Talk:Israel/Archive 103

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Use of "invaded" in lead

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

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

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

I suggest we update this sentence to:

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

Disagree with the full change, but partially approve of the last sentence. The invasion into the mandate is still an invasion, but yes, the degree of relative success is relevant here. Additionally, I would encourage you to add which armies (temporarily) advanced into area that is modern-day Israel, just for the sake of completeness. FortunateSons (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Mobilized their armies" is still more appropriate. But I can see a case for using "invasion" to describe the Egyptian army.

Even Khalidi in this more detailed description does not mention the details of the temporary advances; I don't think its appropriate for the lead. DMH223344 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Khalidi is a pro-Palestinian historian, the question for this would be what the new (and old) historians and contemporary news reporting think, which (as far as I know) is invasion. Additionally, even an invasion just into the mandate is an invasion. FortunateSons (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In what way is Khalidi a "pro-Palestinian historian" and what do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that his work is biased and inaccurate or unreliable? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• there are elaboration on his political views on his wiki page, I think he is clearly considered pro-Palestinian (at least by western/english-speaking standards). He is a historian writing about I/P, therefor being a pro-Palestinian historian.
• He is definitely biased (but so are the new/old historians), that’s not an issue per se. He seems to be well respected, but relying exclusively on a biased source in the lead to a contentious topic is not appropriate even if it is a respected source.

FortunateSons (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Every human being has biases and personal opinions. Khalidi may be a "pro-Palestinian" private person, but that doesn't mean that he is a "pro-Palestinian historian", nor that his professional work is inaccurate or that it should be dismissed.

Also, no one is suggesting that we base the lead exclusively on any one source.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

A historian who is a staunchly pro-Israeli private person (say: Morris, despite being pretty moderate) is not a pro-Israeli historian? FortunateSons (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss has also proposed a solution in the section above. What do you think about his version? I sort of prefer Makeandtoss’ version because your version has introduced some more details to the lead, and I think the lead is supposed to be more of a summary. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Where? FortunateSons (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In the section above

Possible solution, something around:

"The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. By the first Arab-Israeli war's end in 1949, Israel was established over most of the former Mandate territory, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of its predominantly Arab population." Makeandtoss (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you missing the part about the other armies? That may be obvious to us, but is relevant here. FortunateSons (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so Makeandtoss hasn’t actually commented in this thread. I just pasted his comment and username down here and I think it has caused some confusion. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, makes sense. Could you link to the comment directly? I can’t seem to find it on mobile. FortunateSons (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wafflefrites (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons Can you take a look at Makeandtoss’ version. I think his is a good version that uses neutral language. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s a partial improvement over this, but I think a compromise between both could be optimal here. FortunateSons (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

More urgently, I would strongly encourage you to cite at least some pro-Israeli historians directly, particularly when basing the narrative on them, and not make changes about Israeli history exclusively based on historians with significant bias.

I may be scarred because of Finkelsteins “use” of quotes, but let’s use sources directly where they are either broadly supported or cited by people on the other cite, not where they are considered to be “narrow” by the cited person. FortunateSons (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What would you consider "pro-Israeli" sources? The traditionalist history has been thoroughly debunked and disproven, so we shouldnt be treating such sources with the same weight as more modern understanding of history. DMH223344 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Odd the idea that pro-Israeli historians are not biased too. nableezy - 19:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

They definitely are, which is the reason why we wouldn’t solely rely on them for something in the lead of the Palestine article either, right? Particularly when it comes to disputed facts. FortunateSons (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be cautious of the old, and directly cite the new where appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In any case, the change here is to improve the accuracy of the lead. It's not "pro" either "side". However, as Khalidi points out, the inaccuracy present in our lead is part of a traditionalist Israeli myth of origin. Which he does by citing Israeli sources. DMH223344 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is consensus for that academically, you should have no trouble directly citing major contemporary historians on the Israeli side. If there isn’t, you can’t put it in the lead. FortunateSons (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That isnt how this works, if you think something is incorrect then bring sources that challenge it. nableezy - 19:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The word “invasion” is broadly used by the sources cited at 1948 Arab–Israeli War, for example footnote 18, 19, 22 FortunateSons (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article itself says "entered" DMH223344 (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

And calls them invading forces FortunateSons (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You've refused to answer my question about what sources you consider "pro israeli". And as nableezy says, you have to support your challenge with sources. DMH223344 (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Direct citations to a few (read: multiple) new historians would be a start, otherwise reputable professors at universities in Israel or old historians FortunateSons (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of "direct citations" here other than to give me extra work?

As for your other points, bring some references to specific passages from said professors or historians then we can discuss concretely. DMH223344 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I tried to address the wording issues in the thread below, which doesn’t use invaded per the source you provided and uses the alt wording that you suggested. Can you take a look please? Wafflefrites (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are citing a book, you can just follow that citation, it takes one minute max. I just don’t have access to any without going to the local library (or piracy), and particularly Finkelstein has a habit of poorly citing FortunateSons (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Khalidi is flat out wrong about the Iraqis. They attacked and occupied Geulim which was in the Jewish part (see Morris's 1948, p. 248). Our own article about the 1948 Arab–Israeli War#Arab states says that there were Saudi and Yemeni contingents, as well as some limited action on part of the Lebanese army. The Saudis in particular were incorporated into the Egyptian army which undoubtedly invaded the Jewish part. I don't have time to examine all the sources that article is based on but they seem legit.

I'd support changing the exact number to several to resolve this issue. Alaexis_¿question? 17:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Alaexis. I am good with using the exact number, “several”, just neighboring, or even listing out all the major Arab players. We could probably discuss more but I am currently waiting for Makeandtoss’ response because he was also involved with the changes to this section of the lead. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The full paragraph from morris reads:

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

which if anything supports the change I am suggesting. The Iraqis were "largely inactive" once in Samaria (of course not the area allotted to the Jewish state). As for Geulim, it doesn't change anything about my suggestion.

"there were Saudi and Yemeni contingents, as well as some limited action on part of the Lebanese army" also does not change anything about my suggestion. The Egyptian army was the only significant invading army. As morris says, the lebanese army did not cross the border. DMH223344 (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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

RFC

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

Add the Israel Name in Hebrew

I would suggest that we edit the Israeli name in Hebrew (ישראל Jisra'el מדינת ישראלⓘ Medinat Jisra'el) I i mean: ,,Israel (ישראל Jisra'el מדינת ישראלⓘ Medinat Jisra'el), officially the State of Israel,is a country in the Levant region of West Asia." What do you think? Vogelman29 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This information is already contained in a footnote in the opening sentence of the article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought it might make sense to write it even more clearly, but ok. :) Vogelman29 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Combined version

Ok, I have tried to combine this again with bits from @DMH223344 @FortunateSons @Makeandtoss. What about this version:

The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups, which was the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians by Zionist militias and paramilitary units.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were displaced due to expulsions or fled. The 1949 Armistice Agreements saw Israel’s borders established over most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were ruled by Jordan and Egypt respectively

Wafflefrites (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• mobilzed their armies and entered the area of the former mandate. (Also maybe include the number?)
• there are some issues with readability, including in the last sentence; I’m not a native speaker, but it looks “awkward” to me
• the break between the second half of the first and the entire last sentence is potentially redundant and definitely to much for the lead

Looks good otherwise FortunateSons (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I mixed up the order. The armistice sentence was supposed to be last. The order should be fixed now. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I will probably make a few alterations to grammar and content later, but otherwise weak support FortunateSons (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together. My only suggestion would be to change "were displaced due to expulsions or fled" to "were expelled or fled" since it's more direct and reads better. DMH223344 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It's repetitive to mention the expulsions twice; hence my previous version. Also during all wars, armies mobilize, including Israel's in 1948, so I am not sure how that adds values to the sentence; it only confuses it. The first war started due to a myriad of reasons and not due to one action by a side or another. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! FortunateSons also mentioned the redundancy so I have removed it:

The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled.

Next, is to determine if we want:

A. On 15 May 1948, neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies

B. On 15 May 1948, several neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies

C. On 15 May 1948, four neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies

D. On 15 May 1948, Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq entered the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine

E. A military coalition of Arab states entered the territory of Mandatory Palestine in the morning of 15 May

F. Remove the second sentence and replace with “By the end of the First Arab–Israeli War, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled”

G. On 15 May 1948, the First Arab–Israeli War began

H. On 15 May 1948, the First Arab–Israeli War began between Israel and several neighboring Arab countries

@DMH223344 @FortunateSons @Makeandtoss @Alaexis, could you please reply to this listing with your preferred order? Discuss? Wafflefrites (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are using mobilized, 4 is technically inaccurate, you would have to include the ones that didn’t invade as well, as listed here. Maybe another argument for using invaded? FortunateSons (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I have struck out D because if I included all those countries that are in the infobox, the sentence would be really long. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I would then favour just adopting this phrasing: “… a military coalition of Arab states entered the territory of Mandatory Palestine in the morning of 15 May, starting ….” from the article linked above. FortunateSons (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I preferred the old D as it was more informative and did not use the word Arab. The use of the characterization Arab suggests a holy war as opposed to an appropriation of land owned and occupied by millions of folks, for whatever reasons. I am ambivalent on the ultimate wording. I just don't like any wording that suggests a bunch of Arabs decided to attack a bunch of Jews for purely religious reasons. Of course they were Arab as that's who lived in that area. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I have re-added the old D with some tweaks based on the comment from FortunateSons. Transjordan is listed in option D, but I think Transjordan's involvement was a little more complicated. Not all of the Arab leaders were against the recognition of Israel. For example, Abdullah I of Jordan, the Emir of Transjordan was the only Arab leader that had supported the 1947 UN Partition Plan. He was later assassinated by a Palestinian nationalist in 1951 [1] Fawzi Darwish Husseini, another "respected figure" and cousin of Jamal al-Husayni, "had worked with Jews to advocate a binational state". He was murdered in 1946.[2][3] Wafflefrites (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

E looks good, and I’m partial to the version from Alaexis FortunateSons (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing "five" with "several" in the current version "the armies of several neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine." The mobilisation can be discussed in the article itself. The list of countries likewise isn't needed, this way we'll be arguing whether they participated sufficiently in order to be mentioned. Each country had its own agenda and participated to a different degree, and these details should be discussed in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 09:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think option B with “several” is good too.

From @Makeandtoss’ comment “Also during all wars, armies mobilize, including Israel's in 1948, so I am not sure how that adds values to the sentence; it only confuses it. The first war started due to a myriad of reasons and not due to one action by a side or another” from 21:39, 9 March 2024, I have added three additional options.Wafflefrites (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Option H is a combination of B plus not mentioning “who started the war” or who mobilized armies Wafflefrites (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the options. All wars start in mobilization. This just places the burden of the war on the Arab side, as if the Jewish side was waving white flags, and not bent on taking over all of Mandatory Palestine. This is too detailed for lede anyway. Just say the war erupted without any POV. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wiki page lead for the first Arab-Israeli war has “and a military coalition of Arab states entered the territory of Mandatory Palestine in the morning of 15 May.” I have added additional options, but it does seem in terms of direct action, the Arab coalition took the first action (at least what I read from the Wiki page lead)

Also in regards to the civil war that happened after the failed UN partition

Benny Morris writes on p.76, “there was also a clear, organized Palestinian Arab response to the UN resolution.” On Dec. 1, it was a strike, and on Dec. 2, it was “a large Arab mob, armed with clubs and knives” led by two AHC officials. Morris then writes that the mob turned back after wounding some people and encountering the Haganah “But the war had begun”. [4] Wafflefrites (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

How can a reaction be a first action? Problem with the never ending conflict is that each side calls every one of their actions a reaction. Chicken/egg. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The source says it was a response (reaction) to the UN resolution, not to any type of physical aggression. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Which could very well be taken as a casus belli. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That is your opinion, if there are reliable sources that say it was casus belli, you could probably even add it to the Casus belli Wiki article. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Well covered at: 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead of the article says the first wave of expulsions and Israel’s Declaration of Independence was a casus belli for the First Arab-Israeli War. The Benny Morris quote was in regards to the preceding civil war that happened after the UN partition plan, before Israel declared independence, and before the expulsions. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The point is that the lead text should not suggest that there was a unilateral attack on Jews by Arabs simply because of religious differences. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t interpret it as having anything to do with religion. The other editors may want to see your point about casus belli in regards to the first Arab-Israeli war. In regards to the preceding civil war, according to Benny Morris at least, the preceding civil war first began with a mobilization from the Arab side. I don’t think there were casualties from that mob, but Morris says after in his text that the war had begun. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

History did not start with a mobilization from the Arab side. Such logic is why such feuds never end. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree with this, my original suggestion included "mobilized" but there isn't really a great reason to be including those details in the lead anyway. DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, the entry/invasion into the mandate is a core part of the progression of the conflict, which is a core part of the founding history of the country. FortunateSons (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not have any real strong opinion on any of the current options A-H, but we did try to improve the sentence and add detail to make it clear that Zionist militias and parliamentary units expelled Palestinians and Palestinians also fled, while some historians use the term “exodus”. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The WP article says both fled and expelled. Not either or. Let's just say the 1948 war erupted without going into the chicken/egg debates. Whether the Arabs had invaded, implying aggression; or were intervening to save the Palestinians from ethnic cleansing is a matter of POV that has no place in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

And this WP article says expelled or fled. WP is not a reliable source. I will be drafting a third combined version taking into consideration these comments and historical events. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wars

How should we summarize Israel's five Gaza wars and two Lebanon wars in the lede? This is obviously missing. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really, for example, the lead for Great Britain/England/United Kingdom does not include the world wars beyond its economic/decolonial impacts. We are already overweight on the conflicts, let’s not make this problem more apparent . FortunateSons (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Israel is overweight on conflicts, not us. WP reflects reality, it is not our job to pick and choose. These wars were a major part of Israel's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeandtoss (talk • contribs) 10:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

There have been 6 Arab-Israeli wars. https://www.britannica.com/event/Arab-Israeli-wars

Not just in Gaza or Lebanon, but with other Arab countries as well. There are a lot of conflicts between Israel and its neighboring states; there is a reason why there is a saying that Israel is surrounded by its enemies. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

human rights language in lead

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

Yes of course, I didn't notice, I just did better wording because in some reports they also mean crimes against Lebanon and the people of Lebanon and not just Palestinians and the occupation of southern Lebanon. Qplb191 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't better wording and Lebanon has nothing to do with the sentence. nableezy - 17:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Qplb191 you need to self-revert your latest changes, the sentence as it was has an explicit consensus from an RFC. A change will require a new consensus, not just you doing what you want. Please self-revert. nableezy - 20:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Disagree, undue for this article FortunateSons (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to explain why you think it's undue DMH223344 (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There are two main paragraphs about the entire basic law, the reaction of one organisation is just not due. Unless that is the most important fact to know about the law, this addition would be a better fit in the relevant articles, not here. FortunateSons (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a reaction, it's a description of how the law is used in practice. Adalah is not just some organization, it is the leading Israeli legal advocacy group for human rights in Israel. DMH223344 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If you have no other objections then I will make the change. DMH223344 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Even that is just not DUE here. It’s a better fit for the specific article on the law. FortunateSons (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

But this isn't showing a point of view or perspective. It's describing the practical implementation of the law mentioned. A description of a country's laws natural also has a description of how they are upheld in practice. DMH223344 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and balance would then have to include those saying that the application is equitable, no? At the very least that part would be too long for this. FortunateSons (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

DUE is specifically about viewpoint. BALANCE is more relevant here: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." This is covered by my proposal. DMH223344 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Basic Laws of Israel or Knesset would be a better place, if you would prefer to go more in depth? FortunateSons (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of an unrelated law

Just to add to what FortunateSons has written, the position of Adalah is actually much more nuanced [5] “ The right to equality and freedom from discrimination is not explicitly enshrined in Israeli law as a constitutional right, nor is it protected by statute. While Supreme Court justices have interpreted The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty as comprising the principle of equality, this fundamental right is currently protected by judicial interpretation alone. ” The added text ignores the part that I've highlighted. This is a complex topic and this article is not the right place to explain the nuances. Alaexis¿question? 21:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC) The text you quoted is related to "The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty", but my proposal is about "The Basic Law: The Knesset (1958)" DMH223344 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC) You're right, sorry for the confusion. I'll collapse this thread. Alaexis¿question? 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sections in "History"

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

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

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

Could you elaborate on which parts you would like to remove specifically? The US isn’t really analogous, as there isn’t a partial claim of historical indignity derived from the ownership of the land. FortunateSons (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

We have had discussions like this before, see Talk:Israel#History section for the most recent one before this. There are also probably more in the archives. I don’t think we came to any consensus. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems everyone except one users agrees the section should be reduced and made more focused on the beginning of zionism. That seems like consensus to me DMH223344 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is built with respect to WP guidelines which state that RS must proportionately represent all viewpoints without bias. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Declaration

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

How would you characterize the American Revolution then? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence quotes “ Such places are usually declared from part or all of the territory of another state or failed state, or are breakaway territories from within the larger state.” The territory was part of the Ottoman Empire, then the mandate, then independent. It’s commonly referred to as such. Therefore, referring to as independence is accurate and appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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

I see a recurring problem in this article. What is Israel? We have four possible options:

Israel #1: Israel in its 1948 borders

Israel #2: 1948 Israel + annexed territories of East Jerusalem and Golan Heights

Israel #3 1948 Israel + annexed territories + Israeli settlements where Israeli law is applied

Israel #4: 1948 Israel + the occupied/annexed territories

The article currently seems to be defining Israel arbitrarily:

a- Demographics section defines Israel as Israel #3, which gives the population figure of 10 million people, including Israeli settlers (10%) and annexed territories.

b- Geography section defines Israel as Israel #2, since it says the total area is 22,072 square kilometers, which includes East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, but not the settlements.

c- Economy section defines Israel as Israel #3, since it says Israeli settlements, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights are included in the economic data

d- Religion section defines Israel as Israel #4 by mentioning Aqsa mosque, and holy sites in West Bank such as Rachel's tomb and Cave of Patriarchs.

e- Infobox map defines Israel as Israel #1, in its 1948-1967 borders.

This is not necessarily due to editors' bias, as editors, most likely acting in good faith, are merely reflecting what reliable sources have been saying, in an inconsistent manner however.

Israel itself has created this problem due to self-serving interests: when it wants to appear large geographically it cites 4; when it wants to appear large demographically and mostly Jewish it cites 3; when it wants to appear semi-conforming with international law it cites 2; when it wants to appear democratic and not an apartheid state it cites 1.

This is reflecting terribly on the accuracy of this article, especially with regards to the latest edits, in which the lede (supposed to summarize the body) wants to claim Israel is a Jewish majority country, while the apartheid section is completely ignored and not even mentioned by a single word.

This status quo is highly misleading, and the first step to solving this situation is reaching a consensus on what exactly is Israel. Most reliable sources define Israel as Israel #1 but with explicit and delineated explanations on its connections to everything within Israel #4. We should do the same and stop the inconsistency. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably needs an explanatory section under Demographics. Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I think going by current, modern maps of Israel, #2 is the closest definition. I don’t think it should be #4 because that would include all of Gaza: Israeli citizens haven’t live there since 2005, and Gaza has never been a part of Israel or the united Kingdom of Israel. The religion section doesn’t define Israel as #4, it just mentions that some of the historical, religious, and patriarchal sites significant to Jews are in West Bank. West Bank is not part of modern day Israel, although it was part of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea, and Bethlehem did once belong to a place that was once was called Judea.

Modern day Israel is probably best defined by its modern map, which does not include #3 (illegal settlements) or Golan Heights. A sentence could be added to the lead that some of Israel’s borders are disputed. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

#2 is disputed so that's not a definition of Israel, except according to Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Golan Heights are disputed. There probably should be an option #5 for whatever the current map borders are. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ej annex is disputed, same as Golan. As far as world at large is concerned, both are occupied territory and annex is not recognized. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I wrote, “A sentence could be added to the lead that some of Israel’s borders are disputed.” And this would also need to be in the body if it’s not there already. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it has already been written many times in the economic demographic and geographic section that the data covers the occupied territories of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem (since these are territories that Israel has declared to have annexed). Therefore, in my opinion, there is no need to write this again. In the lead this is mentioned a large number of times. In my opinion, the holy places in the West Bank should be erased. And I also object to adding "the majority of the population is Jewish" while about 30% of the country's residents belong to various minorities. Qplb191 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I see the reasoning in this too, to focus the article on option Israel #2 and keep it consistent throughout the article. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You are probably choosing Israel #2 because Israel applies its laws in the annexed territories, correct? But Israel is also applying its laws in the settlements Israel #3. And Israel #2 is unrecognized by the international community. So it should be Israel #1 and with clear elaboration on its connection to the expanded definitions of it. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know. It’s too confusing for me and I have to spend lots of time thinking about it and the laws and applications of laws so I give up and will let other editors decide. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Mostly I chose #2 because I think that’s what the maps look like? Corresponding with the geography section. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Well the map in the infobox is actually very clear: "Israel within internationally recognized borders shown in dark green; Israeli-occupied territories shown in light green", i.e. Israel #1. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait I got confused I thought #1 was for the partition plan but the partition plan was 1947 not 1948. Wafflefrites (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

[6] here’s a link . I think it should be 1949 to 1967, not 1948. Wafflefrites (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think most RS agree that Israel is its 1948-1967 borders, which are internationally recognized (Israel #1). So if we can agree on that as basis, and then make clear and explicit delineation with everything beyond that, is the way forward. This would entail changes to most sections, as demonstrated above. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away. Many countries' de jure and de facto borders are not the same and often important things happen outside of the de jure borders. Just as we have an article about the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and mention it in the main article about Turkey (Obviously, TRNC is much less important for Turkey than East Jerusalem is for Israel). Political divisions of Russia mentions the regions annexed from Ukraine while making it clear that the annexation has not been recognised by the majority of other countries.

I'm in two minds regarding the sentence about the holy places in the West Bank. On one hand they are clearly outside of the Israeli borders. On the other hand, this sentence is in the Religion subsection, which is supposed to give an overview of the religion in Israel, and these sites are extremely important to religious Jewish Israelis. Alaexis_¿question? 11:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure but they are not in Israel. The Vatican is important to Christianity but we don't go round mentioning it in every country article where there are Christians. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The Vatican (do you mean Holy See?) is important to Catholics. Several geographical regions link to Holy See including Albania, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic Special:WhatLinksHere/Holy See Wafflefrites (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Huh? TRNC is neither mentioned in the Turkey article, not even once; nor is TRNC put within the territorial map of Turkey on WP.

Also Uman in Ukraine is extremely important to religious Jewish Israelis, even more than Rachel's tomb. Should we mention that in this section as well? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is mentioned twice in Turkey article, and it has a much lower symbolic value for Turkey. Perhaps Crimea, through which Christianity came to Rus' and which is associated with the glory of Russian arms, would be a better example.

As I said, I wouldn't fight tooth and nail for keeping Rachel's tomb in the article, but the religious sites of the West Bank, unlike Uman, are more ancient, are venerated by most strands of Judaism and are a factor in the IP conflict. Alaexis_¿question? 20:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, @Selfstudier, @Alaexis, if we limit the article to #1 of the 1949 map, does this mean we will drop apartheid in the occupied territories from the article as well? Wafflefrites (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The state of Israel is committing apartheid, that fact wouldn’t change whatever definition we choose. As I mentioned earlier, choosing Israel #1 means explicit delineation with everything beyond it. Thus we would never say Israel’s population is 10 million without clarifying this includes settlers. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of the occupied territories contain settlements. Israelis in those settlements are subject to Israeli law, while Palestinians in the same territory are subject to Israeli military law. What would you call that? Selfstudier (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems we don’t want #1. We want #4. That way we can include all the things that are related to Israel. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I changed my mind I pick #4. Bethlehem is mentioned in Britannica’s Israel page under Tourism and Bethlehem is in West Bank. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, there is option #5, where we use a basic definition Israel #1, and whenever we go beyond that, we clearly and explicitly make say so. Example: we don't say Israel's population is 10 million, we say Israel's population is 9 million; or Israel's population is 10 million, but includes 1 million settlers. You get my point. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally do not support specifying in the lead the population number at all, since it already appears in the infobox. I think it is appropriate to delete the holy sites in the West Bank, and in the parts of geography, economy, demography, note that this includes the territories of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem, which are not recognised by the international community. Qplb191 (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

So if you don't want to specify the population number, then for consistency, that means you are with taking Israel #2 as a basic definition, which directly contradicts the map of Israel #1 in the infobox. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Qplb191 is right. As it reads now in this particular article, the mention of population seems tacked on at the end of an unrelated sentence. Unless there is additional information for mentioning the population number, it seems pointless in the lede as it is. The mention in the infobox will suffice in this case. Michael0986 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I support this, but if I'm not mistaken it already appears in the different sections, doesn't it? Qplb191 (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

But if we do not specify every time this is mentioned then that would be misleading. Plus, the population is an example. This about the entire scope of the article as a whole and has wide-ranging implications, and not exactly about the population figures. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the whole matter is terribly confusing and of course not the fault of the various editors but the fault of the Israeli government. That is, if you say that there are a million settlers, you will also include the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem or the Syrian residents of the Golan Heights in the definition, which would be a complete distortion of reality. The big problem is that the Israeli government created this problem since the country has no clear borders (as long as the conflict is not resolved). And that is why there is confusion. As I said, in my opinion, the best way to solve this is to remove the various sections related to the West Bank. I support that under each section in any paragraph there will be a mention that it includes the occupied territories that are not internationally recognized (as in the map for example). Qplb191 (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is only an example to showcase that we need a solid basis, from which any extensions need to be clarified. One million settlers, one million clowns, it doesn't matter; the important thing is we use Israel #1 as the basis, and if anything goes beyond that then we have to clarify it explicitly per RS. And this is not limited to population, but also to geography map, etc. As for the occupation, it shouldn't be treated as part of Israel as the religious section does, but it definitely has to be mentioned since the state of Israel is the one maintaining this occupation. Geographic scope is one thing, and state policies is another. Choosing a definition here aims to clarify what we mean by state of Israel, and not to limit information about it. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that a single definition is needed or would be helpful for such a complex subject. What changes (other than removing the sentence about the Jewish holy sites in the West Bank) would this lead too? To take the economy section as an example, all Israeli economical statistics take into account Golan heights, so what do you propose to do? Leave everything as is ("per RS")? Remove all statistics? Alaexis_¿question? 22:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't remove the statistics, we simply mention explicitly, wherever possible, that they include areas outside of 1948 Israel. Same for population figure. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The scope of the article is the State of Israel founded in 1948. The scope is not the geographic area within the 1948 borders or any other set of borders. Questions about borders/statistics/etc. refer to the state, not an a priori Wikipedia definition of the state. Where the borders/statistics/etc. of and about the state are disputed in reliable sources, it should explain that. Jahaza (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

A state is defined by its borders. If a state was founded in 1948, then by definition, these are its borders. Anything outside of these borders, the state might act, in imposing a military occupation for example. That doesn't mean the occupied territories are part of the state; it means that the state is occupying the adjacent territories to it. I agree it should be 1948 Israel and anything beyond that should be explained per RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If a state was founded in 1948, then by definition, these are its borders.

Well obviously not. The 1776 borders of the United States are not the US borders and the 1801 borders of the United Kingdom are not the UK borders. 17:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Jahaza (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

In theory there are currently no means to expand national borders by force. However, that was not always the case and borders may also change by agreement. In the case of Israel, there are peace treaties, there is occupation as defined and illegal annexation (considered as continuing occupation) and those things need to be explained where necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The recurring proposal in this discussion of "use the internationally recognized boundaries aka Israel #1, and explain deviations when they occur" seems to be the most encyclopedic solution to me, since it gives crucial context and more clearly expresses the structure of Israel.

For example, "Israel has 10 million inhabitants" is a bit fuzzy, whereas "Israel has 9 million inhabitants residing inside the 1948 borders, and 1 million settlers living in the occupied territories" is much more useful, and helps the reader understand a complicated geopolitical situation. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Israel #3 should generally be used, as it most effectively encompasses areas inhabited primarily by citizens and under effective control/and or credibly effectively claimed by the country. However, as stated above, reasonable deviation (generally into the direction of 2. FortunateSons (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"Arab rule"

@Qplb191: Palestine was part of Arab caliphates/empires and was not subject to its rule. Please self-revert unexplained changes and restore consistency in dealing with all empires that Palestine was part of per original text: "Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Crusader, and Ottoman empires." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

History section

I have noted this before, but there is an obvious selective reporting of history that remains unresolved; a gap of at least 1,500 years that is barely mentioned! The article about any modern nation state reports on the history that happened within its borders, and not the history that aligns with the religious or cultural identity of the state. Jumping from the Roman-Jewish wars to the rise of Zionism makes this article seem as if it is published on the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs and not from Wikipedia. Main content to be borrowed from History of Palestine, although it will be challenging to determine the weight of the different historical events. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It's more like the ancient stuff should be further diminished and the history only start in any great detail with the Zionist movement in the 19th century. The History of Israel page is the place for overly redundant ancient history, as has been pointed out numerous times before, and as you will see in the archives. However, if you attempt to trim ancient history on the grounds of relevance (on any country page), objections will rapidly emerge from the woodwork. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree: ancient history should be trimmed and "medieval" history should be expanded as this would reflect a proportional summarization of the sources. This is per WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery". If the objections aren't based on WP guidelines, then they are quite irrelevant. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, unless the article has been trimmed since you opened the discussion. The ancient history makes up a pretty small part of the article, doesn't seem over-weighed to me at all. Zanahary (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I can see the sense in trimming the ancient history and increasing the detail on the Zionist movement in the 19th century. I disagreed with you in October because in October you said that Israel is a modern country and its modern history begins with expulsion (1948). But while the New Historians focused on the Nakba and 1948, modern Israel’s land territory begins with the Zionist movement’s land purchases and settlements in the 1800s. Although it seems to be mostly ignored by modern historians, the initial land purchases were significant in that they became the nucleus of modern Israel, and since the initial land purchases were highly malarious, the scientific and public health efforts of the Zionists were able to significantly reduce the rates of malaria, and according to some researchers, mapped out the borders of the 1947 UN partition plan.[7][8][9] Wafflefrites (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. An undue emphasis on the ancient history basically amounts to a tacit endorsement of the Zionist notion that Jews having been sovereign over the land in millennia past is a justification for the modern state to exist. JDiala (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a leap. The ancient history of Israel receives lots of special attention from academics, clergy, politicians, etc. for lots of reasons, including religious (with the world’s two largest religions placing significant value on the ancient history of this region) and political. Zanahary (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the first thing we can do here is to remove or shorten this section from the lead:

"Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Jewish states, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. The region was then ruled by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic and Roman empires. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. In the Middle Ages, it was part of the Crusader Kingdom, several Islamic Caliphates and the Ottoman Empire."

This quote is about the region and not the state itself, which makes it undue for the lead. DMH223344 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss recently added to and expanded that lead section. This is what I mean by no consensus: there are at least three different opinions on what the history section should be. Trimming, keeping, or both trimming and adding about the Islamic Caliphates, etc. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed about the region in general, not the modern state. You could readily cut any of the material after the first sentence, which simply loosely defines the relevant geography. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the modern state’s identity is related to the region’s history, I don’t find that passage to be overlong at all. Zanahary (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

in that case, the history should be related to the state's identity with references to RS. Otherwise it doesnt belong. DMH223344 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree sources should pertain to the "History of Israel" and that pre-modern history should come from sources that include it as the history of Israel and/or its background. But in any case I don't find the history section to be overlong at all, considering how much has happened there and how much attention has been paid to it by various religious and ethnic groups for millenia. Zanahary (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That again sounds like you are talking about the history of the region/geography, not the modern state. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources link them quite closely—closely enough for this article’s history section to discuss the region’s pre-modern history. Zanahary (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344: The sourcing in this section is actually far worse than I had imagined. It does not appear to reference a single, solid tertiary compendium of history. It is just a WP:COATRACK of papers and works on the ancient archaeology of the region, discussions of ancient Israel, the history of the Jewish people, etc., but without reference to any kind of source attempting to nit the material together with the subject of the page. To be honest, it shouldn't be that hard to find a passionate book source saying that Israel traces its history back to ancient Israel, but even this basic step has simply not been done. What the history section actually should be doing is referencing high quality secondary or tertiary reference works, such as Israel: A History by Anita Shapira (2015), the blurb for which reads: ”Written by one of Israel's most notable scholars, this volume provides a history of Israel from the origins of the Zionist movement in the late 19th century to the present day." Iskandar323 (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is about the region too though: “ Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine and the Holy Land. “

I think the ancient history could be combined and shortened, but not completely removed (maybe similar to the Portuguese Wiki article on Israel). The different ruling powers historically shaped the region’s demographics and religion (Judaism, Muslim conquest, Crusades) and have a direct impact on modern conflict and conflict over shared holy sites today. And the ancient history is important in understanding why Zionists specifically wanted a Jewish homeland in the Levant. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Definition of a state: A state is a political entity that regulates society and the population within a territory. A state by definition is a government over a certain territory; i.e. it is impossible to discuss a state's history without discussing the territory's history; as is the case with every state's WP article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The Zionists didn't want a state in the Levant; they specifically wanted it in Palestine, though they might have settled for Argentina if that hadn't worked out. In Palestine, the history was obviously a huge bonus for their movement as a culturally salient touchstone. But again, we're really talking about the history of Palestine (region) at that point, not the history of the state of Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There were a number of Zionist migration targets besides Palestine and Argentina, but certainly none took any amount of centrality comparable to Palestine.

Many (all?) articles on countries feature a history of the land and its people from long before the state’s formation. For Israel, the region’s history is of particular importance, since a lot of the state’s contemporary identity, culture, and political/foreign policy cannot be completely explained without a good amount of regional history. Zanahary (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can anyone tell me, why AE speakers offen call it "Isreal"? Same as Azrael is sometimes mispronounced likewise. Can't make sense of it. KhlavKhalash (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's side-effect of differences in diphthong frequency in English words. Perhaps there are some clues in Phonological history of English diphthongs. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You can ask at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language by the way. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

A help desk question, but I think it’s a transformation from “ees-rah-el” to “is-rail” to “is-real”, the latter two representing a common vowel transformation among some AE-speaking populations. Zanahary (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The world's only Jewish-majority state

It seems bizarre to me that this fact is not mentioned anywhere in the lead given this is probably the most notable, unique, and defining fact about Israel as a country. Should get a mention somewhere in the lead, probably in the first paragraph. 2607:FEA8:5399:A400:FC20:E4D4:8620:48FC (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Israel occupied the WBGS during the 67 war

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

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

It continues to occupy Gaza and the Golan as well though. nableezy - 17:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake to omit Golan. About Gaza, isnt that covered by my saying "The United Nations and most international human rights organizations also regard the Gaza Strip to still be under Israeli military occupation"? I assumed including "Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip today." would get many objections since most places on wikipedia tend to say WB is occupied in wikipvoice, but describe the occupation of GS in a qualified way.

My corrected version (including golan):

"During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel took over the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Golan Heights today. The United Nations and most international human rights organizations also regard the Gaza Strip to still be under Israeli military occupation." DMH223344 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The United Nations and the ICJ are what define and uphold international law, so if they say something is an occupation, it is an occupation; there is no equivocation to be had about it – lending weight to marginal voices that act as if the facts aren't clear and the UN/ICJ hasn't clearly ruled on this would simply be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither of those bodies issued a binding decision on the topic post 2005, as far as I know. There was no SC resolution and the decision by the ICJ was advisory. FortunateSons (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The binding nature doesn't mean anything about whether it's legal or not. DMH223344 (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No, but a decision by the SC or ICJ are likely indications of which way RS will go. FortunateSons (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point, due to the amount of pushback we get on every change on this page I tend to lean in this falsebalance direction. Thank you for the correction. DMH223344 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No opinion,, but I have restored a sentence that mentioned that Israel returned the Sinai. [10] Wafflefrites (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, definitely a good idea to separate out Gaza due to its unique status. While I’m generally in favour of the change, I would suggest you wait a few months. If Israel actually fully occupies Gaza, we can save ourselves the edit, but I would leave it to you. FortunateSons (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The current phrasing is fine; they are all militarily occupied not "taken over". Makeandtoss (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain more your issue with the phrasing "took over"? Does it imply annexation? DMH223344 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I propose to change this to:

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

Not mentioning the notably high poverty rate is lacking WP:BALANCE. DMH223344 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an RS with that statement? FortunateSons (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-28/ty-article/.premium/israels-poverty-rate-is-among-the-highest-in-the-developed-world-new-report-shows/0000018c-b055-d45c-a98e-bb5d02af0000

also mentioned in the article, so it does not require a citation in the lead DMH223344 (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Good RS, but I’m not sure on the content. This is based on national poverty lines, which are valuable, but not quite useful for proper contrasts. I couldn’t find good world bank data and this isn’t really good for a lead use, and the issue appears to be somewhat complicated per Standard of living in Israel and their sources, including Haaretz. FortunateSons (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"This is based on national poverty lines, which are valuable, but not quite useful for proper contrasts" Haaretz disagrees. The lead paragraph is unbalanced without this inclusion. DMH223344 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Haaretz published both positions (opinion article by columnist, who Google describes as a journalist, so RS unless shown otherwise) FortunateSons (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344 I disagree for 2024 ,it is in fourth place among the developed countries after USA , Chile and Turkey and besides, many articles that have been published that claim that the high poverty rate is due to the black economy in Israel, which in relation to GDP is the highest in the OECD without the black economy The poverty rates are estimated at a little less than 10%, which is less than the OECD average

In addition, poverty rates are not calculated in absolute terms, they are relative. Qplb191 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The absolute poverty rate (in PPP) compiled by the World Bank is estimated at 0.5%, which is slightly lower poverty rate than the OECD average. Qplb191 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you share a source for the 2024 claim? The Haaretz article I linked is from late 2023. We could change to the phrasing of the Haaretz article subtitle which uses "Israel's Poverty Rate Is Among the Highest in the Developed World". DMH223344 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Poverty rate by country [11]

By the way, the figure you brought is based on a survey that is not a quality source at all, there are many conflicting sources, and beyond that it is a more extensive economic issue. I strongly object to adding this. Qplb191 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

[12]https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-is-it-so-hard-to-know-how-many-israelis-are-poor/amp/ Qplb191 (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This source still ranks it among the highest poverty rates DMH223344 (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The information you are trying to present is not accurate, it is based on different data, for example in some of the data, for example Spain has a poverty rate of 30% and some of the data is 10%.[13] Qplb191 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You are trying to introduce a complex and extensive economic issue into the lead, which is not the right place for it. According to the of the World Bank report, Israel has a poverty rate below the OECD average, the data you are basing on are based on different surveys that bring different data and they are not accurate. There are different methods for calculating poverty that cause the results Miscellany, for Italy and Spain in some indices

There is a poverty rate of 10% and in some of almost 30% I oppose this addition. Qplb191 (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead already mentions plenty of economic indices. The proposed addition adds balance. As I suggested, we dont need to specify that it ranks second, we can say it ranks among the highest. This is supported also by the source you shared. DMH223344 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As I have already explained, there are many different indicators for examining poverty, according to the World Bank index, Israel is placed below the OECD poverty average, so writing this down would not be accurate. In some sources Spain and Italy have a poverty rate of 30% and in some 10% according to some sources as I mentioned this statement is incorrect therefore I object to adding it. Qplb191 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the world bank it’s not one of the highest in the developed world . https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY?locations=1WQplb191 (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Poverty is measured by comparing countries according to the World Bank's poverty index (PPP), such as South Africa, not by measuring a poverty index by country according to surveys or relative poverty indices that vary from country to country. Qplb191 (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Poverty index 2023

another source (2023) that place Israel below Sweden and United Kingdom in poverty index . Qplb191 (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention of Apartheid in Lead

The lead currently mentions: "It [Israel] has the highest standards of living in the Middle East" without qualifying that all notable human rights organizations consider Israel to be a single apartheid state.

Propose to replace with: "Is is considered to have one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East, although most human rights organizations consider Israel to be an apartheid state." DMH223344 (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's an absolutely ridiculous statement taken in isolation and without caveats or context. What's generally missing is: "... if you count only Israel proper/if you discount all those living under free facto Israeli occupation, military law and apartheid". The same applies to all of these fabulous statistics - they only apply if you count only Israel proper + Israeli settlers living in illegal settlements (presumably derived from Israel's own fanciful statistics regime), while forgetting the entire under-class of both occupied living alongside said settlers and all of the Palestinian labourers that have for years kept the economy ticking over while themselves live in borderline poverty. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree; at best, this belongs in the section above, but even that is disputable.

The primary apartheid claim applies to the West Bank only, and the view claiming that Israel proper (where most economic activity takes place) is also covered is a minority view; in addition, the claim that Israel is a broad apartheid state is not recognised as such by the international community as such. Therefore, including it in the title is not WP:DUEWEIGHT. FortunateSons (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it goes well beyond that. Look at our own, length, well sourced article Israel and apartheid. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Like the broad rejections by western governments and Jewish NGOs, the legally dubious claims (assuming that the occupied areas are part of Israel?) and the fact that the decisions faced broad criticism. Additionally, many of the strongest claims are only concern the occupied territories and are therefore at best partially applicable to Israel proper. FortunateSons (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

sure it's challenged by some entities, that's what my proposal above includes the qualifier "most human rights organizations". DMH223344 (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Except it isn’t, most simply didn’t make a statement. Of those that did, HRW stated that the conduct in Israel proper didn't meet the standard for the crime. Major human rights orgs like J Street and the ADL fully disagreed. Most is therefore factually inaccurate, and even if it was not, it would still be undue weight. FortunateSons (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

In April 2021, Human Rights Watch became the first major international human rights body to say Israel had crossed the threshold. Read what the article says about HRW. J Street is a pro-Israel lobbyist org. ADL saying it isn't is not meaningful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

„HRW report differs from it in finding that while "the elements of systematic and widespread repression with the intention of maintaining the superiority of one group exist both within Israel and in the OPT, only in the OPT (including East Jerusalem) does the severity of inhumane acts make them criminal."“

J Street is liberal pro-Israel and considered to be anti-Israeli by some on the right wing, making me inclined to say that they are pretty neutral in general, at least no less than many pro-Palestinian orgs which are biased towards the other side of the conflict.

ADL saying it isn’t meaningful, despite them being a broadly respected RS? There are also others, if you want to make a list, like those listed in the article. FortunateSons (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ADL and J Street are specifically pro-Israel. That is their focus. I would not accept specifically pro-Israel or pro-Arab institutions in articles like this. As for HRW, you just said: the severity of inhumane acts make them criminal. Are you saying that they are not inhumane in all areas and that somehow makes them not criminal? Doesn't work that way. Kinda like Bush saying we can torture people in Guantanamo and ignore the US Constitution because it's OK if it's only occupied. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The linked article itself references the crime of apartheid. FortunateSons (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Well there are something like 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank with 700,000 Israelis, including 220,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

But most of them aren’t Israeli citizens and therefore not counted into the statistics that I am aware of, making them not relevant for economic numbers. They also, which is quite important here, aren’t citizens, and discrimination against non-citizens is a normal feature of many laws, including in areas of work, land purchases, travel, political participation, protections from state powers etc. all across the world. FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Those Palestinians cannot become citizens if they do not swear that Israel is a Jewish state. What are they citizens of? Makes it sound like apartheid. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Something similar may be required of them of they want to become German citizens, does that make Germany an apartheid state? FortunateSons (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That's one of the 16 states in Germany and as it says that state law is controversial and considered discriminatory. I don't think that's a serious response. These are people who were born in and whose ancestors were born in the land in which they live. And their houses are regularly bulldozed to remove them. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There are some issues with your current proposal’s phrasing. It would be best to drop “although” per MOS:EDITORIAL and bring in other sources that disagree with the apartheid characterization per Wikipedia:SOURCESDIFFER. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Is your suggestion to insert a clause saying that some groups do no consider it apartheid? I think that's covered by "considered to have one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East" and the previous statement (not quoted in this thread) about human development index. Those metrics would of course not capture the apartheid consideration. DMH223344 (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Vox has a great example here [14], and could probably be used as a source for the body paragraphs as well. I could help you balance the sentence. It seems like those that disagree with the label are Israel, US and other Western allies, the ADL, the European Commission. Other editors may argue that these are irrelevant and unreliable sources, however Vox (which I believe is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia) has deemed these other sources as relevant enough to reference and balance out their article on the Israel apartheid topic. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Some issues with this article:

1. The opening sentence "In recent years, human rights organizations and legal experts have increasingly described Israel’s policies toward Palestinians as apartheid, adding to a longstanding debate about whether this is an accurate way to categorize the country’s practices." is misleading. It's not just "increasingly described... as apartheid"--every notable human rights organization does. This example alone captures Vox's general low quality reporting on the subject. Being "balanced" does not mean being "nice" to both "sides", it involves reporting accurately, honestly and completely.
2. The sentence "Israel isn’t alone in its criticism of the term, which has been the source of international debate." gives the rejection of the apartheid label much more credit than it deserves. The rest of the paragraph cites the ADL which they describe as a "civil rights group", which is of course not an accurate characterization. The last sentence in this paragraph "Some critics also claim that the term apartheid cannot be used because only Palestinian noncitizens outside of Israel’s internationally recognized borders suffer from confinement and other potentially “inhumane acts,” while Palestinian citizens of Israel purportedly have the same rights as all other Israeli citizens, such as the ability to vote and run for office." misses the point almost entirely. It's not about only palestinian citizens of Israel. This article might seem like its presenting both sides, but it really isn't; it pushes the Israeli rejection of responsibility for anything in the occupied territories, without challenging it, or clearly putting into contrast what human rights organizations say about this point.
3. The paragraph "The US and other Western allies of Israel have pushed back on this label as well. In 2023, the US House passed a resolution stating that Israel is not a “racist or apartheid state,” and in recent years, the Biden administration has said it disagreed with human rights analyses that argue that Israel practices apartheid. In January 2023, the European Commission also said that it is “not appropriate” to associate the term apartheid with the Israeli state." is purely an appeal to authority, without any arguments or details being presented.
4. The article cites Israeli government claims as equally legitimate, if not more legitimate, as the claims of human rights organizations (which all corroborate each other).
5. "Outside of Israel’s borders, the Israeli government has supported what UN leaders describe as illegal settlements in the occupied territories, which have pushed Palestinians out of their communitie." again this is totally underselling the reality. It is not "UN leaders" who describe the settlements as illegal. They ARE illegal. Also, Israel has not defined its borders, so this sentence extra doesnt make sense.
6. The section "2. Establishing the intent to maintain the domination of one racial group over another" has some glaring omissions and is overall unnecessarily vague. For example, it misses that the nation state law is a Basic Law, essentially constitutional status.
7. As another example "“Israel does not have a racial segregation implemented by law,” Haaretz opinion editor Anat Kaam wrote in the Daily Beast in October 2022. “There are Arab citizens—citizens with full, equal rights—in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, as well as in the Israeli court system, including the Supreme Court. There are Arab doctors, professors, policemen, teachers, and countless other professions, working side by side with Jews.”" except that it does have racial segregation implemented by law, as demonstrated by this article even: "That law — which was widely criticized by Palestinians and liberal Israeli Jews as undemocratic — explicitly stated that the right to “national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.”" National belonging is the mechanism of racial discrimination. That's the whole point of bifurcating citizenship from nationality. Adalah has listed explicitly 65 laws which discriminate directly or indirectly against Palestinian citizens of Israel on this basis.

Overall, this article is shallow and misses the key point that not every claim from every individual or organization should be given equal weight and reported almost unchecked. DMH223344 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is how adalah describes the nation-state law: "The Israeli Knesset voted on 19 July 2018 by a margin of 62 to 55 to approve the Jewish Nation-State Basic Law, constitutionally enshrining Jewish supremacy and the identity of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people." emphasis mine DMH223344 (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In any case, i dont' think it's even relevant to my proposal, which is already balanced by not omitting the statement about Israeli standards of living. DMH223344 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

“ Is your suggestion to insert a clause saying that some groups do no consider it apartheid? “

Yes, I believe that is how it is done from what I have seen on Wikipedia articles. For example, “ Hamas is accused of having committing acts of gender-based violence, war crimes and crimes against humanity in keeping with the recognition of The International Criminal Court (ICC) that sexual violence is a war crimeand a crime against humanity.Hamas has denied that its fighters committed rape and assault against women.”

That is from Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel Wafflefrites (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

And unlike the rest of the world, Israel and, under Reagan, the US claimed South Africa wasn't apartheid. We are not trying to say Israel is apartheid in WikiVoice. But that is the general consensus among human rights groups and that should be included. This is not like a specific incidence, like one war crime where there are always denials and the of of war and individuals involved in the crime. It is the general operation/policy of the country. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If you read the Vox article, it actually does a good job with the issue. There is certainly debate around it, Vox did a good job with presenting different sides, such as security issues. This is why I asked in the RFC on this if apartheid was occurring within Israel proper, and I had also linked a really good article on the West Bank Barrier aka “Apartheid Wall”[15] .

The conclusion that I came to from this reading. is that there seems to be inequality between Arabs vs others within Israel but I am not sure if it amounts to apartheid. The history of security issues is another confounding variable , not sure if I am using that term correctly, DMH223344 should be familiar with that term. That is why I asked about apartheid in Israel proper. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid may be a polite term. CNN just reported that 68% of Israeli's want to block food aid to Gaza, even though newborn babies are dying of malnutrition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that is apartheid. I think it is more “Who helps the enemy??!!” type rhetoric/thinking from citizens, from articles I have read with quotes from civilians. The public perception within Israel is not the same as the international perceptions outside Israel. I remember watching a snippet of a video from Mia Shem after her release as a hostage. She said “there are no innocent civilians in Gaza” [16]. Israeli citizens also clash with the IDF who try to secure passage for the aid.

Since the aid is going to Gaza, which is outside Israel and governed by Hamas (not Israel), I don’t think that Israeli citizens blocking aid is a related example of apartheid. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It is extremely basic humanitarian law to provide food and basic services to civilians in areas you occupy (as well as the morally obvious thing to do). The withholding of these things is a continuous ongoing war crime, and yes, way worse than apartheid: it's the crime of crimes – as many have now said, a "textbook case of genocide". Those acting against the provision of aid are acting in a continuously illegal fashion. It's not apartheid because it is something much worse. Apartheid can be subtle and creeping: there is nothing subtle about Israel's genocidal intent. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's collective punishment. In effect, the two million Gazan civilians are hostages. But we can't get ahead of RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid inside the greenline is not really relevant here, since these same human rights organizations refer to a "one state reality" or something equivalent to that. See for example BTselem:

B’Tselem rejects the perception of Israel as a democracy (inside the Green Line) that simultaneously upholds a temporary military occupation (beyond it). B’Tselem reached the conclusion that the bar for defining the Israeli regime as an apartheid regime has been met after considering the accumulation of policies and laws that Israel devised to entrench its control over Palestinians... it is one regime between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and we must look at the full picture and see it for what it is: apartheid.

I will read the vox article. But like O3000 said, we are not trying to say anything in wikivoice here. DMH223344 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, Vox is not great on this issue, especially when it comes to factual precision and understanding of the conflict as a whole. For example their notorious article where they claimed there was a bridge connecting the gaza strip and west bank on which palestinians could travel but israel limited traffic on (???). DMH223344 (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

True. As stated above, if these statistics count Israeli settlers then they are encompassing the entirety of Israel–Palestine territory, just through the lense of a very selective and POV prism of understanding, and Wikipedia, in displaying these claims without caveats, is perpetuating a flawed data approach that masks apartheid. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Every data point about Israel on this page ultimately needs a note outlining whether it refers to A) Israel; B) Israel + Israeli citizens living in illegal settlements; or C) something else. Unless this is delineated, it's all useless to readers. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

+1. If the ICJ determines that the occupation is itself illegal (not just the annexes, which are already illegal), the apartheid case becomes much stronger, personally I don't mind waiting for the ICJ to produce an advisory on that. Also, the expression "apartheid state" is not that helpful, it is not defined in international law. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer waiting for a decision from the SC, but yes, waiting for the ICJ is definitely reasonable (or even the reaction of scholarship to it), +1 on you suggestion. FortunateSons (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if a term is not defined in international law, it is still meaningful. The wikilink i proposed should give readers more detail. Do you have any alternate phrasing suggestions? DMH223344 (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If there are no more comments, I will make the suggested change DMH223344 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no RS consensus on apartheid within Israel proper, and no consensus for including the occupied territories within this part of the article. As long as you don’t have a remedy for at least one of those, the inclusion here is not appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

As an alternative, I think a clarifying footnote that states that it refers to Israel proper + settlements only would resolve this issue, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

But there is a RS consensus. As I mentioned several times, every notable human rights organization agrees. The ADL and J-street are not human rights organizations, as has been explained in this thread. DMH223344 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

According to our own article, Israel and Apartheid, HRW doesn’t believe the bar to be met within Israel proper, and the legal bodies are generally not tasked to examine Israel proper. Additionally, Goldstone disagrees (which is old, but still), and many of the views either only apply to Israel proper if you view it in conjunction with the occupied territories (something not broadly supported by RS except B'Tselem, or merely focus on the West Bank. Therefore, the only major organisation saying that Israel proper (and not only viewed in conjunction with the West Bank) has reached the bar is Amnesty, which is important, but not broad consensus. FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

When making the assessment of whether the crime of apartheid is being committed, human rights organizations (including Amnesty International, Human rights watch and B'Tselem) also consider the condition in the occupied territories. From HRW: "On the basis of its research, Human Rights Watch concludes that the Israeli government has demonstrated an intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians across Israel and the OPT. In the OPT, including East Jerusalem, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them. When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid." DMH223344 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so if you need A + B + C= D, and only have A in Israel proper, you don’t have D (being Apartheid). The apartheid claim in the context of economics is not relevant if the people are not citizens or residents of the country discussed, and the citizens and residents (as shown by your source) are not affected by Apartheid per HRW. FortunateSons (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If a state commits the crime of apartheid, it is an apartheid state, just as if a group is accused of perpetrating acts of terror then it might be characterised as a terrorist group. Suggesting that only perpetrating apartheid in the form of systematic oppression in certain areas makes it somehow less apartheid-y is like suggesting that only perpetrating terror in one area makes your less terrorist. If you follow my analogy it will take you to some odd places. Moreover, the central point of this discussion is the very observation that almost any socioeconomic figure about Israel tends to extend also to its illegal settlements, thereby including populations that in the regard of all serious human rights actors are in territories where the crime of apartheid is being committed, so there is direct overlap between the territories entailed in the figures and the crime. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, we would be able to refer to the United States as a terrorist state, something that we would definitely not do in wikivoice. Additionally, based on the uniqueness of the situation (based on citizenship, not ethnicity, and resolved if there is a peace deal).

The economic figures don’t include the occupied territories except where citizens live, which is true, but also not per se relevant: as far as I know, occupying powers generally don’t include areas which are not de-facto annexed into their economic calculations. FortunateSons (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As you acknowledged in your other comment, HRW does consider the occupied territories when assessing Israel as an apartheid state. DMH223344 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that is a question of general conduct, not apartheid in the area where from which the economic number was taken. It does, in fact, not consider Isreal proper to meet the bar for apartheid. FortunateSons (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The apartheid accusation is flawed because the definition of apartheid is dependent on race. It is like accusing India of apartheid when the issue is the caste system. There is segregation and discrimination within the occupied territories but I don’t think it’s due to race. Maybe due to place of residence + security issues. The restriction to water access within the West Bank is segregationist, but I don’t think it’s due to race - are Israeli citizens who are Arab allowed to visit and access the restricted water sites? Wafflefrites (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This is your interpretation. Here we are discussing what human rights organizations say. DMH223344 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This UN source [17] calls the occupation apartheid. In that case, I would have to agree with a Selfstudier’s points that 1) the ICJ ruling on the legality of Israel’s occupation would make the apartheid case clearer and 2) the term “apartheid state” is not legally defined. It is not disputed that Israel occupies West Bank. If the occupation is determined to be illegal then the illegality of the “apartheid” or segregation is clearer since per the UN occupation = apartheid. Yes, it is my interpretation and I am interpreting the sources to determine if the accusation is lead worthy. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

All the human rights groups document the extraordinary discrimination against Arabs within and outside of Israel. This extends, among other things, to the refusal of the right to return, to the restriction of ownership of property in communities to certain ethnic groups, and to the illegality of intermarriage between religious groups. There is almost nothing about the legal setup in Israel that actually delivers any form of equality – something that factored into the recent V-dem downgrade of Israel from a "liberal democracy" to just an "electoral democracy". Iskandar323 (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

A modified suggestion:

"It is considered to have one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East, although most human rights organizations consider Israel to enforce an apartheid system in the occupied territories." DMH223344 (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That also works. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I would still prefer to wait, but that wording is better although I think you should drop the “although” per MOS:EDITORIAL and separate as two sentences. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph currently reads:

"The country has a parliamentary system elected by proportional representation. The prime minister serves as head of government, and is elected by the Knesset, Israel's unicameral legislature. Israel Is one of the richest countries in the Middle East and Asia, and an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member since 2010. It has one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East, and has been ranked as one of the most advanced and technological countries, with a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023. It has the world's 29th-largest economy by nominal GDP and 18th by nominal GDP per capita."

I propose to change it to:

"The country has a parliamentary system elected by proportional representation. The prime minister serves as head of government, and is elected by the Knesset, Israel's unicameral legislature. Israel is considered to enforce a system of apartheid in the occupied territories. Israel is one of the richest countries in the Middle East and Asia, and an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member since 2010. It has one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East, and has been ranked as one of the most advanced and technological countries, with a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023. It has the world's 29th-largest economy by nominal GDP and 18th by nominal GDP per capita."

This proposal avoids the editorial issue but maintains the mention of apartheid in the same context as before without making it sounds like a disconnected list of statements. DMH223344 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This looks out of context, and is worse than the prior suggestion. FortunateSons (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s better, agree with @Wafflefrites FortunateSons (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I support separating the sentences as well; the one on apartheid should be in combination with the one on the longest occupation in modern history statement. And glad we all agree on the phrasing at least, so the next steps should be easy. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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

It does not. The RFC is in the context of other human rights concerns. Here we are talking about balancing the discussion of the standard of living aspect, which as discussed in the thread includes settlers and so should also include a mention of the occupied territories. DMH223344 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and the inclusion of settlers with Israeli citizenship is not an argument to include people who don’t even have a residence permit. FortunateSons (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What's confusing here? Normal country statistics don't include data on people living outside of the country. If Israeli socio-economic figures incorporate data on settlers in the occupied territories, it is treating those territories as effectively annexed for statistical purposes. But you can't pick and choose. If occupied territory data is being incorporated, it is important for context to note the selective nature of the sampling, otherwise the real world segregation is just being replicated digitally in the segregation of data on illegal settlers in the occupied territories from data on the surrounding occupied territories – as if it exists in a vacuum. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s treating the settled areas as part of their country (mostly area C), the inclusion of non-citizens living in areas not fully controlled by Israel (who the apartheid-claim includes) would be just as unusual. Additional, due to the sometimes considered unique status (both de jure and the facto) of the West Bank, an analogy is always going to be difficult as what they are occupying is not really a country in the traditional sense, and is closer to a territory FortunateSons (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That being said, there is a reasonable argument for a footnote or a half sentence specifying who is included in the data. FortunateSons (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It is very loosely analogous to including Crimea and the Donbas in Russian statistics, which, at this juncture, would equally merit a note. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Loosely yes, directly no, because Ukraine was a sovereign country prior to invasion. But a short note on who is included (settlers and residents, as far as I know) would probably provide some value. FortunateSons (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

New lead propose

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

In 1948 the First Arab–Israeli War. The 1949 Armistice Agreements saw Israel's borders established over most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were ruled by Jordan and Egypt respectively. The 1967 Six-Day War saw Israel occupying the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. It has since established and continues to expand settlements across the occupied territories, actions which are deemed illegal under international law, and annexed both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which are largely unrecognized internationally. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt,, and with Jordan, and more recently normalized relations with several Arab countries. However, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded. Israel's practices in its occupation have drawn accusations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and apartheid against the Palestinian people. @Mawer10 what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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