Talk:Israel/Archive 92

Archive 85

←

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Modern population shift in the lede

@Dovidroth: per this edit and edit comment, that Zionism sparked a huge population shift amongst world Jewry, fundamentally changing the population makeup of the area that is the subject of this article, is crucial for anyone trying to understand Israel. It needs to be included in some form in the lede (and historically has been). Please could you propose an alternative way of describing this pivotal element? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:You cherry-picked a specific data that might give the impression that the Jewish connection to Palestine was weak simply because at that time there were very few Jews living there, which is obviously absurd. I don't consider that specific information or the fact that today almost half of all world's Jews live in Israel to be lead-worthy. This is not an article about worldwide Jewish population. Historic demographic changes in Palestine are already covered in the body and other related articles. Read WP:LEAD. Dovidroth (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: If you want to claim data is cherrypicked, provide the contradictory sources that have been ignored. Otherwise don't make the accusation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: please keep comments focused on the content.

You are welcome to provide an alternative way to address this. The lede cannot stand without explaining the demographic shift that is the fundamental reason that the country exists. Look at Britannica’s lede for example:

Even before the mandate, the desire for a Jewish homeland prompted a small number of Jews to immigrate to Palestine, a migration that grew dramatically during the second quarter of the 20th century with the increased persecution of Jews worldwide and subsequent Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany. This vast influx of Jewish immigrants into the region, however, caused tension with the native Palestinian Arabs

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Dovidroth that this edit is not an improvement and is just another attempt to push a POV narrative in the lead. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Britannica is POV? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There was a gradual demographic shift over two centuries, including five aliyah waves before Israel became a state and many others afterwards. That's not what lead is for. The most significant demographic change (Palestinian exodus) plus Jewish exodus from Arab countries is already mentioned. Not clear why you would cherry-pick a factoid from the 19th century related to percentage of worldwide Jewry living in Palestine. Again, not lead-worthy. There is a demography section and a history section.Dovidroth (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

If the lead can find space for oodles of ancient history and population displacement in the Roman era, I think it can also mention the Jewish population of Palestine prior to the rising activity of the Zionist movement and the impact of the subsequent waves of inward migration. As it stands, the Yishuv just pops into existence deus ex machina. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of cherry-picking demographic changes at a specific point, the article could simply say: During the 19th century, the Zionist movement began promoting the creation of a Jewish homeland in Ottoman Palestine, "followed by waves of Jewish immigration". (with a link to the article on Aliyah). Simple, general and neutral.5.28.185.152 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Too simple, too general and not at all neutral. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Can you explain why you don't think it's neutral? Dovidroth (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Because anyone reading that would think that it has just been some sort of steady growth the whole time which isn't the case. There was a jump during the Mandate or, if we want to stick to the creation of Israel and beyond there was a jump immediately afterwards, for instance. They may also not know what aliyah means. Anyway, I don't personally see it as waves, we should find a scholarly rs that describes the growth and if it is a description that predates Israel then care needs to be taken about where exactly any % growth comes from. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I found jstor.org/stable/48599702 Population growth and demographic balance between Arabs and Jews in Israel and historic Palestine, seems to cover a lot of what we want on pp 72-74 sections Population growth until the British Mandate/Legalized expansion of the Jewish population during the British Mandate/Jewish population growth from 15 May 1948 to the end of 2007.

It's a 2010 source, interestingly his prediction "On the other hand, if the population of Arabs living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is added to the total, it can be seen that the ratio of Arabs to Jews in all of historic Palestine increased from 8:10 to 9:10 and can be reasonably expected to create a situation where the total number of Arabs will surpass the number of Jews in the next ten years." has turned out to be more or less accurate. Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's too vague. Just "waves of immigration" is more or less meaningless without time periods or some sort of sense of scale. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The lead does not to be so specific. And the body of the article could give more details. Dovidroth (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Brittanica is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. I believe we may be dealing with an issue of a peculiar, unfamiliarity with how Wikipedia works, and how leads work. Obviously random sources/tidbits can’t just be inserted into the lead. To me, it’s curious that the lead would be the first place this tidbit would be added, as again, that is not how leads work Drsmoo (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess it is true that Israel was founded on immigration, as was the USA as well as other places, during the mandate years primarily, when the percentage rose rapidly from a small number to around a third of local population. Pretty sure we don't need to source something of that sort to Britannica. Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

---

What about this "In the late 19th century, the Zionist movement began promoting the creation of a Jewish homeland in Ottoman Palestine which was followed by several waves of Jewsih migration to the region"? The italicised text is the proposed addition. Then we'll mention aliyot which are indeed foundational events for the modern Israel but would not clutter the lede with 19th century statistics. Alaexis_¿question? 07:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about Israel, see my reply to Dovidroth above. Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Options:

• Britannica's lede says "This vast influx of Jewish immigrants into the region, however, caused tension with the native Palestinian Arabs". It is their way of explaining this point.
• My proposal was to explain, less evocatively than Britannica, that in the late 19th century almost all Jews lived outside the region, now about half live there.
• Another way of doing it is to say that Jews formed a tiny minority (2-5%) of the population in the late 19th century.

All these options have one thing in common – they allow a reader to quickly understand the single most pivotal factor in the modern history of Israel/Palestine. It is a more relevant fact than any of the sentences in the prior paragraph, from Achaemenids, to Seleucids, to Mamluks.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I would have thought that Balfour/Mandate/Nazis were the most significant factors in the growth (as opposed to the starting point). Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Per Talk:Israel/Archive 73#British Palestine in the lede, there has been opposition to that level of detail in the past. It boggles the mind to see people suggesting that it would be negative to explain something as fundamental as this.

My preference is the third of the three options above.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Balfour Declaration has it like that because it's very relevant there. Might look a bit strange here, if its just on it's own. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a preferred way of encapsulating the modern demographic history in the lede? At the moment we tell the history of the land but not the people; of course a country is the combination of the two. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read all that source I showed above, let me see if there is a potted something that is usable. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The timeframe analyzed is from 1882 to 2007, split

1882-1919, "the numbers of Jewish immigrants to Palestine almost equalled those who left it"

1919-1948 (Balfour/Mandate), 56,000 (% of pop not mentioned) -> 649,600 (31.8% of local pop) (peaks 1932–1938, rise of Nazism and 1946–1948)

Post 48-2007, % of pop figures don't really work for obvious reasons, but Jewish pop numerically doubles in first couple of years and then analysis shows a lot of fluctuation in the increases thereafter (but averaging 3.8% pa).

Need another source for post 2007.

I would say a minimum content ought to mention the 1919-48 growth/%of pop in context of Balfour and Mandate, the doubling in the first couple years after 48 and the average thereafter (even if "average" is a bit misleading)? Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist, but the claim that in 1882-1919 "the numbers of Jewish immigrants to Palestine almost equalled those who left it" is hard to reconcile with the data in the table in Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region) which shows that the Jewish population increased more than two times between 1890 and 1914. Alaexis_¿question? 09:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The statement excludes natural growth as well as giving higher figures in general than the table does. Idk if you have the source so I will quote it here:

The numbers of Jews in Palestine began to increase during the late Ottoman period:increasing from 24,000 in 1882 to 50,000 in 1900 and then to 85,000 in 1914. In addition to the course of natural growth, this rising figure is attributed to the Jewish immigration to Palestine, which amounted to 55,000–70,000 Jewish immigrants during 1882–1914, who arrived in two waves: the first from 1882 to 1903, in which 20,000–30,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine; and the second from 1904 to 1914, with a figure ranging from 35,000 to 40,000 Jews. The number of Jews in Palestine retreated from 85,000 in 1914 to 56,000 in 1916–1919 (Central Bureau of Statistics 1984, pp. 23, 139, Abu el Naml 2004, pp. 87–88). When comparing the factual number of the population in 1919, i.e. 56,000, with the estimated figure, which is obtained from the actual figure combined with natural growth plus immigration, a huge deficit imparted by counter-immigration between 1882 and 1919 can be noticed. If one takes the natural growth in the indigenous population in 1882 and over 1882–1919 – which is fair enough to make this population increase twofold, it can be presumed that immigration and counter-immigration were equal to a degree that the number of Jews in 1919 did not exceed that of 1882 plus the natural growth that would have occurred during 1882–1919 (Central Bureau of Statistics 1984).

So the source figure at 1915 is 85,000 (cf table 38,754) and the post 1915 dip to 56,000 is not covered in table but still higher than the table. Selfstudier (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise and use first option from Britannica, which is more comprehensive and explains the origins of the conflict. The other two options are completely arbitrary, way too specific and not lead-worthy. Dovidroth (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought we are just looking at demographics, origin of the conflict is another thing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Reflection on these impasses

Again commenting with reluctance, and only because Levivich has worked hard here and requested input. Two RfCs proposing something about Palestinian realities have been summarily quicksanded by disagreements, and, as they lie stuck, we've had a third negotiation on a whole paragraph, much more complex, that has thrown up several possible texts, each generating conflicting tweaks. The incipit of the last looks like a compromise, but is, in my view, perhaps the worst suggestion we have. Take the first sentence:-

The comma after ‘Land of Israel’ makes that phrase the subject of what follows, not modern Israel, and assumes the highly polyvalent concept of Land of Israel is identical with the far more neutral Israel, the accepted untroubled designation worldwide.

'Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel, which has come to hold great significance for Jews, Christians, Muslims, Arabs, and other groups.'

Note that, once more, the default geographical and unpolitical term for centuries, Palestine, is attentively elided. Intentionality or no, this sentence will read as a surreptitious and tendentious dodge to get round the objections above, while only making the rhetorical tenor about nationalist overtones objected to above even more cogent,

Land of Israel was for almost 2,000 years a primarily theological concept of indefinite geographical denotation (the linked article is pathetically messy so useless as a link). It has potent resonance, meaning anything from the squabbled halakhic boundaries of an area where the people of Israel can live purified of contamination from non-Jews, to some vast territory from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean. Exodus 23:31-32 formed one of the core bases for the idea that in the land of Israel God commanded that all the indigenous peoples be expelled. Israel was founded by virtue of nothing other than Zionist political genius, and the increasing determination to call the country ‘Land of Israel’ plays on all of these registers, satisfying every constituency.

These problems we are having are not reducible to warring editorial constituencies and their respective POVs. They arise from the inherent ambiguities intrinsic to the language Zionism has used to define itself –‘Jewish and democratic’ as Levivich rightly remind us, citing an egregious oxymoron, is a case in point.A state that defines itself as ‘democratic’ asserts an identity with the Western concept of a democracy but when in the same breath it asserts it will be an ethnocracy, privileging the 75% who are, or claim they are, Jewish (the recent Russian and Ethiopian aliyahs) and started by placing 20% of its citizens under military administration for almost two decades (1949-1966) the ‘democratic’ half of the phrase is compromised. A nation that after 75 years still cannot define its boundaries and that defines itself as inclusive of a large swathe of land international law will not recognize as Israel.

The constant recourse to how other wiki article leads function itself ignores the fact that few if any of these other examples bear analogies with the particular definitional problems the reality here throws in our way. We cannot ‘normalise’ by comparison.

Our differences are illuminated by rereading Ernest Renan’s still seminal What Is a Nation? Nations come to be defined by the selective use of the past. A community is engineered (and then endlessly tinkered with) by creating myth of common identity that highlights some history while repressing and forgetting other substantial bits. In Israel’s case, the core myth consists of the idea all Jews have ancestral roots in this patch of land, melded in with the memories of antisemitism and the Holocaust. In the discussion about whether we need to allude to all the empires or not, the underlying drift is between a desire to showcase and prioritize Jewish continuity and the countervailing desire to underline the immense diversity, ethnic and cultural, that is a hallmark of the region’s past. The one ‘legitimates’ Jewishness, the other leaves ample margins for recognizing Palestinian, Muslim, Samaritan, Christian traditions etc., heterogeneity as an equally valid element of what Israel is. What is repressed is that its establishment knowingly required the dispossession of the historic population and its continual treatment in ways that always, to me at least, come close to mirroring anti-Semitic hostilities . So the clash here is between partial national and total national history, selective memory endorsing a version versus comprehensive history that, as is normative for higher Israeli scholarship, sets misères side by side with the splendeurs of Israeli statehood. It is understandable that these vying differences in approach make working this article intractable. Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Going through the article milestones, it is notable that this article was once an FA and is now not even a GA. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I see all these diatribes as filibusters made to hinter any progress. Once again I don't believe changing the current second paragraph is that necessary as it leads to pointless moaning (see my signature) Synotia (moan) 10:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

These 'diatribes' are recent, the article was delisted as FA in 2010. Evidently something is wrong with the article and it has been so for long. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Why has it been delisted? Synotia (moan) 10:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a rhetorical question implying some unusual and unfair hostility, due to 'filiblustering' people like myself. Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I genuinely did not think of you in particular when using the term "filibusters". I guess you can ask yourself, why you feel targeted :) Synotia (moan) 12:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably because you replied to his comment saying I see all these diatribes as filibusters, which would mean that the comment you replied to is among these diatribes and that you see it as a one of the filibusters. nableezy - 13:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Read the review(s), up the top of the page, click on "show" where it says article milestones. Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I know how to find it :) I just ask in case someone who remembers it can summarize shortly, as I don't feel like reading all that jazz... Synotia (moan) 12:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The version that took it to featured article status is quite instructive. Its second paragraph reads: "The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel, a concept central to Judaism for over three thousand years. After World War I ..." So basically, it simply bypassed the historic imbroglio entirely, and did so in the space of just 23 words. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Iskandar323 for providing the previous featured version. In my reading, it is not a lede I would wish to implement as there is a rather strong pro-Israeli bias. There is nothing on the discrimination, only positive claims on Israel being much more liberal than its neighbors. Besides, since 2007, that comparison in itself looks less obvious, with Israel having becoming decidedly less liberal and democratic. So while useful for comparisons, it is not a lede I would recommend (and, of course, Iskandar323 never suggested that). Jeppiz (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't like it. It reduces the entire Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, including two Israelite kingdoms, where the central Jewish sources were written, centuries of autonomous Jewish polity under foreign empires, and the Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms into a purely religious idea. This is an injustice to the history of the region. Tombah (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I wrote earlier of your 'uninformed generalizations', though I shouldn't single you out here. One cannot progress here if silly remarks are dropped everywhere (especially if they smack of naive or semi-illiterate fundamentalism).

we won't disregard the truth to make up for one side's errors and failures.(Tombah above)

two Israelite kingdoms, where the central Jewish sources were written

Neither the Tanakh nor the Talmud were written before the 7th century BCE in Samaria and Judea, but as every neophyte should learn in the first week, were composed, written and rewritten, and redacted over the following millenium, Babylon playing a core role in the exile, all over the Middle East.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the Hebrew Bible, Mishna and Jerusalemite Talmud (and not the Babylonian Talmud, of course) were all edited and redacted later in Diaspora centers does not change the fact that in most part, they composed by Israelites and Jews in the Land of Israel, who were especially familiar with, for example, the geographical nuances of the region. Stop distorting history for promoting your own views, and stop attacking other editors that do not align to your beliefs. Tombah (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The most recent draft I posted is short enough that I think there is room to expand it and include mention of more of the pre-history., but I'm not sure which things to add. Levivich (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Why is "Jews" before Christians, Muslims, Arabs ?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  The broader question that that particular sequence of words raised for me was why three religious groups and a single ethnicity? People of all faiths can be 'Arab': there have been Arab Christians, Arab Jews and Arab Muslims. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's the chronology. Christianity started as a Jewish sect, and Islam emerged centuries later. Tombah (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I added Arabs because it was suggested, but I'm fine with naming just the Abrahamic religions, although I'd rather use something like "groups" than "religions" because "Jews" is an ethnoreligion, not just a religion. I think I used "cultures" in an earlier draft but as was pointed out, that's not the best word. We could just say "Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others." Levivich (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Or use Abrahamic religions somehow. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'll give that a shot in the next draft. Levivich (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Let's not extend the supposedly ethnoreligious nature of Jews (as seen and claimed by Zionism) to Muslims and Christians. There are major nuances to report on this, Jews having been converted to Christianity, Christians to Muslims; the majority status of each of these groups for different periods and lengths of time. Not to mention the Arabness of the most Muslims and Christians, and even of some Jews. I think this should be left out all together to avoid giving a misleading and overlysimplistic portrayal. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  What about leaving it as is, as you realize yourself that trimming it would mess it up? :) Synotia (moan) 11:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  The supposedly ethnoreligious nature of Jews as seen and claimed by Zionism??? I'm sorry, but it seems that you could learn more about Jewish identity and history. Despite the fact that Zionism emphasized the ethnic component of Jewish identity, it did not invent it. Quite the opposite. The ethnic element may have been partially diminished by years spent in diaspora, including a struggle for civil rights as equal citizens among European nations, but it has always existed since Jews first appeared on the world stage. I can provide a few classical sources that will demonstrate how Jews were regarded as an ethnic group with a unique religious tradition during the Hellenistic and Roman eras. If you don't believe the religious sources, you can read Josephus, for example, who frequently uses terms such as "ethnos" to describe Jews, including in the diaspora. Moreover, in contrast to the other religions you mentioned, Jews can also be genetically identified. I invite you to get yourself updated on the most recent genetic studies on Jews. You'll learn that the majority of Jewish ethnic groups are descended from the Levant and are notably similar to the Lebanese and Druze. We already have too many issues with articles about Jewish history, so please try to learn more. People with more in-depth understanding of Jewish history are needed for this platform. Tombah (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

'it seems that you could learn more about Jewish identity and history.'

That is a boomerang statement if ever there was one. There is no evidence, throughout your numerous 'uninformed generalizations', for the endless broadbrush claims you make which almost uniformly reflect a widespread desire to read the 3,000 year long Jewish past as a series of stepping stones towards the eschatology of national redemption of the modern state in its first 74 years. What you write above is, frankly, trash, and boasting you can quote a primary source like Josephus, without familiarizing yourself with the pertinent scholarship, just leads you into blustering blunders like asserting you can prove from him that:

Jews were regarded as an ethnic group with a unique religious tradition during the Hellenistic and Roman eras

Take some time off and do some reading. Of a score of sources, you might begin with:-

• Ross S. Kraemer, 'On the Meaning of the Term "Jew" in Greco-Roman Inscriptions,' The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 82, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 35-53
• Steve Mason 'Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,' Journal for the Study of Judaism, · September 2007 vol.38 pp.457-512

Anyone who wants to know about Jewish history should read the relevant articles in the second edition (2007) of the Encyclopedia Judaica and ignore wikipedia articles. Perhaps we need a warning template. The massive coverage there over 20 volumes is an ornament to scholarship, not the wreckage of mangled clichés and woefully selective tidbits that, disgracefully for a wonderful topic, mar our coverage here.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani, oh dear, always has a superior attitude toward others, which is motivated by a very obssessive dislike of those you consider to be too Zionist. As a result, you frequently forget to be constructive in your criticism of others. "The Ioudaioi were understood until late Antiquity as an ethnic group comparable to other ethnic groups, with their particular laws, traditions, customs, and God". Mmmm, I wonder what that means. Go ahead and set a challenge for yourself by attempting to clarify in a friendly and constructive way how the passage I brought from the second article you mentioned conflicts with what I said above.Tombah (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Mind taking this OT discussion elsewhere? Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no intention of engaging in a discussion with Tombah. He evidently can't grasp the texts I mentioned. Anyone, if unlike T., they actually read the two refs will see they make nonsense of the generalization I rebutted. Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Para 3

Since we have made a substantive start to implementing a better para 2, time to fix the resultant para 3. From my perspective, the missing is that which I suggested during RFC2 above, namely:

"Israel subsequently fought wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalizing relations with several other Arab countries but remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon while attempts to negotiate a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan, illegally annexing the latter as well as East Jerusalem. Israel continues to violate international humanitarian law including the establishment of illegal settlements within the occupied territories."

Can we get agreement on this? Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

For the details that they cover, those sentences are a very optimally succinct way of putting it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although I'd add the attribution "has been accused of violating" to avoid unnecessary POV. It would look like this (excluding links, please be careful with preserving all of them when you finally add text):

"Israel subsequently fought wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalizing relations with several other Arab countries. However, Israel remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon, while attempts to negotiate a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan, illegally annexing the latter as well as East Jerusalem. Israel has been accussed of violating international humanitarian law, including the establishment of illegal settlements within the occupied territories."

Dovidroth (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

For this to be neutral as required, I believe there are a few facts missing:

"Since its founding, Israel has had to deal with waves of Palestinian terrorism directed at its citizens. Today, the majority of Palestinians continue to support violence against Israeli citizens." + "Israel has fought several wars with Hamas, a militant Islamist group that demands for its destruction, and many in the West consider it to be a terrorist organization." And third, "Israel also has a longstanding conflict with Iran, an Islamic theocracy whose leaders have frequently voiced anti-Semitic sentiments and demanded the elimination of Israel from the map." That would contribute to making the third paragraph much more balanced. Tombah (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral? Only by repeating the claims of both sides that the other side is guilty of terror, + adding the flipside of the next part, i.e. a majority of Israelis support violence against Palestinians (just democratically, by supporting governments that maintain an intrinsically violent occupation and state of perpetual racialized inequality), would you be able to add all of that AND keep it balanced. And Israel doesn't have an open conflict with Iran, just a proxy one involving funding militant groups etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That is neutral in the same way that Since Israel's founding, it has oppressed the Palestinian people, denying them of their fundamental human rights in a system of apartheid that, according to Amnesty International, one of the world's leading human rights organizations, extends into Israel proper as well as in the occupied Palestinian territories. Israel has unlawfully repressed the Palestinian people's legitimate armed struggle against a racist and colonial regime with terror tactics such as indiscriminate bombings of civilian population centers, as well as with assassinations of medical workers and journalists. Palestinian resistance to these illegal actions have caused approximately 1-2% of the civilian casualties that Israeli forces have caused among Palestinian civilians. In case that is not clear, entirely non-neutral and the regurgitation of one sides propaganda as though it were fact, though this side has a bit more reliable sourcing for it. nableezy - 17:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this started. I also think for the details it covers it's succinct and good. I'm not sure what to do about "accused" v. stating it in wikivoice in light of the 2nd RfC above. I think I'm ok with stating it in wikivoice, if the overall paragraph also addressed Palestinian violence against Israelis. I don't think Tombah's language above is a neutral or succinct presentation of it, but I'd be interested in reading other formulations. Palestinians have committed terrorist attacked against Israel (and others), and Israel has violated human rights, both things have been happening for decades, and I think we could state both as facts in wikivoice. That said, "terrorism" is a loaded problematic word, and "violated human rights" can be similarly vague and problematic, so I'm all ears if anyone has any suggestions. But my take away from the 2nd RfC above is that we won't get consensus to add human rights violations by Israel without also talking about Palestinian violence against Israel. There is also the issue of Israeli history other than the occupation, which is missing from the lead. I'm not sure what historical details to include, but I'm sure there are significant events in the country's history other than the occupation. Plus I'd add Yom Kippur War, Camp David, and Oslo, and maybe the intifadas, Camp David 2, and withdrawal from Gaza. I recognize there probably isn't enough room for all of that and this isn't a history of the occupation, but I think at least the first three are important enough for the lead. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC

For the avoidance of doubt, the para I proposed is not intended as a replacement for the existing para 3, it simply encapsulates in a shorter form material already in para 3 and adds a bit that isn't.

In principle I have no objection to including Palestinian bad behavior as well as long as we avoid bothsidesism, the conflict is asymmetric between occupied and occupier not a contest of equals.

Oslo, Camp David(s) and so are all part of a so called peace process that has failed, it doesn't really matter why other than in a war of narratives. We can just link Israeli–Palestinian peace process for that, I think.

Yom Kippur is different, that's AI rather than IP, so I agree that should go in somewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This draft doesn't mention the asymmetry of the '67 war, tho. It doesn't say "Israel was invaded by all its neighbors immediately after declaring independence" (because the neighbors see Israel as the "invader" and Wikipedia doesn't take a side). When we mention the Yom Kippur War in the lead, I'm sure we won't say "surprise attack on Jewish holy day", even though that's why that war is called the Yom Kippur War. My point being, why is the asymmetry of IP necessary to mention in the lead but not other asymmetries? Isn't asserting asymmetry taking a side in the conflict? Anyway, any ideas for how to express it without false balance? My initial thought is two sentences. "Palestinians [something about violence]. Israel [something about human rights vios]." without stating a connection between them one way or the other (specifically, not saying that one is in response to the other). Although if we really wanted to be honest we'd talk about cyclical nature of it. "Since independence, both sides have engaged in escalations leading to a never ending cycle of violence" but editors will think that's false balance on both sides, with each side saying the other is more responsible for the escalations. I don't think the sources are clear enough to be able to take a side on that in wikivoice. Aside from that, '73 + Israeli–Palestinian peace process works for me. Levivich (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Isn't asserting asymmetry taking a side in the conflict? The 67 war is not the same as the IP conflict, that's AI. And no it isn't for the IP conflict, it is straightforward to source, especially more recently, because everyone knows it is asymmetric and increasingly, sources just say so, eg Lee Ross, Barriers to Agreement in the Asymmetric Israeli–Palestinian Conflict, 7 Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 120 (2014) Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that IP isn't asymmetrical, I'm saying that AI was also asymmetrical. I don't think it's neutral to mention only the asymmetry when Israel was the Goliath (IP: occupation, Gaza war), but not the asymmetry when Israel was the David, so to speak ('48, '67, and '73: each time Israel was the smaller army, facing multiple neighbors). Levivich (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The David(Israel) vs Goliath analogy was never valid, but part of a constructed Zionist myth, from 48 onwards. It drew a lot of mainstream traction but the analyses of of the forces at play now make the Yishuv/Israel victories in each case almost assured.In 1967 the CIA estimated that, if war broke out, Israel would win within 6-10 days. Materiel, preparedness, organization and technology determines the outcome of wars, not hot air and boots on the ground. Israel lost most of its 6000 casualtiresd fighting Jordanm's army, the Palestinians lost 13,000 resisting the Yishuv/IsraelNishidani (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again, you and your myths utterly forget yourself sometimes in your desire to dispel what you conceive as "Zionist myths". You completely miss the entire premise of David and Goliath. It's as if you're saying, "David won, so he can't be David," but in the biblical tale, this is exactly what happened. Israel, a small country with a demographic disadvantage had to face the larger Arab World, which was in fact demographically and geo-strategically a giant. Israel finally prevailed in most wars thanks to a clever policy that prioritized quality over quantity, the growth of an efficient military, investments in cutting-edge technology, the application of innovative tactics, and preventive operations. Being successful and smart does not diminish your status as David, as this is exactly what he did in the biblical story. Tombah (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This is simply nonsense. The writing of this paragraph shows that you have not read or understood the many high quality historical sources. Most fundamentally it shows that you have no meaningful understanding of what the Arab World, and its individual countries and governments, are or were.

If power in this world was about number of people, then geo-politics would look very different. Power is about money, specifically about money available for military, communications and intelligence. For the last century, the Israeli government and its predecessors have had available financial power many multiples ahead of the Arab World combined.

Please can we stop with propaganda and stick with facts.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure we can mention the AI asymmetry if it is readily sourceable, I have the impression that might prove more difficult than you think. Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There was a lot of 'Red Indian' terrorism during America's conquest of the West (one of Israel's models or widely perceived analogies, as when Israeli newspapers refer to their 'Wild West' on the West Bank.

An assumption of parity then as though NPOV consists in balancing the acts of an occupier armed to the teeth and those of an overwhelmingly disarmed occupied people, almost wholly occurring outside Israel's recognized boundaries. Take anyone of twenty possible points for comparison and the result is always glaringly disproportionate. Israeli terrorism has bulldozed the houses of 56,000 Palestinian families since 1967, rocketry from Gaza has damaged a handful of homes in Sderot and elsewhere over 20 years. What is meant by terrorism here? 31 Israelis and foreign residents died by actions undertaken by Palestinians last year, 231 Palestinians were killed by Israeli actions: Historically the gap is always 1:8/1:10; arrests abd detention since 1967? a handfu1 (Gilad Shalit) etc.vs 800,000 Palestinians, 50,000 of which underaged: IDF night raids on family homes after midnight since 1967? averaging 3 a night, 1,400 a year, in all 65,000. No statistics exist for similar forms of terrorism conducted by Palestinians. The next we'll have on this pattern is editing the page on China to tweak its mention of their Uyghur ethnocide as a response to, not an integral cause of Uyghur terrorism

More than one detached observer of the discursive codes of mainstream I/P reportage has noted that the laws of cause and effect are generally suspended in favour of parity in a tragic conflict between two parties. Well, yes, but we do accept that causes exist. That language prevails when Israel 'responds' (as one proposes here ìto terrorism, imminent or otherwise)

At most one could add, 'Israel defends many such practices as dictated by considerations of its national security' after mentioning the accusations. Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I take the point that it's not the size of your army, it's how you use it, and just because Israel had smaller numbers in a conflict doesn't mean it was necessarily at a disadvantage: technology and other factors also matter.

By similar logic, though, I am unpersuaded by comparisons of Israeli and Palestinian losses. I don't think there's any question that it's an asymmetrical conflict (IP is widely used in the literature as an example of asymmetrical warfare), but I also don't think that if more Israelis died, or fewer Palestinians, that would bring parity to the conflict. It's more than the number of boots on the ground, and it's more than the bodycount.

I don't think the lead needs to get into who caused the conflict, or who caused which escalation. We don't need to say who threw the first punch in every round of a boxing match.

I think that saying "occupied" and "annexed" sufficiently communicates asymmetrical, and I'm fine with just stating that the wars happened without getting into who started each one or who was David and who was Goliath.

I think the 3rd para should communicate that after '73, AI more or less becomes just IP (which the current lead kind of already does, except it doesn't mention the '73 war).

I'm not sure how to summarize anti-Israeli violence because it's varied: kidnappings, suicide bombings, checkpoint attacks, rocket attacks, attacks outside Israel like Munich massacre... it's hard to summarize all of that. And to me, summarizing PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, etc., all as "terrorists" or "militants" seems overly simplistic and not really neutral.

Idk, I'm going to think about it more. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The difference in casualties is a result of the asymmetry, in which one side has attack helicopters and planes and tanks and armored personnel carriers, and the other side has crude rockets and small arms and homemade bombs. In past conflicts, the difference was between much better American supplied equipment and Soviet supplied equipment. And prior to that, in the pre-state conflict in which the majority of the Palestinians in Israel-proper were driven out, the difference was between a largely unarmed population and one with several well-equipped militias. The death tolls are a result of the disparities and asymmetry. nableezy - 20:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a matter of body count, in my opinion, but rather of intentions. A prominent aspect of Palestinian violence has been the direct targeting of civilians for political gain, including mass shootings at nightclubs, suicide bombings in buses, hijackings, indiscriminate rocket attacks, etc, which is what constitutes terrorism according to common definition. Tombah (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What does that have to with the asymmetry? Popular resistance movements often use terror tactics against much stronger opponents, like states with an army and air force and navy. If anything, the use of terror is a further indicator of the asymmetrical nature of the conflict, where one side drops bombs from a plane leveling an entire block in Gaza, and another bombs a discotheque. But Palestinian resistance has been much wider than just terror, the First Intifida for example was largely non-violent. The Second Intifida, while yes definitely included acts of terror, was largely a stone-throwing uprising. The image of Faris Odeh remains iconic as a representation of that uprising for a reason. As far as indiscriminate, the article Hamas includes the following: Hamas's military wing has launched attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers, often describing them as retaliations, in particular for assassinations of the upper echelon of their leadership.[51] Tactics have included suicide bombings and, since 2001, rocket attacks.[52][53] Hamas's rocket arsenal, though mainly consisting of short-range homemade Qassam rockets with a range of 16 km (9.9 mi),[54][i] also includes Grad-type rockets (21 km (13 mi) by 2009) and longer-range (40 km (25 mi)) that have reached major Israeli towns such as Beer Sheva and Ashdod,[54] and some that have struck cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa.[56] Human Rights Watch has condemned as war crimes and crimes against humanity both Hamas and Israel for attacks on civilians during the conflict, stating that the rationale of reprisals is never valid when civilians are targeted.[j] There a reason why you refuse to allow the article on Israel to include the tactics it uses against the Palestinians, that HUman Rights Watch has condemned as war crimses and crimes against humanity? nableezy - 20:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The major unresolved issue in paragraph 3 is proper communication of the situation in the West Bank. “Occupation” and “settlements” are technical words which mean much less to the lay reader than they do to someone with deep knowledge of the history. We say they are illegal but it reads like a technicality – a reader doesn’t come away with an understanding of what is really unique about the situation.

There are various elegant ways this could be communicated, but it seems every attempt to explain is opposed. To avoid a never-ending cycle here, please could those opposing voices please propose how they would communicate the situation in the West Bank in the fairest and clearest possible way. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

No one actually objected to that, did they? Maybe they did but imo the clearest way is by reference to international humanitarian law, both of settlement and occupation have resulted in violations so if the only thing one wants to do is avoid the word illegal, that's the way to go. As for settlement, the explanation is Geneva 4, same again. Virtually every single wrong thing in WB/Gaza is some violation of humanitarian law, the only question being in what degree. Selfstudier (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s exactly the problem – just saying "it violated some technical law" doesn’t get readers very far. Per MOS:LEAD we are supposed to “summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies”, and we are supposed to avoid jargon. Too much of what we write on the “occupation” is technical jargon in the eyes of average readers.

Currently we write: …since the 1967 Six-Day War has occupied the Syrian Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip—the longest military occupation in modern history—though whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement is disputed. Israel has effectively annexed East Jerusalemand the Golan Heights, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community, and established settlements within the occupied territories, which are also considered illegal under international law.

It all sounds very historical and technical. The single most “prominent controversy” is that Israel continues to subjugate and oppress 5 million people in the Palestinian territories. There are many ways of explaining this, but we currently do not.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Self's initial proposal in this thread simplifies much of that part. As for 'occupation', I don't think that's particularly technical. 'Settlement' is a little more jargon-esque for those not familiar with the context, but that's largely because it's intrinsically a bit of a euphemism - but again, surely if it's a term linked to a page that explains it, it's not a major problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes settlement is a euphemism, and occupation is shorthand for military occupation. No layman reading it will understand “subjugation and oppression of 5 million people”. The topic has been watered down so much it is almost homeopathic. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, we would need some pretty strong sourcing for something like that, the apartheid (another violation of humanitarian law) proposal has no consensus afaics and we are still looking for a way forward on para 3, which I had initially thought would be easier to resolve than para 2. Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

All the same scholars and human rights organizations use the words oppression and subjugation - dozens of high quality sources are easily available.

Other words are fine too:

• Mentioning the enclavization of the West Bank communicates a reasonable amount of it
• Mentioning the 5m Palestinian population under long term Israeli control in addition to the 9m Israeli population would help

The status of these people can be addressed multiple ways, but all ledes must avoid obfuscation with technical language. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

So what is your suggested para 3? Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to build on yours above, and the existing version, moving things around to minimize duplication:

Israel subsequently fought wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalizing relations with several other Arab countries. Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and holds 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip—the world's 3rd most densely populated territory—under long-term blockade. The West Bank is held under the longest military occupation in modern world history, in which 700,000 Israeli citizens live in settlements on a majority of the land, confining a Palestinian population of 3.5 million to disconnected enclaves. All these actions, and the wider subjugation of the Palestinian people, have been rejected as illegal by the international community.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure removing "but remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon [while attempts to negotiate a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed.]" is an improvement (with an emphasis on the still-at-war part). In the first phrase, "several Arab countries" is also vague. I suggest: "Israel subsequently fought several wars with its Arab neighbours ..." The normalization part is also jargon-y, given that 'Normalization agreements' is an extraordinarily niche phrase that applies to relations with exactly four countries, and only ever appears to have been used elsewhere as a term in the context of Serbia-Kosovo. As a term, it is vapid. What are 'normal relations'? Do the US and China have normal relations, with the recent trade war and sanctions on Chinese companies? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Usually, normalization is understood to mean exchange of embassies/diplomatic relations which has not occurred with Morocco or Sudan but has with Bahrain and UAE, the original signatories of the Abraham Accords. US/Israel played fast and loose with the terminology for pr purposes.

I think it was also more or less agreed we were going to put Yom Kippur in somewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair points. My thinking is as follows:

• Being at war with Syria and Lebanon is a technical status and a barely relevant detail in practice, partly because those two countries’ governments have barely functioned for a long time. The relevant parts are the Golan occupation, which we deal with later, and the threat from Hezbollah’s militia which is not part of the Lebanese army and therefore isn’t currently covered by the text anyway.
• The failure to negotiate an end to I-P is clear from the rest of the paragraph – I don’t believe a reader benefits from spelling it out in long form
• I agree a better word than normalization could be found

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the Golan mention is enough. I'm not wedded to those bits. However, especially given the detail that Self has flagged about Morocco and Sudan not exchanging embassies, the 'normalization' phraseology becomes even more circumspect. Perhaps sth to the effect of 'relations with the wider Middle East remain mixed' and a link to this page would suffice. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I like that proposal; particularly as it also encapsulates the differing position between some Mid East governments and the views of their people (in both directions). Onceinawhile (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That cherry-picked "fact" is even worse than the RfC on apartheid. I hope you are kidding. Apparently stating the crude facts—namely that there are settlements in occupied territories which are considered illegal—is not enough POV for you. Obviously such an unencyclopedic, biased-driven language as the one you proposed will never get consensus. Not to mention you conveniently left out the part that clarified it's disputed whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement, but included the dubious claim that it is the "longest occupation in world history". I suggest you take a step back and read WP:Righting great wrongs. This is not a BDS blog for online activism. If you insist with that text, let's open another RfC to ask the opinion of neutral editors. I bet you it will receive less support than the apartheid thing. Also bare in mind the current text on settlements in the lead was the result of previous consensus by many editors, including some of whom are participating in this discussion right now. Dovidroth (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It says that Gaza is 'under blockade', so it is unclear what you are referring to here. What is the POV language used here, and can you back up that up with sources? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Re military occupation it says “in modern world history” not “in world history”, although the latter would be equally true, as military occupation as defined in international law began in the 20th century. The sources are crystal clear.

Anyway, given its notability this has clear consensus for inclusion over many years – see the talk page archives. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That's wrong on so many levels. It is completely one-sided ignoring the violence by the Palestinians against Israel. It's somehow worth mentioning that Gaza is the 2nd most dense territory but not that its government's founding charter calls for a genocide. There are some more minor things but they are not worth discussing. Alaexis_¿question? 06:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It mentions violence in neither direction, so it is unclear how it could be POV on that front, and it doesn't mention Hamas because that's no the subject of this page. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning the blockade while disregarding the primary justification for its imposition - terrorism - is pretty convenient. False balance is the term for it. The rise of Hamas, a violenct Islamist group in the Gaza Strip which continues to call for the annihilation of Israel, using rockets against civilian targets, and carrying out countless terror attacks of all kinds, is the cause of the blockade. Tombah (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, an interestingly anachronistic approach to the chicken and egg. Israel had occupied the Gaza Strip for two decades before Hamas even came into existence. It withdrew from Gaza, and began its blockade, in 2005, two years before Hamas came to power. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it a joke? Because if it wasn't so sad, I would now be laughing right now. Did we copy this from a BDS flyer that we picked up on the street? Or is it perhaps a passage from Al Jazeera? No, Wikipedia won't put this extremely biased essay in the lead; we can leave it to other websites like Electronic Intifada.

Although it is true that Israel has been imposing a blockade on Gaza for the past 15 years and that the Palestinians do not yet have their own independent state, Palestinian terrorism, public opinion, the activities of Hamas and other terror groups, and of course the Palestinians' inability to form a single government, are all significant contributors to the current situation, which the proposed passage attempts to blame on Israel. We have just seen that over the last weekend: many Palestinians concur that it is appropriate to celebrate with fireworks and treats on the streets whenever Jews are killed in acts of terrorism. Tombah (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

We must differentiate between facts and opinion. The blockade is a fact. The explanation for it is opinion (and there are multiple opinions). In the discussion re apartheid above, Triggerhippie4 wrote "The lead is for hard facts, not accusations." Let's stick to that please; explanations can be included only if they factually and clearly represent the firm view of an important constituency and can be appropriately balanced.

@Tombah: as to your comment on the recent tragic events. Can we please assume that all of us here are disgusted by what happened, including all the recent deaths in this conflict, and are equally disgusted by those extremists who celebrate them. Your loose language "many Palestinians concur" is unacceptable - it is dehumanizing and inflammatory. Writing "many Israelis concur" that Baruch Goldstein is a hero would be equally unacceptable, despite the extremist minority who continue to celebrate his actions. Rather than get drawn into media sensationalism over celebrations by extremists, we are better to assume that the vast vast majority of people on both sides are just human beings who care for each other and abhor senseless violence. Your loose language has no place in Wikipedia; please be more careful. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The popularity of Hamas among Palestinians is a hard fact. The directed violence put against Israeli citizens, with assailants aiming to blow up buses, restaurants, cafes and synagogues is a hard fact. The indiscriminate rocket attacks directed towards Israeli urban centers is a hard fact. The decline in suicide attacks that has occurred since the West Bank barrier was built is a hard fact. Surveys already have shown that a majority of Palestinians support those actions; we can debate the validity of those surveys, but anyway, it is clear we are not speaking of a small extremist minority. If we are to describe in greater detail the conflict in the lede (which I think should be left as is, maybe with a few corrections and additions) - we'll need to address the facts about both sides. Tombah (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Popularity as hard facts now is it? Back in 2006, Hamas secured exactly 44.45% of the vote, with a turnout of 70-75% (among the voting population) meaning even when there was the aspiration among Palestinians that Hamas bring about change relative to Fatah's stagnant governance, it was far from ever securing the support of most Palestinians. In 2021, a poll of unclear methodology said 53% believe Hamas is more deserving to lead than Fatah, which scored 14%. Is that testament to love of Hamas or widespread hatred of Fatah? It's not very clear. Where do your hard facts spring from? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Read again the article you have just shared. When 53% say that a political party is "most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people", it is clear that this group is quite popular. Do you also dispute the other facts I mentioned above? Tombah (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I obviously read the source, since I already quoted the figure. But no, that's not popularity, that's voting for who may safeguard your best interests (if not a protest vote). But support for one entity over the competition is certainly not a simply equate to popularity. E.g.: you can support a company that makes electric cars and gives the conventional automobile industry a run for its money, but still hold the opinion that the CEO is an arse. You're also missing the key point that you can't just take isolated surveys and hold them as fact. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Here it goes a reasonable compromise:

@Dovidroth and Alaexis: I wrote above: There are various elegant ways this could be communicated, but it seems every attempt to explain is opposed. To avoid a never-ending cycle here, please could those opposing voices please propose how they would communicate the situation in the West Bank in the fairest and clearest possible way. Could you please draft what you think is the clearest way of communicating the situation with the West Bank and Gaza, and we can then try to move towards consensus – just as we did with Levivich’s efforts on paragraph 2. We are unlikely to make progress if you are only criticizing the work of other editors. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Here it goes a reasonable compromise, in line with Selfstudier's proposal:

...Israel subsequently fought a number of wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalizing relations with other Arab nations. Nevertheless, it remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon, while attempts to negotiate a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan Heights, illegally annexing the latter as well as East Jerusalem. Israel has been accused of violating international humanitarian law, including the establishment of settlements within the occupied territories.

Dovidroth (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not neutral. The International Court of Justice has stated that Israel is in violation of international law, and the ICJ can't "accuse" anyone - if the ICJ says something is a violation of international law, then it simply *is* a violation of international law, as that is how the Court works. So if we want to be unbiased, we must go back to the original proposition: "Israel subsequently fought wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalizing relations with several other Arab countries but remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon while attempts to negotiate a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan, illegally annexing the latter as well as East Jerusalem. Israel continues to violate international humanitarian law including the establishment of illegal settlements within the occupied territories." Dan Palraz (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)