benchmark, calling for consistency and impartiality in editorial practices.

The conversation extends to the role of reliable tertiary sources in determining the salience of controversies, as well as the precise language employed by international bodies like the United Nations in their resolutions and criticisms of Israel's practices. The semantics of "apartheid" are dissected, with a range of sources including United Nations documents and human rights reports brought to the fore for consideration.

A key part of the discussion also revolves around refining the proposed sentence to better encapsulate the article's content while aligning with the consensus among reliable sources. Editors propose several rewordings, aiming for a balanced statement that reflects the breadth of coverage without skewing the narrative.

In synthesizing these points, I believe that no definitive agreement has been reached within the scope of this RfC at the time of this summary. – Svenskbygderna (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor Objectivity and Civility

Correct place for this is a user talk page O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would remind all editors that these discussions should be about the article itself, and not be accusations of personal beliefs and attacks against editors, especially when they have clarified their positions. As this is a contentious topic, there will of course be disagreement with other editors, but comments "As I said below, if one believes Israel is a democracy, there is nothing further to be said" and "[If you don't agree that it is a prominent controversy, there is nothing more to say https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&diff=next&oldid=1182162688]" (the latter of which was directly in response to a comment agreeing that this is a prominent controversy) are not at all helpful. These comments show an unwillingness to engage in conversation in good faith, and bring personal attacks into this debate. Can we agree that should not be how this RFC is to be conducted? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Oh the irony... I was just about to warn you for this. Please follow your own advice, thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Happily, though I would request, again, that the accusations made against me before I responded defending myself be stricken. As can be seen in the diffs I've put here, my comments before being attacked were respectful, civil, and about the article and not the editor. Does one only warrant warning if responding to being attacked, and not the one who began the attacks instead of discussing the article? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Are you planning to strike your legal threat? Because the only one who has made accusations of criminal conduct is you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC) What legal threat? I did not use "defame" in a legal sense and did not threaten a lawsuit or say I was contacting a lawyer. It is a word with colloquial usage as well. I did not accuse anyone of criminal conduct, rather, of Wikipedia policy violation. I don't know what threat to strike as I never made a threat, legal or otherwise. I will happily strike everything after the conversation turned to attacking me as an editor and not the article, if the comments made against me and not about the article are stricken in kind, but I made no legal threats. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC) "Whether intentional or not, you have twice now made defamatory comments directed at me." thats clearly the legal sense, this is exactly the sort of situation the legal version would apply to... It isn't the colloquial, you haven't said that a chicken defamed you be squawking loudly or used it in some other situation where the legal sense would not apply... You used it in the literal/legal sense. This whole "I'l do it only if they do it" thing is unconstructive, I will be disengaging. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC) If you can suggest a better word, I'll also strike the word itself and replace it with another one regardless of whether the comments against me are stricken, as I would not want to be misconstrued as making a legal threat. That was never my intention, but I cannot personally think of a different word than the colloquial usage of "defamatory," which is also used in WP:NPA, so I did not think it was a word that shall not be named. But I did not use that word in a legal sense and I honestly don't see how it could be read as such. Hell, for it to be legal, it would have to be intentional. Feel free to bring me to administrative action if you disagree, or suggest a better word for me to use. I will comply with either. Again, though, I did not start this as attacks on editors instead of discussion on content. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Herrenvolk Democracy or Apartheid on the Wikipedia page

while it may be disputed, both the United Nations and Amnesty international have deemed Israel an Apartheid State, The right of return Law grants all Jews automatic rights to Israeli citizenship yet a muslim born in Tel Aviv in 1930 would not have that right to live or have citizenship, this is very reminiscent of some forms of Segregation and Apartheid, but you don't need to hear it from me we have an entire page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid here are the sources: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/ https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/ https://www.btselem.org/publications/202210_not_a_vibrant_democracy_this_is_apartheid https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/06/israel-imposing-apartheid-on-palestinians-says-former-mossad-chief https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2022-01/Israel%27s%20Apartheid%20Against%20Palestinians%20Report%20-%20Amnesty%27s%202022%20report.pdf?VersionId=s0fIB_wt.dMwGiAksB8nnlG_irQIqf67 https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2022-01/Report%20Public%20Q%26A.pdf?VersionId=.fMOTVAJ0AA32bXXsTKOabLlHVsz2XFu https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2022-05/Briefing%20to%20DIT%20on%20UK-Israel%20FTA.pdf?VersionId=RLHFEKXZoeZR8Li9kzuPM2q3yItgwXH_ https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/iiclr/pdf/vol2p221.pdf https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/is-israel-an-apartheid-state/ https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israeli-apartheid-legacy-ongoing-nakba-75-enar https://jacobin.com/2022/02/israeli-apartheid-amnesty-international-report https://www.palquest.org/en/highlight/34924/israel%E2%80%99s-apartheid-regime Gorgonopsi (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Um, this is just a speech, right? Not actually looking to improve or asking for an edit to the article? Most editors here are aware of this already. Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

i was requesting that the government be updeated to include apartheid or herrenvolk democracy rather than it being portrayed as a normal state per se, i don't see how this was so hard to grasp Gorgonopsi (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Read the article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

A dozen other countries have the right to set its own law of return. Law of Return is just the Israeli name. A list of countries with similar laws that promote the return of descendants of a national group: Germany, Ireland, Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Spain (interesting case, I recommend reading about it) and more.

The nationality laws of several countries have special provisions in them to simplify naturalization of favored ethnic groups. The laws in these countries appear to reflect a desire by governments to guarantee a safe haven to diaspora populations, particularly those assumed to be living under precarious conditions. A non-exhaustive list of such countries laws follows.

Every soverign nation has the right to determine it's own migrations laws. Israel, Germany, Ireland, Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Spain all give preferntial migratory rights and some form of automatic citizenship to decendants of national group. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Context is important, this isn't the same as Ireland, Germany etc, someone who's family hasn't set foot in like 2000 years has more right to live in israel due to a belief system than a Palestinian born in Tel Aviv in 1937 per se, it's not the same as any of the countries you mentioned, it would be like if rhodesia granted citizenship to random white Christians who merely identified as rhodesian Gorgonopsi (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Before we get completely off the track, if there is no edit request in the form add, change, delete (something), etc that can be discussed and implemented, this should just stop right here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have permission to request edits.... you might. i don't. Gorgonopsi (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

we should go by what the UN has said, and Amnesty International as they are very reliable. Gorgonopsi (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You do have permission to request edits and shortly this will be the only way that a non EC editor can edit the talk page of CT articles like this one. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I literally don't, you make a new account and try request an edit, and you will see what its like for all of us. Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:RFED Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Spain and Portugal give citizenship to descendants of exiled Jews who haven't lived in Spain since the 15th century. Regarding Germany, that's relevant to German populations who were moved in the 20th century and hadn't lived in Germany for centuries. (Two examples that came to my mind just now)

I understand this may be confusing. But every country has the right to determine to whom it grants citizenship. Granting citizenship based on a national group is very common. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Except this law of return allows anyone who converts to Judaism a right to Israeli citizenship, it's semantics to contest the ruling by multiple higher bodies Gorgonopsi (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gorgonopsi It's actually a rigorous process and not every Jew is granted the Right of Return. There have been cases that this has been rejected. Chavmen (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2023

Few months ago, I felt the sentence, "...and technological center of the country, while its seat..." has a misplaced comma, and should be broken into two different sentences. Then, the now second sentence should either (a) remove while and keep although, or (b) vice versa, as in removing although.

• "...the country. While its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is unrecognized internationally."

'''Israel''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|ɪ|z|r|i|.|ə|l|,_|-|r|eɪ|-}}; {{lang-he|יִשְׂרָאֵל}} {{Transliteration|he|Yisrāʾēl}} {{IPA-he|jisʁaˈʔel|}}; {{lang-ar|إِسْرَائِيل}} {{Transliteration|ar|ʾIsrāʾīl}}), officially the '''State of Israel''' ({{lang|he|מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל}} {{transliteration|he|Medīnat Yisrāʾēl}} {{IPA-he|mediˈnat jisʁaˈʔel|}}; {{Lang|ar|دَوْلَة إِسْرَائِيل}} {{transliteration|ar|Dawlat Isrāʾīl}}), is a country in [[West Asia]]. It is [[Borders of Israel|bordered]] by [[Lebanon]] to the north, by [[Syria]] to the northeast, by [[Jordan]] to the east, by the [[Red Sea]] to the south, by [[Egypt]] to the southwest, by the [[Mediterranean Sea]] to the west, and by the [[Palestinian territories]]{{snd}} the [[West Bank]] along the east and the [[Gaza Strip]] along the southwest. [[Tel Aviv]] is the [[financial center|financial]], [[Economy of Israel|economic]], and [[Science and technology in Israel|technological center]] of the country. While its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of [[Jerusalem]], Israeli sovereignty over [[East Jerusalem]] is [[Status of Jerusalem|unrecognized internationally]].<ref>Akram, Susan M., Michael Dumper, Michael Lynk, and Iain Scobbie, eds. 2010. ''International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Rights-Based Approach to Middle East Peace''. Routledge. p. 119: "UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended the creation of an international zone, or corpus separatum, in Jerusalem to be administered by the UN for a 10-year period, after which there would be a referendum to determine its future. This approach applies equally to West and East Jerusalem and is not affected by the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967. To a large extent it is this approach that still guides the diplomatic behaviour of states and thus has greater force in international law."</ref>{{refn|group=fn|The [[Jerusalem Law]] states that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" and the city serves as the seat of the government, home to the President's residence, government offices, supreme court, and [[Knesset|parliament]]. [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 478]] (20 August 1980; 14–0, U.S. abstaining) declared the Jerusalem Law "null and void" and called on member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from Jerusalem (see {{Harvard citation no brackets|Kellerman|1993|p=140}}). See [[Status of Jerusalem]] for more information.}}

• "...the country. Its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, although Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is unrecognized internationally."

'''Israel''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|ɪ|z|r|i|.|ə|l|,_|-|r|eɪ|-}}; {{lang-he|יִשְׂרָאֵל}} {{Transliteration|he|Yisrāʾēl}} {{IPA-he|jisʁaˈʔel|}}; {{lang-ar|إِسْرَائِيل}} {{Transliteration|ar|ʾIsrāʾīl}}), officially the '''State of Israel''' ({{lang|he|מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל}} {{transliteration|he|Medīnat Yisrāʾēl}} {{IPA-he|mediˈnat jisʁaˈʔel|}}; {{Lang|ar|دَوْلَة إِسْرَائِيل}} {{transliteration|ar|Dawlat Isrāʾīl}}), is a country in [[West Asia]]. It is [[Borders of Israel|bordered]] by [[Lebanon]] to the north, by [[Syria]] to the northeast, by [[Jordan]] to the east, by the [[Red Sea]] to the south, by [[Egypt]] to the southwest, by the [[Mediterranean Sea]] to the west, and by the [[Palestinian territories]]{{snd}} the [[West Bank]] along the east and the [[Gaza Strip]] along the southwest. [[Tel Aviv]] is the [[financial center|financial]], [[Economy of Israel|economic]], and [[Science and technology in Israel|technological center]] of the country. Its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of [[Jerusalem]], although Israeli sovereignty over [[East Jerusalem]] is [[Status of Jerusalem|unrecognized internationally]].<ref>Akram, Susan M., Michael Dumper, Michael Lynk, and Iain Scobbie, eds. 2010. ''International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Rights-Based Approach to Middle East Peace''. Routledge. p. 119: "UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended the creation of an international zone, or corpus separatum, in Jerusalem to be administered by the UN for a 10-year period, after which there would be a referendum to determine its future. This approach applies equally to West and East Jerusalem and is not affected by the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967. To a large extent it is this approach that still guides the diplomatic behaviour of states and thus has greater force in international law."</ref>{{refn|group=fn|The [[Jerusalem Law]] states that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" and the city serves as the seat of the government, home to the President's residence, government offices, supreme court, and [[Knesset|parliament]]. [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 478]] (20 August 1980; 14–0, U.S. abstaining) declared the Jerusalem Law "null and void" and called on member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from Jerusalem (see {{Harvard citation no brackets|Kellerman|1993|p=140}}). See [[Status of Jerusalem]] for more information.}}

P.S. Apologizes for the previous request, which has been removed, as I wasn't aware of edit requests at the time. JumboSizedFish (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done , thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You're welcomed! JumboSizedFish (talk) 20:49, 17 November 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)

Undiscussed lead overhaul and edit warring

These sweeping changes to the lead, which are now being edit warred in over and over again without any attempt at discussion, clearly need consensus given the volume of alterations. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You all should probably stop edit warring unless you want an admin to freeze the page for three days like on Gaza Strip. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

In what world is attempting to tag team in a set of controversial changes in to the lead of this article an acceptable method of editing? In what world is "In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured territories." an acceptable summary of the occupation of the Palestinian territories? Im tempted to take this to AE right now, but the next editor to attempt to edit-war in controversial disputed changes is going to be reported, I promise that. nableezy - 19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

New version to lead

Not sure if there was ever a consensus in the first place, but if there was, I think it has changed. There seems to be a critical amount of editors who agree with the new version. The new version gives a much better background such as the holocast, which is crucial to the establishment of Israel, as well as multiple aspects such as economics, demographics, security and technology. I see no reason for the recent revert by Trilltrollet. GidiD (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

By critical amount you mean three editors tag-teaming an entirely new lead that doesnt even use the word "occupied"? Yeah, no, that isnt how consensus works. nableezy - 20:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course the Holocaust is relevant and should be included in the lead. But we must also include the Palestinian exodus, which was essential for the creation of Israel as a Jewish state. And the occupation is probably the most notable aspect of recent Israeli history, so it needs to be included too. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The new lead is better overall. More comprehensive, yet shorter (which is long overdue). Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That is just an assertion. How is it better? It includes literally nothing about the occupation, it doesnt even say that Israeli occupied any territory, just that it "In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured territories". It uses halting and short sentences to string together what would normally be a a single sentence for a chain of related thoughts. It uses POV language like "Israel has confronted severe security threats" (as opposed to causing severe security threats?), and is generally written from a decidedly pro-Israel perspective. It devotes more space to ancient history that has literally nothing to do with the modern state of Israel than it does with material that sources treat as foundational to the topic. nableezy - 02:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what you are referring to. Currently, the lead does not have the sentence "Israel has confronted severe security threats", it does mention " settlements across the occupied territories, actions which were rejected as illegal under international law," and it keeps the wording about the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinian Arabs that you added. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Im talking about the lead that was being tag-teamed in, here. nableezy - 03:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Triggerhippie4 was talking about the current new lead (the one that she worked on). The ancient history is important. In ancient history, the region was populated by Jews, they became a minority, and later the region came under Arab rule. If you delete that portion that Jews also lived in the region (many groups did, not just Jews), that would be 2023 "pro-Palestine" political POV pushing. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

And for the record, people insist on these long running RFCs for a single sentence change, but edit-warring in an entirely new lead is ok now? Huh. Maybe people should do that with the apartheid sentence? nableezy - 02:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)