Talk:Israel/Archive 93

2nd lead paragraph
Modern Israel is located in the Southern Levant, which has been inhabited for over a million years. Ancient Israelites emerged from Canaan between the 13th and 10th centuries B.C.E., establishing the northern Kingdom of Israel and southern Kingdom of Judah. The region was ruled by a series of empires from the 8th century B.C.E. until the 2nd century B.C.E. Maccabean Revolt established the Hasmonean dynasty, which fell to the Roman Republic a century later. The subsequent Jewish–Roman wars resulted in widespread destruction and displacement across Judea. Under Byzantine rule (4th-7th c. C.E.), Christians replaced Jews as the majority. The area was ruled by Muslim caliphates from the 7th century until the 11th century when European Christians established the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the First Crusade. The Kingdom fell to the Ayyubid dynasty in the 12th century, who were overthrown by the Mamluk Sultanate in the 13th century, who in turn were conquered by the Ottoman Empire at the onset of the 16th century.

Sadly, it's not much shorter. I think I will try again tomorrow with a shorter version, but here is how far I got. I don't think any of this needs citation, but I included some cites; other cites could be used for the same content. Levivich (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was attempting another re-draft in parallel, merging all classical empires and medieval caliphates into single sentences for each and dispensing with all events in favour of only the truly epochal changes for the region. Here's mine, with your intro, which I borrowed:
 * "Modern Israel is located in the Southern Levant, which has been inhabited for over a million years. In ancient history, it was where Canaanite and Israelite civilization emerged, and in the early first millennium BCE the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged, before Near Eastern empires annexed the region. In the 2nd century BCE, an independent Hasmonean kingdom emerged, before Rome conquered the area a century later. In the 7th century, the Muslim conquest of the Levant established caliphal rule. The 11th century brought the Crusades and the founding of Crusader States, the last ending in the 13th century at the hands of the Mamluks, who in the 16th century ceded the area to the Ottoman Empire.
 * That's less than two-thirds the length of the current text, and would largely (though not totally) resolve the overweighting of ancient-premodern history. (Ancient-premodern history currently makes up about an eight of the page. With this 117-word text, the lead would be about 650 words and this text would make it about 18% of the lead, but still less than before). Thoughts? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not an improvement in either case (let alone the "who...,who...,who" version). Pre-modern history, as one of the four paragraphs in lead, shouldn't be any less than 25% per proper balance. Also ancient empires and caliphates that ruled the land need to be mentioned. I don't understand your obsession with trimming this non-controversial content. Again, take a look at articles of Lebanon, Turkey or Iran as reference. Dovidroth (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why on earth shouldn't pre-modern history "be any less than 25% per proper balance"? Is that based on anything at all? This has been proposed based on discussions above, where there is broad consensus that the lead is A) problematically long and includes too little of the most relevant information, and that B) the 2nd para is a key source of irrelevance. Look at the discussion above which provides some actual featured article country pages, such as Germany, which has exactly 72 words of pre-modern history. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Both drafts look like improvements to me. I'll have to spend more time with them to form a preference. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good but with three reservations: Undue emphasis on the Hasmonean kingdom. Near eastern empires without naming them is under emphasizing thousands of years of notable history by these empires. Also Crusader states were established through conquest, so not sure why Muslim rule is only labelled as conquest. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also there should be some sort of consensus on this paragraph so that it doesn't keep changing every five seconds. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Near Eastern Empires in question here only actually cover a span of 500-600 years. Yes, the Hasmonean part is over-emphasised, but certain editors here will definitely go spare and never accept a version that doesn't include it because the Hasmoneans are totemically symbolical to Israel. "Muslim conquest of the Levant" is simply the name of that article without any piping. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the following version is better redacted without grouping all these kingdoms into a single "Near Eastern empires", which is also false since some of them didn't originate there and weren't limited to that region. There isn't much change in size compared to Iskandar's version, though:
 * "Modern Israel is located in the Southern Levant, which has been inhabited for over a million years. In ancient history, it was where Canaanite and Israelite civilizations emerged, while in the early first millennium BCE the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged, before falling to the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian empires, respectively. During the classical era, the region was ruled by the Achaemenid, Macedonian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires. In the 2nd century BCE, an independent Hasmonean kingdom emerged, before Rome conquered the area a century later. In the 7th century, the Muslim conquest of the Levant established caliphal rule. The 11th century brought the Crusades and the founding of Crusader States, the last ending in the 13th century at the hands of the Mamluks, who lost the area to the Ottoman Empire at the onset of the 16th century.


 * Thoughts? Dovidroth (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Dovidroth (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Only minor changes: "and later Israelite", "Seleucid empires, and Hasmonean dynasty" (for brevity and to avoid undue weight). All of the empires mentioned were established through conquest and to only label the caliphates as coming through conquests is a severe form of bias, regardless of what the linked article is named. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Both Levivich and Iskandar323's proposals look like improvements on the current text to me. I prefer phrasing in different parts of each of them. I don't feel I have enough expertise in Palestine's pre-modern history to judge whether the emphasis/balance of certain parts are right. Jr8825  •  Talk  12:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What Israel are we talking about? Personally, to avoid headaches, I would eliminate most history and focus strictly on the origins in terms of the modern movement to immigrate to Palestine from the early 1880s) and the rise of Zionism (1895 onwards). There is a very simple reason for this best grasped by recalling what Steven Runciman stated in the 1960s.
 * Much of the conflictual nature of this area arises from the fact that the UN Partition Plan gave a warrant to establish Israel in the biblical territory of the Philistines - the coastal Shephelah-, and Palestinians in the heartlands, Judea and Samaria, which form the core of Jewish symbolic attachment. When we say Israel here, and underwrite it by a history that goes back to 1100 BC, the hidden assumption is that this 'Israel' is not the modern state, but Eretz Israel as now used (rabbinic usage of this term denoted a more restricted, or expansive geographical area), the preferred term because it encompasses both the legitimate territorial area of the state of Israel and all of the Palestinian territories, as in the tacit and tenaciously pursued project of Zionism from its beginnings.
 * In going too far back, we are stating that the modern state within the Green Line has its antecedent in the brief Israelitic kingdoms of Samaria and Judea (now located in the West Bank, which is not part of Israel). Like everything one touches in this area, there is a highly charged discursive minefield, so difficult to negotiate without one's generalizations blowing up, that the temptation, as here, is to sweep the clarity of definitions that our choice of terms invariably demands, under the carpet with a 'Well, you know what we mean.' I, for one, don't.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your point about the modern state's recent origins is valid, but if your suggestion is that the history section of this article should start in the 19th century, I don't agree. The early history of the Israelites is appropriate here as the article is about Israel as a country/state in the broadest sense, not just the modern political entity. The same goes for other country articles whose history at times lack a contiguous state entity. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jr8825 but addressing othert remarks made below also.
 * The Israelites (qua ethnos) were not 'Jewish'. That is name confusion. Their descendants were Samaritans, with whom Judaism had a long and often hostile relationship, and were one of the major populations of the area until .the Byzantines all but wiped them out (we simplify all this by ignoring them as just thinking in terms of the 'big pictures' (Jews,Christians, Moslems). I can’t blame you for this misapprehension, because, if you set aside specialist scholarship, books on the history of this area tend to reflect a prejudice, one we dutifully follow. The bias is to sweep up  Samaritans as part of Jewish heritage, absorbing them into it to the point of 0disappeaing’ the difference, whereas in the critical period of the 2nd century CE to the 6th., they may well have constituted anything from a third a half of the population. Crown indeed states that it is reasonable to conjecture for the 4th century CE a Samaritan population of 500,000 which is half the carrying weight in terms of food consumption of Palestine. The popular Jewish, Zionist or Israeli narrative which Tombah’s uninformed generalizations repeat several times below, highlight, for example the Jewish-Roman wars as a core feature, of seminal importance, and ignore the fact that a catastrophe of similar proportions befell the Samaritans some centuries later. (and Christians slaughtered by Jews around the Mamilla Pool, now mainly a parking lot in Jerusalem erased from history – where perhaps 24,000 or upwards as far as 60,000 are said to have been murdered; and then the various Crusader,   Fatimid and Mongol devastations). Carnage is the basso ostinato of history. The article on France has no mention of the perhaps 1,000,000 Gauls murdered in Caesar’s conquest (The lead glosses over that by writing;’ Rome annexed the area in 51 BC, leading to a distinct Gallo-Roman culture that laid the foundation of the French language.’). It is an abiding vice of this topic area to edit ethnically, erasing the impressive heterogeneity of this historical crossroad and boiling everything down to a simple narrative that ties up the threads of history into a nice just-so story of one people’s  origin, expulsion and return. I would have the same objection were I to see editors writing the history of Italy as a story of Christian struggle.There is no doubt that in Jewish tradition, the I/P area has an overwhelming resonance (as it does for Christians). But history is far too complex for ethnic reductionism or narrative exclusivism.  This protest will be futile. Numbers determine content.Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So now only the Samaritans, not the Jews, are descendents of the Israelites? It appears that someone skipped history class or perhaps fell head over heels in love with a flimsy notion and declared it to be true. The Samaritans themselves reject that. Even if we completely reject the historical veracity of the biblical story, we cannot deny the existence of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which had nearly identical religious, cultural, linguistic, and lifestyle practices. The assumption that they all self-identified as Israelites makes perfect sense. Also, comparing Jewish history with Christian history is ridiculous. There's a difference between the history of a world religion and belief system practiced by one third of humanity, and the history of an ethnoreligious group, which has been regarded as an ethnos since the earliest times. Tombah (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The history class you skipped certainly was that one where facts like Judea being Assyria's ally when Samaria was invaded  were taught. But then again, perhaps they don't go into the details in high school or bible class.Nishidani (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * South Korea and North Korea engaged in a violent conflict and remain enemies. Does anyone dispute that the two of them are Korean? 05:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. That's stepping into it. I actually edit articles on the early history of that peninsula. You are way out of your depth. The analogy does not hold unless you could show that it is normative in Korean scholarship to assert that the modern political division conserves a common nationality that echoes some ancient shared heritage underwriting a unified ethos of early northern groups like the Okjeo, Buyeo and Dongye and southern groups within states and confederations like the Mahan, Jinhan, Byeonhan and Gaya. History is not a comic book for kiddies.  Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is not a history of the Jewish people.  nableezy  - 21:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is about the state of the Jewish people, which was established in their ancient homeland, exactly where much of their ancient history happened. Tombah (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, this article is about a country called Israel. And the history you speak of took place outside of that country.  nableezy  - 21:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought. As the birthplace of the Jewish people, their ancestral homeland, and the location of multiple Jewish kingdoms in antiquity, this region's historical history has great significance for (understanding) the creation of the modern state of Israel. Moreover, the lede of practically every country article I looked at also mentions ancient history. Tombah (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not an advert for nationalism. The country is also the “birthplace” of the Palestinian people. Technically the birthplace of the Jewish people is Judea/Jerusalem, which according to international consensus are not part of Israel.
 * The history in the lede must be neutral. Please can we not waste time pushing things that favor one narrative over another. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this why the article on Palestinians claim that "Today, the Palestinian identity encompasses the heritage of all ages from biblical times up to the Ottoman period"? because I have never met a single Palestinian who identifies with the biblical period. It's really quite the opposite; in fact, a certain editor told me once that "Biblical stories obviously don't qualify for the lede's of a Palestinian city". By the way, remember that the Jerusalem Mountains, which are part of Israel's pre-1967 borders, were also part of ancient Judea, so it is inaccurate to say that Judea is not a part of Israel according to international consensus. In any case, bringing up important pivotal moments in Jewish history is not "not neutral". The Jewish-Roman Wars are a historical reality that does not favor one tale over another. This is historical truth. Removing important historical events for the sake of (false) balance is not acceptable.  15:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You should read the sources in that article. Or read public statements by Palestinian politicians. It is no more speculative and unprovable than the claim that modern Jews descend from Biblical Israelites.
 * And no, the vast majority of the Jerusalem mountains are not in Israel pre-1967, they are in the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of the ancient history here is about an area not in Israel. It is a history of the Southern Levant, mostly the West Bank. You have users claiming the lead cannot include the human rights abuses in the West Bank because it isnt a part of Israel and then attempting to include the ancient history of the West Bank as though it is a part of Israel. Thats nonsensical.  nableezy  - 17:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think both Dovidroth's and Levivich's proposals are great! I would only mention the Jewish-Roman wars since they provide context for why Jewish sovereignty over the region was lost in the first place and had to be reestablished in the modern era. The Hasmonean period must be kept here as well, because it is significant for two reasons: first, it may have been the last time that a local native dynasty ruled the land before modern Israel was founded; and second, it is deeply symbolic period in Jewish history and, consequently, of how Israel views its own historical background because it represents the last instance in which Jews had independent control over the Land of Israel until the modern era. With that fixed, I think we can settle on this version for a much more concise lede. Tombah (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Jewish-Roman wars are hugely undue at the level of summary that is being performed here. When the relevance of the passage of entire empires is in question, a series of ineffectual local revolts is not really on the menu. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Empires come and go. Some of them, notably the Ptolmaics, Abbasids, Mongols and Ayubbids, hardly left any trace in the history of the country. On the other hand, the Jewish-Roman wars led to the displacement of a sizable portion of the indigenous population of the region, which ultimately culminated in their becoming the minority, what sets the background to the eventual restoration of Jewish independence over the land. And once again, this article is about a nation, and a nation's perception of its own history is a key component of what makes a nation. It must stay. Tombah (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See my above comment re nationalism.
 * Another problem with Dovidroth’s proposal is his first sentence (“Modern Israel is located in the Southern Levant, which has been inhabited for over a million years”). The term Southern Levant is a neologism to avoid saying the word Palestine - to avoid dispute we can just use neither. And the million years point is not lede worthy partly because homo sapiens have only been around 300,000 years and partly because more than half the world was also populated during the same period. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer if it said modern Israel is located on the Levantine corridor rather than the Southern Levant? The former is more specific, but I think the latter is more familiar to the reader. FWIW, the sources I used for this all said "Southern Levant", although some mention the corridor. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I quite like Levantine corridor; it is descriptive and relevant to the prehistoric period. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The term Southern Levant is the accurate and common geographical name for the region. Drsmoo (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a country in the sense of a state as defined in international law, one that includes people of various backgrounds, not a selectively edited ethnographic chronicle of any one 'nation' of people. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the history of a Jewish country called Israel. While a history of the modern state of Israel is not the same thing as a history of Judaism of course, nevertheless, the history of the Israelites and the history of Judaism are going to be more relevant to the modern state of Israel than the non-Israeli, non-Jewish history of the region. I would feel the same way about the 2nd paragraph of State of Palestine--in that case, Muslim history would be more relevant than non-Muslim history (that article currently doesn't cover pre-modern history in its lead at all, unfortunately). Levivich (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither Israel nor Palestine is even close to 100% any religion. A dichotomous approach is highly exclusionary to the region's not inconsiderable population of Samaritans, Druze, Christians, etc. - are their histories to simply be erased because they do not form a majoritarian population in a modern state? History is best identity-free. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be 100% Jewish, but I'm pretty sure all the RSes refer to Israel as a Jewish state. Levivich (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But that particular part is already covered in the other paragraphs. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, but I'm saying that because modern Israel is a Jewish state, a summary of relevant pre-history would focus on Jewish history over non-Jewish history. Levivich (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really. Sweden is largely Christian and atheist today, but Swedish history doesn't fixate on everything from the coming of the Christianity through to the enlightenment; it covers everything, evenhandedly, beginning with the Vikings and paganism. History isn't meant to take sides. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like you have the whole idea of Jewish history incorrect. One third of the world's population practices Christianity, and ethnic groups and countries can choose whether or not to do so. However, Jews are a member of an ethnoreligious group that has been described as such since ancient times. Swedes consider the Vikings to be a part of their own history and heritage, similar to how Jews view the Jewish Roman wars and the destruction of the Temple. Tombah (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not an article on the history of the Jewish people.  nableezy  - 23:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is more accurate to say that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. Lots of states define themselves in a nationalistic way so that would be fine. Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we're gelling towards consensus here. One question: does everybody agree about not mentioning Christians and the Byzantine Empire? My feeling is that the three words that must be in the 2nd paragraph (to understand the rest of the history) are "Jewish," "Christian," and "Muslim", and I feel that by mentioning the Crusades without mentioning the Byzantine era, we are giving the false impression that Christianity reached the region in the 11th century (rather than the 5th). Thoughts on this one part? Levivich (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well there's a whole separate discussion going on on the Byzantine Empire page as to whether 'Byzantine' is even a valid term, due to its people self-identifying as Roman. I guess the super-short cut rolls with that and just treats the Byzantines as an extension of the Roman Empire. I worry that adding details like this (and religion) back in will only get the paragraph back to where it started. My feeling is, in a brief history of a country article, the core details are just the former states that existed. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, all the sources call it the "Byzantine Empire", so I don't think we have to worry about that :-)
 * You don't think it's important to tell the reader, in the lead, that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all ruled the land that modern Israel is on at different times in history? Levivich (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it can be covered to a meaningful degree in the summary context. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think about going really high level and saying something almost literally like, ? Levivich (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What about the Babylonian or Greek pantheons, or Zoroastrianism, etc.? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you believe those cultures/religions are as relevant to modern Israel -- named after the grandson of Abraham -- as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- the so-called Abrahamic religions? Levivich (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok then, a more complex one: Samaritans, who believe they follow the 'original' Israelite religion, versus the novel thinking of the exilic lot - the point being you can generalize, but it's not ideal, and honestly, in a region this religiously complex, it's a bit reductive and arguably does more harm than good. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The area that is today modern Israel has never been under Samaritan rule, though, unless I'm mistaken. For that reason, I'm not sure it's worth mentioning them in the lead. (Though certainly in the body of this article.) Levivich (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that's Nableezy's logic below where he notes that most of Samaria and Judea aren't actually in Israel - not quite sure how to unpack that particular kettle of fish. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As I look at the three drafts in this section, every single sentence of each draft seems to me to be about the land modern Israel proper is situated on, excluding the West Bank, even if you exclude Jerusalem. Which sentences are about an area not in modern Israel? Levivich (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Jewish–Roman wars resulted in widespread destruction and displacement across Judea, Under Byzantine rule (4th-7th c. C.E.), Christians replaced Jews as the majority, most of this is about area outside of Israel, and it is all mashed together as though it is one place from the river to the sea.  nableezy  - 18:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When you say "most of this is about area outside of Israel", you mean, for example, that most of the Byzantine Empire or most of the Christians were outside of the area that comprises modern Israel? But it is in fact true that in the area that is today modern Israel, Christians replaced Jews as the majority under Byzantine rule, is it not? And, furthermore, that this was a significant event in the "pre-history" of modern Israel?
 * As to the Jewish-Roman wars: well, what the fall of Rome is to modern Italy, what the fall of the Byzantine Empire is to modern Greece, is what the destruction of the Second Temple is to modern Israel. These national irredentist beliefs form a core part of the identity of the modern states. I don't think Wikipedia can introduce a reader to a modern state without mentioning, at least, where the modern state believes it comes from. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The population shift it is talking about is largely the West Bank. You cant talk about Judea without it mostly being centered on the West Bank, even more so when you discuss populations and not land.  nableezy  - 18:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, let's ignore the key events in the history of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, just because they happened a few kilometers east of the Green Line (which both of its sides are under Israeli control anyway, but forget that for a moment). Do me a favor, this is ridiculous. The legacy of the Jewish-Roman wars is instrumental for understanding modern-day Israel, and minor territorial technicalities won't change that. Tombah (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not Land of Israel. And you cant both say the human rights abuses in the West Bank are not relevant because they are outside of Israel and then say the history of the West Bank is relevant because Israel controls it. That is ridiculous. So is how editors are canvassed to this and every other discussion. Wonder why that IP thought youd be so reliable.  nableezy  - 18:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping me catch up on my talk page. You almost made it sound as if I didn't write about Jewish and Israeli history here on Wikipedia every single day in the past year. Did I say such a thing about the West Bank? Cannot really remember. Maybe it's time to abandon the ideology and acknowledge the historical facts, the platform we all love could benefit greatly from it. Tombah (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont see how that is at all relevant to the discussion. Yes, lets abandon ideology and tired propaganda like The West Bank and Gaza Strip's current situation is largely shaped by Palestinian terrorism directed at Israeli civilians over a long period of time and Many of the restrictions imposed in the West Bank—perhaps most famously the barrier—were constructed to protect Israeli citizens from terrorists. That would be just great. This is not an article on the history of the Jewish people, which would have all this relevant to it, but on modern Israel, which does not include the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Most of the history you write about is about places outside of Israel. And it is not relevant here, certainly not without clarifying that this is talking about territory outside of the modern state. And that it forms part of the nationalist founding mythology of the modern state, but besides that it is not related to the topic of the modern state known as Israel.  nableezy  - 19:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm jumping into this burning discussion just to ask you a thing: You seem to have a problem with mentioning the history of Judea. What do you propose instead, so that we clearly know what you want? Synotia (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To make clear that the populations being referred to and the land being referred to are largely the Palestinian territories and not Israel. You are placing this in a history of Israel. Not a history of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel or Palestine or Southern Levant, but in the article on the modern state of Israel. The paragraph is about the river to the sea. And not about Israel.  nableezy  - 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Compare for example State of Palestine. It does not go in to nationalist mythologies justifying the Palestinian people's ancient connection to their homeland. It talks about its founding, declaration. Its history begins in 1947. But here we are going back in to ancient people that largely resided outside of this territory but rather in the territory of Palestine!  nableezy  - 21:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a flaw not a feature of that article. In fact, if we can get this one improved, that's probably the next article I'll move on to. Levivich (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends, we have multiple articles on the history of the entire region. We have both Land of Israel and Palestine (region), and duplicating that history again here and again at State of Palestine seems over the top. The history of modern Israel begins around the time of Der Judenstaat. And that is what makes sense to begin with discussing the modern state, not with ancient kingdoms centered on territory outside of that state.  nableezy  - 22:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just disagree with you about that. In order to introduce a modern state, you have to say something about where the state comes from or thinks it comes from--a state's founding story (or myth) is core, absolute core, to understanding the state, even on an introductory level. We would never omit Roman Empire from the lead of Italy, or Byzantine Empire from the lead of Greece, even though the territory of those empires extend far beyond the territory of the modern state, even if there was no continuity between the ancient and the modern, even if it's more myth than reality. Founding myths are important to understanding states. Levivich (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. But it belongs as that national mythology, not as the supposed history of the state. Especially when it is largely made up of history outside of that state.  nableezy  - 22:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's a founding story of Jewish people and of course its relevant as far as it goes, but there is a tension between that and the modern conception (European) of state. Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (question to both of you and everyone else) What if it had a construction that was more like: And a second sentence could be something like,  That would be like a two-sentence version (my terrible writing notwithstanding, but you understand what I mean about the level of detail). Levivich (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Modern Israel doesnt do anything of the sort, some politicians and other assorted figures do that.  nableezy  - 23:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Israel does not trace its roots to the Israelites? Levivich (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What does that even mean? When somebody says some country does something they typically mean that country's government or military. What does it mean to say Israel traces its roots to the Israelites?  nableezy  - 23:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's true that it's hard to say exactly what is meant when we say a country does something, but in this case, let's say that I think it borders on tautological that when the people who formed the country called "Israel" chose the name "Israel" it was because they were evoking the Land of Israel, the Israelites, and Jacob (aka "Israel"), i.e. the national irredentist founding myth of the modern state of Israel goes back to ("traces its roots to") Jacob and the Israelites. Levivich (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly the choice of name is connected to that past. But its more to do with Eretz Yisrael (which is why there was an EY on the British Mandate's currency) than with anything else.  nableezy  - 23:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh really. Check the coinage of Israel. It is mainly based on coins of the Second Temple period. Check the Bible verses which appear virtually everywhere. The state of Israel, and not just assorted politicians, sees itself as rooted in ancient Israelite and Jewish culture and as a continuation of previous Jewish polities of the region. Tombah (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The key phrase being "sees itself" as a continuation. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, it evokes that imagery now, but we should not be claiming a national mythology as fact. Which is what you are doing. Moreover, you are making the paragraph about the river to the sea, and not about Israel.  nableezy  - 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it’s a good direction of travel. We can address nableezy’s point with some wordsmithing.
 * If we are really to treat our readers as grownups, we should remove talk of “emerged from canaan” and “divided kingdoms”; archaeology is very weak on these topics. Simply explain that the roots are traced to Biblical history.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with dropping Canaan and the divided kingdoms and/or mentioning that the roots trace to Biblical history. One of the reasons I like the idea of condensing all the pre-19th c. history to like two sentences is that it would allow us to use the 2nd paragraph to cover all the pre-1948 history (which is all "background" or "prehistory" for the subject, modern Israel). Essentially we'd be shrinking the pre-19th c. history so we could expand the history for the period from rise of Zionism (19th c.) to establishment of modern Israel (1948) in the 2nd paragraph, and cover establishment to present in the third (and maybe fourth) paragraphs. I think 19th c.-1948 and 1948-present are both more relevant for the lead than pre-19th c. history, which should be mentioned, but could be summarized at a very high level. Not sure tho if anyone else thinks this would be a good organization. Levivich (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This would make a lot of sense if consensus could be arrived at for it. There is an entire encyclopedia of articles devoted to the expansive and not readily summarized ancient history of the area. And for those that want ethnically locked history, we have History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I can't imagine an intro to Italy without mentioning the Roman Empire, and an intro to Greece without mentioning both Classical Athens and Alexander the Great. Same about Israel: the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and Hasmonean Judea must be mentioned here. Israel is a Jewish country, so Jewish history should be prioritized. Tombah (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree but I think we could accomplish it in two sentences. For example, I think that, for the purposes of this lead, a link to Israelites is just as good, if not better, than linking any of Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), Kingdom of Judah, Neo-Assyrian Empire, or Neo-Babylonian Empire (I would link to all of those in the body, though). The Israelites article encompasses the others and places them into context with each other. If the reader had no knowledge about any of this history, the first place I'd send them is the Israelites article, and from there the reader can get to the other articles (or, from the body of this article). Levivich (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is the point, and beauty, of linked encyclopedias. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Another option is to start with "Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel...", as that's an article that encompasses the others as well. Levivich (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It would certainly cut to the heart of the matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nableezy is wrong here. We cannot ignore important events that help understand then origins of Israel just because they happened at the wrong side of a partially relevant border.
 * Archaeology is not weak on the existence of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, it is just their earliest origins that are contested.
 * I completely disagree with Nableezy and yourself here. And even if Nableezy was right, and we should not include events if they happened in the West Bank (nonsense, but let's say that for a moment) - sites such as Yodfat, Masada (two of the most famous sieges of the First Jewish-Roman war) Maresha, Ethri, Motza, Azeka, Lachish (Second largest city of biblical Judah after Jerusalem) and more, are located well inside Israel's pre-67 borders. Tombah (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea that borders of a country is partially relevant to the article about that country is so incredibly preposterous that it has to be noted here. And nothing about the Jewish Roman wars has anything whatsoever to do with the origins of the state of Israel. That is such unadulterated crap that it again needs to be noted here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course we will absolutely mention ancient and pre-modern history in lead of this article, one way or another. That will remain. From Jordan to Italy, from Turkey to Iran, from Lebanon to Spain, from Russia to Ukraine ... almost every single country in Wikipedia with a rich history mentions ancient and medieval kingdoms or rulers connected to the modern state, even if tenuously. Israel will not be the exception. Arab Jordan for example mentions Ammon, Moab and Edom which have clearly no connection to the modern state, but it should, because history happened in that territory. There are plenty of editors who will not allow such a thing in this article to be erased. And the objection by Nableezy that some of that history should be left way because technically took place in what is today (Israeli-controlled) West Bank rather than Israel proper is beyond pedantic. And even this meaningless objection is false since both Israelite kingdoms in antiquity and the Hasmoneans ruled over what is today Israel west and north of the Green Line as well; the same applies to previous and later rulers. What we were discussing here, and should focus on instead of wasting our time, is whether those great empires that ruled the land deserve at least to be named so the reader can have a link available to them right from the start. I would say yes. Also just naming "empires" without specifying them seems strange and not the normal standard for articles in Wikipedia regarding countries with a rich history (every part of the globe was part of an "empire" at one point after all). I think we should definitely name the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians and Hellenistic kingdoms (mainly Macedonian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid). I also wanted those different Muslim caliphates to remain in the lead, but I am apparently the only one. In many articles, pre-modern history is one of the four or five paragraphs in lead, hence my reasoning that it should be no less than 20-25% of the introduction per balance and WP:Due. Regarding the Jewish-Roman wars and the Byzantines, I think they also deserve a mention, but I'm willing to compromise on that. As a matter of fact, I like the second paragraph as it stands now. Nobody had a problem with it until some people started talking about apartheid and human rights violations of today. What's the connection between them? I have no idea. Maybe implicit retaliation as "if you don't accept my POV addition, I will ruin your article"? Who knows? Dovidroth (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone except myself, but for me, the connection is seeing broad agreement that the lead needs to be improved, even if there isn't agreement about how exactly, as well as agreement that the lead is too long and yet is missing important events, even if there isn't agreement about what exactly to remove and what exactly to add. This is a useful starting point that makes it worthwhile to pursue consensus for a rewrite of the lead. I don't expect we will achieve consensus for a whole rewrite of the lead purely through talk page discussion, but I do expect we can agree on some things and identify and hone the areas of disagreement and resolve those through an RFC (or multiple if need be). It'd be great if we can get to one agreed proposed version and put that up for an RFC if need be. Or, if we agree that it can be improved but we don't agree on how, maybe two proposed versions that could be put up for RFC. Or maybe it'll just be a disagreement about a few sentences that will be put up for an RFC. If God loves us, there will be no need for an RFC, but I doubt that is the case. ;-) Levivich (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to describe the State of Israel without the history of the Jewish people in its land. The Jewish-Roman wars are a very significant part of Jewish history, on the same scale as the Holocaust. It is very important to note this realting to the historical background of the State of Israel. it is mentioned at the beginning of the Israeli Declaration of Independence: "After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom."
 * The same goes for the Hasmonean kingdom, which was an exemplary model for the Zionist movement, which established Israel. But not only for them, but also for the Jews who fought in the Roman Empire. Battle of Beth Horon (66) was, for them, a reconstruction of the victory of Judas Maccabeus in Battle of Beth Horon (166 BC). The Zionists saw the Hasmonean state as a model that could be adopted for national freedom, military service and courage. References to this can be found in the writes of AD Gordon, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the Jewish Legion, Bilu and many more.ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Palestine article is an exception. Germany for example mentions the larger region of Germania.
 * Israel was founded as a state for the Jewish people, it makes sense to illustrate the key points of the Jewish people's history in the lede, in my opinion. There is a reason why the state was established in Palestine and not in Uganda, Madagascar, or Argentina. It's because of the Jewish people's connection to it. The whole area is full of Jewish archeological sites and cities mentioned in the Bible. Even before Zionism there were Jews who moved to places like Tzfat or Tiberias from abroad. Synotia (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are acting like it is objective fact that this is the Jewish people's land. Beyond that, the land you are referring to is not in Israel. Which is the topic of this article. As far as reasons for Palestine and not Argentina or whatever, that is covered in more detail in History of Zionism. And it is not because the "Jewish people's connection to it". You are attempting to establish myths as fact in an encyclopedia. That is not acceptable. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh?
 * What have I said that is a "myth"? I feel like you're confusing me with somebody else? Synotia (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the history of the Jewish people in its land. This isnt an article on the Land of Israel, and the West Bank is not the Jewish people's land. That is the myth you are pushing, that all of this belongs to the Jews as a people, and all of its history is Israel's history. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't used the words the history of the Jewish people in its land. You seem to confuse me with someone else.
 * That is the myth you are pushing, that all of this belongs to the Jews as a people That's not what I have been meaning to say? Putting words in my mouth like that poisons the debate.
 * and all of its history is Israel's history Well, yes, just like the lede talking about Germania is fitting for the Germany article. Just like talking about Francia is fitting on the France article. And so on and so forth. Synotia (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to describe the State of Israel without the history of the Jewish people in its land precedes your signature as best I can tell . Again, ancient Israelite kingdoms outside of Israel's borders have nothing to do with the history of Israel. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC) (edit: youre right, I cant tell, the cursive signature made it hard to miss <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC) )
 * Again, ancient Israelite kingdoms outside of Israel's borders have nothing to do with the history of Israel May we know which ones you are talking about more precisely? Synotia (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically everything prior to the Ottomans. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Imo, Levivich has the right idea with "Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel..." as to linkage between the modern state and (at least Israeli) Jewish thought, as I said, the Jewish polity emphasize this aspect but it has little to do with the modern functioning of a state which in the modern ideal is a state for all its citizens (everybody self determines) and this is the answer to Dovidroth question "What's the connection between them?" (the Jewish majority has reserved the right of self determination to itself). Had the partition plan succeeded, there would have been a 'Jewish state' in fact but it didn't and the state is not entirely Jewish. Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've edited my comment while you were at it to clarify myself :) Synotia (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * An aside, but given the 2018 Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, if anything, I'd say the country is moving away from an ideal of being a state for all its citizens, not towards it. Levivich (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The incoming government guidelines include a statement "The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan and Judea and Samaria." Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The 21st-century global swing to the right has been terrifying. Levivich (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Too many of the comments above are advocating filling the lede with the country’s “national myth”. Imagine the United States article pushing the Manifest destiny theme in the lede, or the South Africa article pushing the Great Trek. These were national stories used to glorify colonialism in the 19th century. I emphathize with the desire to erase the colonial nature of modern Israel by making its history read like that of non-colonized countries, but doing so is misleading. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Too many of the comments above are advocating filling the lede with the country’s “national myth” Are you talking about me? Because that is not my intention. Synotia (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "'a state's founding story (or myth) is core, absolute core, to understanding the state, even on an introductory level.'"
 * That is a very honest, indeed courageous, statement by Levivich, and in its succinctness worth more than the endless unfocused and partisan pseudo-historical blather that plagues us here. A comparativist would note that many modern nation states held to this notion tenaciously, and it proved functional to the development of each state until a tipping point arose, in each case, and the myth was dropped because of its collateral dysfunctional side-effects. In concrete terms, the myth has forged modern Israel, informed its Jewish majority, of disparate roots, with a cohesive identity, but is no longer taken seriously at TAU ormost other centres of advanced research. The emerging facts consistently undercut its assumptions. On wikipedia we use scholarship, not myths. No one would write the history of Utah by alluding to the Book of Mormons, despite that being fundamental to its formative community.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet another time someone is addressing me in reply to somebody else in this fog of war :D Synotia (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though I'll note the lead of Utah does mention the Mormons, as it should. :-) Levivich (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see in what way this compares to the Israel article? Synotia (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That was in response to "No one would write the history of Utah by alluding to the Book of Mormons, despite that being fundamental to its formative community." Levivich (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it mentions Mormons, it does not however say the state of Utah traces its lineage to the prophecy of Joseph Smith as told in the Book of Mormon as though that were factual. That is what is being done here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which, unusually, you failed to read correctly. The analogy is  between referring to the Israelites of the Bible as background for fhe state of Israel and a hypothetical parallel allusion to the Book of Mormon's Lehi/Lamanite lineage in BCE America as a warrant for the establishment of Mormons in what later became the state of Utah. Sigh:))):( Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a good analogy. Israel was founded to be a "Jewish and democratic state". Utah was not founded to be a "Mormon and democratic state". It was in fact not allowed to be a state at all until it agreed to outlaw polygamy, which was practiced by some Mormon leaders in Utah at the time. Utah is not an independent country like Israel, rather it's a state in a country that separates church and state in its constitution, so it can't be a "Mormon state". Comparisons between Utah and Israel are thus strained...yet still, Utah mentions Mormonism and Mormon history in its lead, and similarly the lead of Israel will mention Judaism and Jewish history. Levivich (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, there is a vast difference between mentioning and asserting as fact what is myth, nationalist or religious or otherwise. And beyond that, the history of the West Bank, which is what most of that paragraph is about, is not the history Israel. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the above. You tried to make a smart crack after misreading my comment. Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Telling it as it is?
To try to cut through this, we can consider the lede of History of Jerusalem: Given the city's central position in both Israeli nationalism and Palestinian nationalism, the selectivity required to summarize more than 5,000 years of inhabited history is often[3] influenced by ideological bias or background (see Historiography and nationalism). For example, the Jewish periods of the city's history are important to Israeli nationalists, whose discourse states that modern Jews originate and descend from the Israelites,[Note 1][Note 2] while the Islamic periods of the city's history are important to Palestinian nationalists, whose discourse suggests that modern Palestinians descend from all the different peoples who have lived in the region.[Note 3][Note 4] As a result, both sides claim the history of the city has been politicized by the other in order to strengthen their relative claims to the city,[3][8][9] and that this is borne out by the different focuses the different writers place on the various events and eras in the city's history.

There must be a way of communicating the same here, albeit in a much shorter way. A version of Levivich's summarized pre-modern overview would be followed by a sentence explaining that the story of the pre-modern history can be told in different ways and linking to a sub-article with more detail on the history. That way we can forever stop arguing about whether this period or that period is given more emphasis.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That's more like the "truth" of it and then how to link that to the idea of a modern state. As for the Palestinians, I doubt that they look at their state in quite the same way that (the Jewish majority of) Israel do. Their conception is likely to be closer to the modern idea and less concerned with any "historical connection" per se. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is always the good old standby, how do sources do it? Present the history, that is. And I don't mean Bibleworld or some such, proper historians.
 * I picked one at random, A Brief History of Israel, Second Edition (2008) by Bernard Reich and of 12 chapters, the first is devoted to Biblical Times to the Ottoman Period (12 pages), the second to The Prehistory of the State of Israel (c. 1880–1948) (30 pages) and all the others to the modern state.(250 pages)
 * No idea if that's typical, but if so, then its about 4% Bible to Ottoman, 12% 1880-48 and 84% to the actual state. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, at the end of the day, reliable sources are the ultimate authority on what is due. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

2nd paragraph up to 1948
OK, we can all agree we're not going to start with either of those. Here is what the 2nd paragraph might look like if it covered all the history leading up to independence (14 May 1948) in one paragraph (the 3rd paragraph would then begin with the war on 15 May 1948). What's in brackets is "placeholder" language for which there is no consensus at this time (and, again, forgive my crappy prose writing skills), with some editors above opining that even if we shortened the pre-19th century history, there are certain details that should be included. Everything that's not in brackets is taken verbatim from the current lead, and personally I would make some changes there, too, but that can be addressed later. I have omitted citations but included links.

If we agree on the idea of having the 2nd paragraph cover up to 1948, we can then discuss what to write exactly at the beginning in the part in brackets (we can discuss the rest of it, too). Or, if people think we should not have the 2nd paragraph go all the way up to 1948, we can go back to talking about a stand-alone 2nd paragraph that goes up to the Ottomans, which is the status quo. Your opinions, please. Levivich (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Not bad. And thank you for putting an end to these keyboard gymnastics. I'd mention the Balfour Declaration in some way perhaps. And regarding the Zionist movement began promoting the creation of a Jewish homeland in Ottoman Palestine. – It would be nice to make clear to an uninformed reader that Jews did not start coming in 1948; Cf Old Yishuv, "First" Aliyah, "Second" Aliyah etc. Synotia (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that sentence needs changing. Zionism did a lot more than merely "promote" the creation of a Jewish homeland, people actually moved there. And the sentence gives no indication of why Zionism flourished when it flourished -- not only what the Jews were running towards but also what that they were running away from (e.g., pogroms). I'm not sure how to rewrite that sentence to encapsulate all that, but maybe something like, "Fleeing persecution, diaspora Jews began moving to Israel in the late 19th century as part of the Zionism movement." I know that particular formulation won't get consensus but something like that. I could certainly see adding Balfour Declaration, and maybe also Sykes–Picot Agreement. Levivich (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Umm, I assume you're talking about your own previous proposal? :)
 * You can talk of a time of increasing anti-Jewish persecution in Europe, especially in the Russian Empire. I'll note that around that time, with the increasing secularization, it went from being less a religious thing and increasingly an ethnic thing though I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning in the lede.
 * Important to note also is that this is the Holy Land; many Jews (especially Mizrahim) moved there as they saw it as a religious duty of sorts to move there if the opportunity arises.
 * Following World War I, Britain was granted control of the region by the League of Nations mandate, in what became known as Mandatory Palestine as a consequence of the Sykes-Picot agreement – good like this? Synotia (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup that works for me. Levivich (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would switch Levantine Corridor to the common name, Southern Levant. To put in context Onceinawhile's objection, that user has a peculiar obsession with removing "Southern Levant" from Wikipedia (he has also tried to get its article deleted from Wikipedia as well). (Full disclosure, we have "clashed" over this in the past). Aside from that user, I have never seen any controversy whatsoever attached to the name, and, it is the common name for the geographical area in academia. I have never seen the term "Levantine corridor" before. And I'm not aware of any logical reason why "Levantine Corridor" would be preferable to Southern Levant aside from I just don't like it Drsmoo (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Personal Comments Struck Out: 21:47
 * Southern Levant includes Jordan. If we want to use the common name it would be Palestine. And all of us know that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh please if you guys want to quarrel, do it about more useful stuff. Synotia (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with "Southern Levant" instead of "Levantine corridor". I'd also be fine with omitting location, because it's given in the first paragraph. Levivich (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Several things, it didnt become known as Mandatory Palestine, thats just what its called now as a period marker. Theres too much fluff without including some major points, like the Balfour Declaration. But all in all an improvement. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Guess we can just remove the word "known" Synotia (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just cut the whole clause. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ? Levivich (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats not technically accurate, that agreement set the stage for the mandate assignments, but by itself was just the great powers saying we'll stay out of each others way. Dont think Sykes-Picot is really lead material for this article. What established actual legal authority for Britain was the actual Mandate for Palestine. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I realized I should have written "during" WWI, at least. :-)
 * Here's my history argument about that. Linking Mandate for Palestine suggests to the uneducated reader that Mandatory Palestine was put under British control because of an international vote in the League of Nations. But in reality, Britain got it because of a secret agreement of colonial powers, the Sykes–Picot Agreement, which the League of Nations merely rubber-stamped. So in my view, saying that Mandatory Palestine came about as a result of the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine is ... forgive the expression ... whitewashing colonialism. That said, meh, I'd support a version that linked Mandate for Palestine and/or didn't link Sykes-Picot, it's not that important in my view. Levivich (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats why we have links. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ? Levivich (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In 1917, during World War I, Britain made a public declaration of support for the creation of "a national home for the Jewish people". After the war, the allied powers assigned Britain the Mandate for Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Self's is more correct. Lev is wrong that S-P was the reason Britain got the mandate. It was the 1918 Clemenceau–Lloyd George Agreement (Middle East) which amended S-P re Palestine, following the Balfour Declaration and subsequent further lobbying efforts. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A more correct version might be: Levivich (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I like its brevity, but it is not accurate. The introduction to the mandate states: "the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities…" In other words, the mandate was given by the Allied Powers, not by Britain alone, and the role Britain was given was only as a trustee. Britain’s job was to enforce the Balfour Declaration. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The British (apparently) did promise the region to the Arabs but no such promise was made to the Jews. "national home for the Jewish people" ("in" Palestine) was never defined and caused all sorts of problems. Palestine was not a colony, it was more like a guardianship under the supervision of the LoN and the Class A mandates specifically contemplated independence at the Mandate end. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to argue the point too much, it's not germane to the lead, but... saying that Britain was a trustee or a guardian because that's what the text of the Mandate said is a little bit like saying that in the USA all people are treated equally because that's what the country's Declaration of Independence says. It's euphemism, or, to be more charitable, the texts are more aspirational than descriptive. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A fair point. Nevertheless the aspiration (independence) was achieved for 3 out of 4 class A mandates.Selfstudier (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, no colonial empire is perfect. ;-) Levivich (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, no colonial empire is perfect. ;-) Levivich (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Partition was accepted by the Jewish leadership, but rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders and the Arab states" cannot be part of the lede. It is a talking point, not a critical element of history. Israeli propaganda likes to push the implication that Palestinians are stupid, and "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" – that is why positioning the partition plan moment as if it was the crux of the conflict is taking sides. It is often used to imply the Palestinians' long-view judgement that the area should be one state, a view that many right-wing Israelis agree with today (and did in 1947). Opposition to partition during the mandate period never had a clear consensus, as it depended on the nature of the partition. A "fair" version of partition may ultimately have been accepted with time. All the previous partition plans were equally rejected by both the Jewish Agency and the Palestinian Arabs.

The die was cast when the Arab Higher Committee decided to boycott the UN Special Committee. Elad Ben-Dror writes: "The pro-Zionist results from UNSCOP confirmed the Arabs' basic suspicions towards the committee. Even before the onset of its inquiry in Palestine, argued the Arabs, most of its members took a pro-Zionist stand. In addition, according to the Arabs, the committee's final object - the partition - was pre-decided by the Americans. According to this opinion, the outcome of the UNSCOP inquiry was a foregone conclusion. This perception, which led the Palestinian Arabs to boycott the committee, is shared by some modern studies as well." The Palestinians believed it was simple, as the UN Charter required self-determination of the majority population in any country - so they and their allies asked for the ICJ to review the plan.

Their request to have the ICJ review the plan was ignored. Today it is Israel who ignores the United Nations when they think it is biased against them. Either way, as a result of that one - unfortunate - boycott decision, the UN Partition Proposal came out much more aggressively one-sided than it might otherwise have. And from then on it was a matter of the Palestinian leadership saving face.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That already is part of the lead. Only the first two sentences in brackets are new, the rest is the current lead. Whether it should be in the lead is another question. Levivich (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that pointed, gross oversimplification of events is a very tired piece of ideological cant. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is historical fact that Arabs rejected the partition plan, while Jews celebrated their independence. The outbreak of war the following day was brought on by this. And we won't disregard the truth to make up for one side's errors and failures. Tombah (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorporating the feedback above and note I added "Holocaust":

Levivich (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A few notes on the first part: I would say "influenced by" instead of "inhabited by" - since "cultures" don't really inhabit. Further to this part, "Jews, Christians, Muslims" are not cultures, so the sentence logic breaks down a bit there; I would suggest maybe wording it more like: "and come to hold great significance for Jews, Christians, Muslims, and other religious groups", or sth. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, historically people have identified themselves with their religion; through ethnicity/nationality is a recent phenomenon. (Just saying) Synotia (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note it wasn’t just persecution that brought Jews to Palestine in the late 19th century. Notably the Yemeni Jewish community moved for economic reasons. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ... and it also had a religious aspect as I have mentioned previously. Synotia (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And as I noted previously, as many left as came in that early period, what isn't known is whether those leaving were the same ones coming or those that were there before. Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t need “Located on in the Southern Levant”, as “Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel” communicates roughly the same information, as does the first paragraph.
 * If we really want readers to trust this article, we would have the courage to write “Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel, also known historically as the region of Palestine.”
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can live without the last part, LoI defines it as that anyway along with Holy/promised/Canaan and it is more or less clear from the subsequent wording that the Mandate/Partition plan covered Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Or the courage to write "The West Bank is located in Palestine, also known historically as the Land of Israel" :-) Levivich (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Except it isnt historically known as the Land of Israel. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete this comment before Nableezy shoots you Synotia (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This isnt a forum, its an encyclopedia talk page, try to act like it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't get it, what is special about this statement: "the area has been ruled and inhabited by a variety of cultures since antiquity, including Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others."? This can be applied to Yemen, Morocco, hell even Spain. I propose leaving this aside, as there are many nuances that should be added, but for brevity cannot be discussed in the lede. Also the new sentence about Zionism is less appropriate than the previous version. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that the information has been so watered down that it has become almost meaningless. One particular user here gesticulates tirelessly whenever someone suggests to add anything about Israelite kingdoms – if I understand it properly, he claims to oppose it because their borders are not congruent with the pre-1967 borders of Israel. Synotia (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable argument. Let's say we added stuff about Israelite kingdoms, could we also add that the area (the whole area) was not "Israeli" for a couple millenia, until 1948, how about that? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm in favor of mentioning the Land of Israel, the Israeli Kingdoms, and then mentioning "a series of empires" or something similar, until the Ottoman Empire. I've previously mentioned here that is just as appropriate as talking about Germania in Germany's lede, or Francia in France's lede, and so on. Synotia (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So basically highlighting some >2,000 year old defunct kingdoms (many of whose details are vague and often even unconfirmed) and downplaying 2,000 years of modern (and more relevant and proven) history with a "series of empires" statement. No, thank you. I am not with omitting anything. I am with giving a summary that is non-biased, holds due weight, and as brief as possible but without compromising factuality. "Jews, Christians and Muslims" statement ignores demographic weight and changes and the Arab aspect, and is therefore better left aside. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it is possible to summarize 5,000 years of contested history in one paragraph whilst being “non-biased, hold[ing] due weight, and… without compromising factuality”. The average paragraph is 200 words, so that is four words per century. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well we don't have to dedicate an equal portion of attention to every century, if at all. It is already summarized in the paragraph, we're all here discussing the details and the weight that is given to some parts over other parts. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The concept of Arab identity is something relatively recent though. And I have no idea what you want, I heard you complain, but saw no proposal. Synotia (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to word it, I think we need a sentence along the lines of "after the Babylonian exile the majority of Jews lived in the Diaspora." Still true, right? Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about Jews or Judeans? The exiled # is a mystery. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "After the fall of the Jewish kingdoms in the middle of the second millennium BCE, Jewish rule did not return until the establishment of modern Israel, with the exception of the short-lived Hasmonean dynasty." But that's going to draw objections for suggesting the irredentism as fact. I'm not quite sure how to thread the needle of conveying Jewish history but not conveying irredentism. Levivich (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is Jewish rule, but not Jewish presence, n.b.
 * Honestly, these are just facts, whether it suggests irrendentism or not depends on whose brain is processing it ultimately. All of us here know deep down where Israel got its name from, and why it exists where it exists. And it is relevant to write that history in the lede, like my favorite example: Germania in the Germany article. Synotia (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Presence" is sort of irrelevant, lots of people were present. What I am trying to find is a way to cover the belief (which we can attribute) and the facts of the exile/Diaspora until Israel proper. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you mean first millennium. And those kingdoms weren't Jewish. They were Israelite and Yahwist. Judaism developed in response to their destruction in C6th BCE. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Right on both points. "After the fall of the Israelite kingdoms in the middle of the first millennium BCE..."? (I'm not sure what exactly to say after the ellipses.) Levivich (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, leaving aside whether to call them Jews or Judeans or how many there were, the North went, then the South and after that, until 48 they were in the Diaspora with some "returning" in 48. Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But in all honesty, although I have not shown opposition to your proposals, deep down I find the current paragraph good enough. :) I don't know if I am the only one... Synotia (moan) 14:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not crazy about those first two sentences. I think, though, we are closer on agreement of the level of detail, and the remaining problems are driven by Levivich being a poor writer? Or do folks disagree with the level of detail as well? Among other things, I wonder (1) if the link to Israelites is duplicative of the link to Land of Israel, and (2) whether Hasmonean dynasty should be linked/mentioned. Levivich (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Personally think there is a good base there. If someone who knew nothing were to click on all the links would they get the story? Or enough to be going on with at any rate? Link to History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel somewhere? Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe link that under "fall of Israelite kingdoms" instead of Israelites? Or, under "Jews" instead of Jews? Levivich (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally OK with either of those. Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no agreement. This is not an improvement and there is no consensus. You basically removed the entire pre-modern history of that territory and replaced it for an ambiguous, meaningless general statement about "how important is that place for Jews, Christians and Muslims". If that's the case, leave the paragraph as it stands now, covering Jewish, Christian and Muslim periods alike. It's not big for a lead anyway. I've checked articles of other countries and most of them have two paragraphs covering history: one paragraph on ancient and medieval history, and another one for the modern period. Also it's covered extensively on article's body, so it should be summarized in the introduction as well per WP:LEAD. Just leave it alone. Dovidroth (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As Levivich said, absent agreement, the odds are on this turning into one or more RFCs and everybody will get to give their view should it come to that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dovidroth. The best option for that section is what we have now, in my opinion as well. Some folks want to trim it for disingenuous motives. Synotia (moan) 19:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In my view, it doesn't matter what editors' motivations are; if the text is improved, the reader is served, and we've furthered our mission. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Improved by what metrics? Synotia (moan) 19:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That question can be reversed, how is it decided that the existing is better than something not yet worked out? A simple answer is if there is a consensus that it is improved. Selfstudier (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I love "(moan)" btw :-) The metric is consensus, of course: if consensus is that certain text is an improvement, in my view, it doesn't matter who wrote that text or why. In this particular case, I'd measure "improvement" of the lead by whether it mentions and links the most relevant information (e.g. Balfour Declaration, Yom Kippur War, Oslo Accords, Camp David Accords) or less relevant information (e.g. Ptolemaic dynasty, Ayyubid dynasty). Levivich (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * is what I'm trying to accomplish here as well. "The modern period" for Israel starts in 1948. The above is one paragraph pre-1948. Everything before the founding of a country in one paragraph. What we have now, instead, is one paragraph that runs from hominins' emergence from Africa to 500 years before the country was founded, and then a second paragraph that starts ~70 years before the country was founded and runs to a year or so after independence, and then a third paragraph that starts in 1967 to present. It's an illogical presentation in my view. I am, of course, very interested in everyone's thoughts about what a single pre-1948 paragraph should say (or, alternatively, how to reduce the length of the lead otherwise). Levivich (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The current paragraph ending at the onset of the Ottoman era, which fails to even tie that era in with the formation of the modern state that is the article's actual subject, is indeed not very purposeful or useful to readers. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lead is supposed to briefly tell the story of the territory where the modern state is located, not just the story of the modern state itself. Again, check other articles as a reference. I'm not sure if there's much relation between Arab Jordan and the ancient kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and Edom, or the Nabateans of the classic era, but they are mentioned anyway, as they should. Dovidroth (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At least Jordan's lead gets the reader from pre-history to present in 170 words. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. Modern period doesn't start in 1948. Again, check how other articles on countries are structured. One paragraph for ancient and medieval, and one or two paragraphs for the modern period (in this case from the birth of Zionism in late 19th century onwards). If anything needs to be trimmed, it's the modern period, not the pre-modern. I agree with starting another RfC if necessary. Or you can leave the second paragraph alone. Dovidroth (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have checked how other articles on countries are structured. I even started a thread about it, above, at . The country articles that are WP:FAs do not have one paragraph up to the modern era and one paragraph for after the modern era. Breaking up all country article leads with one paragraph before 1500 AD and one paragraph after 1500 AD does not make sense to me, because some countries existed before that date and others did not, so some will have a lot to say about pre-1500 events, and others will not. I mean, how would we even do that for a country like the United States? (Whose second lead paragraph goes up to independence.) Levivich (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense to compare this article to a country in the Americas, whose ancient history is not so documented. Why don't you compare Israel's lead to other countries of the region with an ancient history, such as Turkey, Lebanon, Iran or Saudi Arabia, to name a few? Dovidroth (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As Nishidani said below, we cannot normalize by comparison. By the phrasing of your question the assumption is made that Israel has an ancient history and then by making use of the Land of Israel ideal, extended to areas outside the boundaries of modern Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel" on reflection, needs some work. Maybe "In Jewish thought, modern Israel is connected with ancient Israel" or something like that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Come on, Dovid. Turkey's 2nd lead paragraph goes up to independence (WWI). Lebanon's 2nd lead paragraph ends with . Iran's 2nd lead paragraph ends at the 1979 revolution (!). Saudi Arabia's 2nd lead paragraph ends at Fatimid caliphate and the 3rd paragraph picks up in 1932. Literally every example you've given contradicts the claim your making (and supports my suggestion of having the 2nd lead paragraph cover pre-history of the modern state). Actually, I should say thank you, for convincing me I was right. :-) Levivich (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, Germany gets from ancient to 1815 in 72 words; then 1886 is unification. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be good to shorten the lead, but I have several objections to the proposed text.
 * "Modern Israel is named after the Land of Israel, which has come to hold great significance for Jews, Christians, Muslims, Arabs, and other groups." – Listing it like this gives the impression of these groups being equally significant to the history of the land and to the subject of the article. Also, listing a non-religious designation (Arabs) among religions is clumsy.
 * "After the war, the allied powers assigned Britain the Mandate for Palestine." – this could be merged into the previous sentence to shorten the text.
 * "After World War II and the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and an internationalized Jerusalem." – The Holocaust was not a reason for creating the partition plan. Also, is "internationalized Jerusalem" a good wording? Google gives just 3,170 hits, and the text currently used as the reference in the lead doesn't mention the word "internationalized." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "internationalized probably came from Corpus separatum (Jerusalem), "internationalization proposal" in Line 1. 17,700 hits for Jerusalem + corpus separatum.Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Still looks like a made-up term from a Wikipedia editor. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try "placing Jerusalem under UN control" in the next draft. Levivich (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While I agree we don't want to suggest that the Holocaust was the primary reason for the establishment of the state of Israel, I think it's fair to say it was a reason. There's a lot of debate about how much the Holocaust influenced establishment, or how it influenced establishment (genuine or political expediency, refugee problem or actual moral outrage, etc.), but I've never seen a history of modern Israel that doesn't talk about the Holocaust. I wouldn't necessarily die on this hill -- a link to WWII will eventually get the reader there -- but to my eyes, linking WWII but not Holocaust is linking the wrong thing. Levivich (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "After the fall of Israelite kingdoms in the middle of the 1st millenium BCE, most Jews lived in the diaspora until the 19th century C.E., when Jews began moving to the land as part of the Zionism movement." – Is it an established fact that most Jews lived in the diaspora since the 1st millennium BCE? And why mention that and not the estimated period until which Jews formed the majority in Palestine (5th century CE)? The sentence also reads like most Jews stopped living in the diaspora since the 19th century, when in fact they still do. Also, the word "millennium" is misspelled.
 * "In 1917, during World War I, Britain made a declaration of support for the creation of "a national home for the Jewish people." " – The word used in the declaration is "establishment," not "creation."
 * I would rename "Modern Israel" to the "State of Israel" for clarity. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Moreover it's kind of a tricky thing to mention, as there are historians (and now geneticists) who claim that modern Palestinians descend from Jews and Samaritans who converted to Christianity and Islam over time. Even early Zionists believed this back in their day. Synotia (moan) 21:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

2nd paragraph up to 1948 (continued)
Much could be added between "Jewish diaspora" and "In the 19th century", but I'm not sure what exactly to include/exclude there (Hasmonean/Herod/Romans, Christianity, Caliphates, Crusades, Ottoman? None of the above?) I do think though that it would be fine if the paragraph were longer than this. Levivich (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a good start, but I'd expand it a little bit (in tandem with the paragraphs of Turkey and Iran):
 * Dovidroth (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I would support this as an improvement as compared to the current text on the article. I still think it has too much detail but I'd support this or any (neutral) version between this level of detail and the (much lower) level of detail in my latest draft, and I think there is a lot of room for compromise in between. Levivich (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is para 2 + part of para 3, still seems overly detailed,, what was it you had in mind for the overall structure? Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me we can just make it listlike with links, foe example, Arab rule from 638, Crusaders 1099, Mamluk 1291, Ottoman 1517, "Prestate" or some such 1880. Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier: I think this is actually pretty good in terms of overall structure; at this point I'd prefer if it was shorter, even if it mentioned the same events. If there was one thing I would change, it's to say "series of empires" or something like that instead of naming/linking the four classical empires, but I don't want to beat that horse any more, it's not that important. I do like your idea of making it more list-like. I think linking both "Muslim conquest of the Levant" and "caliphal rule" is duplicative, as is linking both "Crusades" and "Crusader States". The links to "ancient history" and "classical era" could go; I think it's better to just give centuries or millennia rather than the names of eras. The 2nd sentence has five links to related topics (Canaanite, Israelite, History of I+J, Assyrian, and Babylonian): five links for pre-500 BC history topics seems excessive. I'd like to see Jewish diaspora mentioned and linked in there somewhere, as I think it's important for the understanding of Zionism, although that could be done just by saying "Jews began moving to the area from the diaspora" or something like that. With all that said, if someone made a bold edit implementing Dovid's draft, I wouldn't revert it, and if it were proposed as an RFC, I would support, even without any of the changes I just listed. If there's consensus for any of the above changes, even better. Levivich (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My fault, I didn't mean the structure of this para2 + part para 3 which looks essentially OK, I meant the overall structure of the lead, 4 para, 5 para, whatever. Selfstudier (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh! I haven't really fully thought that through yet. If the current 2nd para and 1st half of current 3rd para are combined, we could combine the second half of the current 3rd para and the current 4th para, which would result in a 4-para lead: (1) opening para introduction, (2) para of pre-history, (3) para of history, (4) closing para with statistics. I think we should do that as a first step, and then start talking about the 'new 3rd para' (history), and in the course of the discussion, we would have the option of breaking up the 'new 3rd para' into two paragraphs and thus end up with a 5-para lead, with 1 para of pre-history and 2 paras of history. I think that would be fine. I have no idea where that break might occur (chronologically), and maybe we won't need to break it up at all. What are your thoughts? Levivich (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In late 19th century, Jews began moving to the area => It might be just me, but this can imply that no Jews lived there before.
 * Earlier here I used the terms "First" and "Second" Aliyah between quotation marks because there were a fair bunch of movements of diaspora Jews moving to the Land of Israel before Zionism. (See Old Yishuv)Even in the 1900s, Yemeni Jews moved to Palestine for mainly economic motives rather than Zionist ones. Synotia (moan) 09:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The bit on the British commitment should include that it also promised to protect the religious and civil rights of the existing population, and it should also include that at the time of the increase in Jewish migration to Palestine that the overwhelming majority of the population were Arab Muslims and Christians. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On Balfour, my first choice is what's in this draft, obv, but if I had to choose something else, I would prefer just saying "who had made the Balfour Declaration a few years prior" rather than getting into its specific terms. On population, I don't think we should get into who was the majority at what point in time, and in my view "Jewish migration to the area" communicates that Jews were not a majority in the area when they migrated there. I don't think it matters if they were or weren't a majority, and if anything, I think "led to the Jewish diaspora" communicates that they weren't a majority since the fall of the kingdoms. "declared independence" implies they were the majority at that time, but this draft implies that happened sometime after "Jewish migration to the area increased" in the 19th c., without saying when exactly. I don't think it matters when, exactly. Levivich (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You dont include anything about the existing population at all. And it isnt just that point in time. Jews had been a tiny minority in Palestine for quite some time. Of course it matters, that is the entire dispute over "the region". That the supposed universal right to self-determination was denied to this population, that they were ethnically cleansed from their territory, and that dispute is still one of the defining characteristics of the topic of this article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * eyeroll There's really no reason to use such language like "ethnically cleansed", or "genocide," or "apartheid," or "bantustan," or "crimes against humanity", etc. That words and phrases in wikivoice will not get consensus, and can't you see, e.g. by the dead RFCs above, that they distract from actually improving the article? What more will it take to prove that trying to stick to NPOV language is a good idea?
 * Anyway, 1948 Palestinian exodus is discussed in the next paragraph of the lead. Levivich (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. This is not about 1948. It is about the native majority population at the time of the mass immigration of European Jews, and you write not one word about that. As far as there is no reason, the reason to use such language is because that is the language sources use. It isnt neutral to whitewash the sources to appease some Wikipedia editor's sensitivities. Oh, and stick your eyeroll where the sun dont shine, the ethnic cleansing is what reduced the Palestinian Arab population from over 950,000 to less than 200,000 in the territory that is now Israel. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is room in this paragraph to mention demographic changes in the area between the fall of the kingdoms and Zionism.
 * I'm not going to stand for being accused of doing something wrong, or intentionally excluding something, because I've failed to anticipate some information you think should be included in a draft. If you think something is missing, suggest a sentence, don't give me shit. Levivich (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The only thing I think youve done wrong is eyerolled past the mass expulsion of a native population from some 400 villages and towns. I havent given you any shit about your proposal, Ive only said I felt was wrong about it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * to less than 200,000 in the territory that is now Israel.
 * Genuinely asking out of ignorance: I had not heard such a low figure. Why are there 1.8 million Arabs in Israel now? The birth rate cannot be possibly that high? Synotia (moan) 09:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Palestinian citizens of Israel "In the aftermath of the 1947–49 Palestine war, of the estimated 950,000 Arabs that lived in the territory that became Israel before the war, over 80% fled or were expelled and 20%, some 156,000, remained. so an even lower figure. Israel also includes 300k in East Jerusalem in its figures. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And why are you avoiding "Palestine" by using "the area"? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm avoiding "Palestine" by writing that word three times in the draft, but not writing it a fourth time in place of "the area", which is written once. :-P Levivich (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Although it could be "Jewish migration to the Southern Levant increased". "Area" is vague. Levivich (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Each of the places you write it is part of a name, eg the Mandate for Palestine, the Partition Plan for Palestine, and Mandatory Palestine. But it is the common name for "the area", especially so in that time period (see for eg, each of those names). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Palestine" is a common name for the area, as is "Israel" or "Land of Israel". "Southern Levant" is the neutral common name for the area used by scholars specifically to avoid making a choice between "Israel" and "Palestine". It seems obvious to me that in articles about Israel we'd generally call it "Israel", and in articles about Palestine we'd call it "Palestine", and in articles about both or neither, we'd use the neutral "Southern Levant". I'm not going to sweat whether we use "Israel" in one instance here, or "Palestine" in another instance there, but one thing I am 100% sure of is that the community would view an RFC about "'Israel' or 'Palestine'?" as digging up a buried horse in order to beat it further. In this case, I think "Southern Levant" is better because it's more specific than "the area" and uses the neutral term. Levivich (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Im sorry but that is absolutely not true. Articles about the state of Israel should use Israel when discussing the state. Israel did not exist at the time that this paragraph is discussing. Land of Israel has never been the common English name for that territory. Southern Levant includes more than the territory being discussed. Im sorry, but you are just factually wrong here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, both "Land of Israel" and "Palestine" includes more than the territory being discussed (the borders of the state of Israel). Levivich (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, the territory being discussed here is the entirety of Palestine, the territory that modern Israel and the oPt make up. What else are you talking with the mandate and partition? Again, Land of Israel is not, and has never been, a common English name for that territory or any other territory. See for example this if you oddly think otherwise. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And lets throw Southern Levant into the mix. Tell me again how the prevalence among sources determines NPOV and not the personal viewpoints of Wikipedia editors please. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you want to launch an RFC about whether we should call the area "Palestine" in wikivoice in the lead of Israel, go ahead. Levivich (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So when somebody demonstrates that one phrase is exponentially more common your response is start an rfc? Why, there is clearly a common name to be used when talking about the region especially in this timeframe. Why would that need an RFC? Or are we not operating on the same instruction manual? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see what part of NPOV says to use the most common word for things. We represent all significant viewpoints in proportion, etc., but when there are multiple terms for something, I think NPOV is more nuanced than just going with the highest NGRAM. In this case, "Palestine" is a charged word to use in the lead of Israel, because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I don't think there is any chance it would get consensus for us to call the area using that word in the lead of the article about Israel. Changing "the area" to "Palestine" would be a poison pill amendment for an RFC for a proposed replacement paragraph, just as much as if we wrote, "Modern Israel is in the Land of Israel", I think calling that land by either of those names would tank the whole paragraph in any RFC.
 * Similarly, if we add that Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims or whatever formulation were the majority in the 19th century, editors will want to also say that they weren't the majority at other times in history, or mention the times when Jews were in the majority. And then what about the Christians, and the Samaritans, etc.? And next thing you know, we're listing out Ptolomaic and such, i.e., the status quo.
 * So as I said when I posted this, "Much could be added between "Jewish diaspora" and "In the 19th century", but I'm not sure what exactly to include/exclude there (Hasmonean/Herod/Romans, Christianity, Caliphates, Crusades, Ottoman? None of the above?)" If your answer is "add Palestinian", OK, do you have any suggestions for what exactly to write that you think will get consensus in an RFC? Which means probably not just "Palestinians", but also something else along with Palestinians. I really don't know what exactly, but I know I don't think we should get down to the level of detail where we're saying "Ptolomaic". What's elusive is a sentence or two that summarizes demographic changes for a 2300-year period. Levivich (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The part of NPOV that says to use the most common phrasing for something is WP:DUE; when it is a supermajority viewpoint that X is called blah then we dont use our a Wikipedia editor's personal preference on what is "charged" or whatever other unsourced personal view they have. Again, "Land of Israel" is not and has never been the, or even a, common name in English for the territory being discussed is. The Christians population is included in the Arab population, I did not say Muslim, and beyond that I didnt even call them Palestinians. The Jews of that time period in Palestine were likewise Palestinian, because, again, Palestine is the common English name for that place in that time. That is such a basic fact that if that isnt agreed upon then we are operating on completely different planes here. I didnt even say anything about the 19th century. What I am saying is when saying the British expressed support for a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine they also promised to uphold the rights of the existing population, and that this existing population, on an order of 9-1, was Arab. And that should be noted when introducing Balfour and partition. Because why else does a civil war break out? Because of the anodyne Jewish migration to the area increased? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The quote from the Balfour Declaration could/should be extended to "a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine" (without the quotes) (especially since there was a lot of argument over what "in" meant). At the time (1872 to 1918), "Palestine" physically was 3 sanjaks in the Ottoman empire, see Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, "During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Akka (Acre), formed the region that was commonly referred to as Palestine." "Selfstudier (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with "in Palestine", but I think it's better to keep the quotes. Although the quotes aren't necessary, having the quotes informs the reader that this is a direct quote from the document, and not a phrase created by Wikipedia editors. Because the reader may wonder "what does 'national home' mean, what does 'in Palestine' mean?" and by putting it in quotes, we're signaling that we didn't choose those phrases, it's in the declaration itself. The problem I forsee, if it's not in quotes, is someone later changing 'national home' to 'establishment of a state', or something like that, because it's 'clearer', not realizing it's language directly in the declaration. (That said, I'd support with or without the quotes.) Levivich (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the quotes but then it needs to be the actual wording "...the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" I said without the quotes only because I rearranged it. Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't even notice it was a rearrangement, lol. OK I do see the value in the shorter rearrangement without quotes, which might be more valuable than the things I raised. I'd be fine with it either way. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "The modern state of Israel is named after the Land of Israel" I think this is not actually the case? The etymology doesn't say that and nor does this article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Named after Jacob"? Levivich (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this bit for them that knows to sort out. Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been added anyway so I tagged it as dubious pending a resolution here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The story of the name choice: . Our "named after" is probably correct but it was an indirect route and we would probably need to find a Ben-Gurion quote on the matter to make the statement.
 * The goal is to find a form of words that allows this after about “Israel proper” (within the green line) to tell the history of the Land of Israel / Palestine region.
 * As “named after” is ruled out, our options are narrower.
 * How about "The modern state of Israel, together with the adjacent Palestinian territories, is a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions.”
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * your latest edit crossed 1RR. Please self-revert. More importantly, as I said in my edit comment, it is factually wrong to suggest that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah began in the area of modern green-line Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * it is factually wrong to suggest that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah began in the area of modern green-line Israel If you want to go that way, they are for a nice chunk in "Israel proper". If you are opposed to emphasis on Jewish history, say it out loud instead of filibustering. Synotia (moan) 09:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It omits the WB so I added that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We are all aware of the amount of handwaving involved in tying together Jewish history of past millenia with modern day Israel but we are all I think doing our best not to make a big song and dance about it, there are limits however. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of 'wanting to go' one way or another, but simply eliciting the salient facts and stating them neutrally and succintly. We would all agree, I assume, that
 * "Israel is a state founded in the Southern Levant in 1948 as the realization of a 19th century Zionist project to create a national haven for the Jewish people in Palestine. Though conceived as a secular refuge from antisemitism, the choice also reflected a deep historic attachment to the original heartlands of the Israelite and Judean people as recounted in the biblical narratives. At the same time, the establishment of Israel engendered a conflict, still unresolved, between a 'Jewish and democratic' Israel and the Palestinian people's national aspirations."Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Where do you want to put that? At the beginning of para 2? Replacing what? Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put it anywhere. I'm looking for common ground for editors who otherwise disagree on everything Would anyone doubt that Israel's foundation implemented an idea for a secular refuge, based on deep cultural attachments to biblical myths of origins? No. Would anyone deny that its positioning caused from the outset a structural conflict that endures to this day? No (well, flatearthers exist but...) Since these are fundamental facts. any proposed draft should balance them.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, its not an unreasonable statement, the thing is how to fit it into the lead. At the moment we are more or less agreed on Para 2 except perhaps for the first one or two sentences. Might be better at this point to try and edit para 2 directly. The last sentence of your para is probably better fitted into para 3. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As you may know from my editing history, I have no particular attachment to this or any other country,- I stay clear of directly editing this article except to revert or correct extreme editing bias from time to time- as opposed to topics like ideologies of nationalism, and what they studiously endeavour to repress from the historical record, and ancient history. My piece was intended as a prompt, to be ignored, or used anywhere in the lead by anyone who might find something in it useful to overcome the inevitable impasse articles like this run into, with the emotive charge, almost religious or maternal in its protectiveness or intensity, they carry for so many.Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * K, I am reluctant to edit without more input, let's wait a bit. Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you write this? This is an answer to what? Synotia (moan) 13:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rudeness. It is a response to your careless dismissal of suggestions by others as either an expression of a desire to repress Jewish history or stonewalling. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's really good, a succinct and neutral summary. I would support using the first two sentences in the 2nd paragraph, and the 3rd sentence in the 3rd paragraph, and I would strike the word "Though". Levivich (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Quick cut for start of para 3 2 (duh),, can you improve it?
 * The area of modern Israel and the West Bank is of great significance to the Abrahamic religions. The state was founded in the Southern Levant in 1948 as the realization of a 19th century Zionist project to create a national haven for the Jewish people in Palestine. Conceived as a secular refuge from antisemitism, the choice also reflected a deep historic attachment to the original heartlands of the Israelite and Judean people as recounted in the biblical narratives. In ancient history, it was where Canaanite and Israelite civilizations emerged. In the early first millennium BCE the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged, before falling to the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, respectively.[20][21] Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me, my only question is whether it's just modern Israel and the West Bank or also other places (Gaza, Golan Heights)? This rearrangement of the beginning cuts "West Bank", but it might not be an improvement over what you've written if it is just ISrael+WB and not also those other places: Levivich (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You guys have overlooked a simple solution: Write "the area in and around modern Israel" Synotia (moan) 21:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That would work for me too. Levivich (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We don’t need that “area of modern Israel” first sentence any more as it is dealt with by the “deep historical attachment” bit later. We also don’t need “in the southern levant” as it is clear from the rest of the lede where it is. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Levivich is correct that 'though' could be removed to advantage. Dropping the reference to Palestinian aspiration and replacing it with a sudden jerk into Babylonian/Assyrian empires doesn't work. Perhaps, over the two days I thought about this - striving for absolute balance - I was thinking of it as a first para. In any case, after  due care for defining Israel as the culmination of a Zionist project that bore also high symbolic value for Jews, to drop the round-off re 'competing  Palestinian national aspirations',(the competitition between two national aspirations is one of the most basic points made in the literature) unhinges the balance, which is not only a matter of sticking in refs to Palestinians, but of underlining what has proved to be one of the major stress lines in Israel's history. Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Nishidani's latest addition looks like unnecessary commentary. The current version we worked out is much more encyclopedic, concise and neutral. I have the feeling this will open a pandora's vox regarding narratives with no end on sight. I'd suggest we stick to the historical facts, stop treading water and move on from the second paragraph. Dovidroth (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * C'mon, it's not so bad and there are 3/4 editors sort of in agreement with it. Probably it should be sourced though. Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It actually ties the historical rambling in with the subject, and explains the connection, which is surely a good thing. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * there is a semi consensus for including your suggested material. Save hunting around, you have some sourcing handy for it? Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "the choice also reflected a deep historic attachment to the original heartlands of the Israelite and Judean people as a recounted in the biblical narratives" would be perfect if Jews were just a religious group, but no, they are also an ethnic group (that's how they see themselves). The problem is exactly in "as a recounted in the biblical narratives". This seems to sum up the Jewish attachment to the region of Palestine to a mere tale from a fictional religious book. In addition to the clear historicity of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the Greco-Jewish wars and the Jewish-Roman wars, which have a significant impact on Jewish nationalism, are reported in sources of no religious value to Jews (such as the book of Maccabees and the writings of Flavius Josephus). Jews also maintained their identity after the Diaspora, keeping your culture alive and being aware of their origins in Palestine. Mawer10 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Jews also maintained their identity after the Diaspora, keeping your culture alive and being aware of their origins in Palestine"
 * You've completely missed the point in the way I phrased that. There is no subject (the Jews). The motivation behind that part is that various Jewish groups who were attracted to the Zionist proposal drew on strong feelings of attachment that arose from the deep formative role of biblical stories in Jewish (and, what is conspicuously not understood by many editors here, Christian) culture. You go on to elaborate about what Jews think or feel. I've never met a 'Jew' or a 'Chinese', an 'Italian', 'Frenchperson', 'Israeli', 'Russian' etc., who fits the collective stereotype of whom they  are supposed to be, or how they are supposed to think. I've met any number of people, and read hundreds of books, where confident assertions are made about each of these collective identities. My fundamental antipathy to antisemitism is a reflex of a general sense that no one had a right to define other people. Determining who one is is a purely personal matter that should brook no meddling by ideological-fixated nosey-parkers eager to rope one into, or  harass one out of, a given social group. In every case, casually or authoritatively, one of a designated group will trot out familiar clichés, acting as an unappointed spokesman for a theoretical collective ethnic ethos. Hogwash to my ears or eyes. This comes from growing up in a country where one could be, say, 'Jewish' (as well as Australian) without any inflection of this private fact on one's social or public life. I had no inkling for years (and couldn't have cared less) that the distinguioshed scholar who took me under his wing happened to be also Jewish. I was delighted to hear, in a letter he wrote to me, that on retirement, at 73, when he finally decided to have his bar mitzvah, he passed the Torah reading with flying colours. But I don't think he, or so many others I have known, had a deep attachment to Israel, past or present. If you read the oeuvre of Isaac Bashevis Singer, you will find that most of the Yiddishers of his world, if given a choice, were more attached to the idea of emigrating to the US than to Palestine. The 'deep  attachment' is something constantly affirmed in the literature, and, from the mid-20th century has assumed a matter-of-factness status, hence my decision to include it- an act of empathy with contemporary sentiments shared by many editors here, even if, like so many sentiments or beliefs, it is a recent politico-cultural construction (as, with overwhelming unassailable detail, Antony Lerman shows in his recent book Whatever Happened to Antisemitism?: Redefinition and the Myth of the 'Collective Jew',(2022)
 * In short, what I wrote was an attempt to mediate neutrally between conflicting positions here, using facts each side might contest, but which, if a compromise is to be achieved, must be recognized for their basic reality and cogency. I had, and have, no expection that, in going even further than what I believe to be the case, more than halfway, to meet the stromng feelings of editors I often disagree with, that the formulation would prove acceptable. One cannot argue with ideas that have all of the strength of religious beliefs, strongly edged with political investments of a similar emotive order.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The phrase "deep historic attachment" carries both potential meanings without prejudice. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He is totally right, and I could not say it better. I agree: the proposed phrasing gives the impression that the "deep historic attachment" of Jews to the region is only based on biblical narratives, as if it was a legendary tale and nothing more. What about the kingdoms of Israel and Judah? Semi-autonomous Judean governance under Persian and Hellenistic rule? The Hasmonean kingdom of Judea? The Jewish-Roman Wars? We don't have to recount the full history because we're aiming for more conciseness, but we do need to find a method to convey that the Jewish link is also rooted in real history, including ancient polities and kingdoms, etc. Maybe mention the most important episodes, such as the Iron Age kingdoms, the Hasmonean dynasty and the Jewish-Roman Wars, which, as Mawer10 mentioned above, have a significant impact on Jewish nationalism. Tombah (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, please do not rush anything right now. It is Sabbath. We must give the more observant the chance to voice their opinions as well. Tombah (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I prefer to go by sources rather than personal opinions. Do you have any? Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary to resort to some source to build such a simple sentence. A little good sense seems more than enough. Mawer10 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree but since there are objections... Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If we are going to be precise, the sentence should include the term and link: national myth.
 * To address the above concerns, an accurate fix would be “as recounted primarily in the biblical narratives and the writings of Josephus”. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This suggestion, in my opinion, is not much of an improvement since it once again makes the impression that the Jewish connection is a national myth rather than a historical and archaeological fact. Every single Second Temple period historian and archeologist will tell you that the region had a Jewish majority during the period's latter stages (Hasmonean, Herodian, and Early Roman periods), evidenced by mikvehs, stone vessels, Jewish-style rock-cut caves, and Jewish inscriptions found all over Judaea, Galilee, etc and countless ancient sources (written by Jews, Greeks and Romans). Tombah (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * have a go at fixing up the "quick cut" I made above so we can make some progress on this, pretty please? Selfstudier (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How about the below. The whole point of this text is to segue into telling the historical story of the Land of Israel, given that its area is different to modern Israel proper.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * K, do without the national myth and Josephus, right? Selfstudier (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just was (re)reading Shlomo Sand, seems like a reasonable explanation of the Land of Israel thing. Selfstudier (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't recommend using Shlomo Sand as a source here. Many academics all across the world regard his publications about Jewish history to be either factually wrong (this was never his area of expertise) or politically driven (with him self-identifying as post-Zionist and radical leftist). IMO this is a really bad choice of sourcing. Tombah (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in his political views only whether his description of how LoI entered the lexicon is accurate.
 * Idk where many academics comes from but taking a sample review by one academic, "Much of what Shlomo Sand reveals is known to specialists. His achievement consists in debunking a nationalist mythology which holds sway in large sections of popular opinion." Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine, except that when it switches back to 'ancient history', I would dispense with 'Land of Israel', which is a biblical term, not a well defined historical geography. A broad, generalizing term such as 'the region' would probably actually be fine since both Palestine and Land of Israel are mentioned by that point - at the very least it would be less clunky than defaulting back to 'Southern Levant' again. Finally, perhaps it should be 'where Canaanite and Israelite civilizations developed' ... it the moment we've got 'emerged' in two sentences in a row, and I think archaeologically-speaking the origins of Canaanite culture are not set in stone and not necessarily locked to the Southern Levant, since Canaanite culture extended across the whole Levant. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that Canaanite civilization is not necessarily limited to the Southern Levant (also to the Phoenician coast in modern day Lebanon and Syria...), and even while the Israelites are likely descended from the Canaanites, it has minimal bearing on later Israelite/Judaean/Jewish history and identity. We can solve it by using Levivich's above proposal: "Ancient Israelites emerged from Canaan". And still, important later periods of Jewish history in the area are missing. Tombah (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have to include the entirety of the article body in the lead, its supposed to be a summary of the principal things and an article about modern Israel is not supposed to be about all of Jewish history, except for the needed linking of that to the modern state. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A biased attempt to downplay Israel's historical roots by putting antisemitism as the main foundation of the country and using the word "project," making the lead even longer, by the way. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd go further and specify that Zionism was seen as the only fitting answer to the emerging European nationalisms which systematically excluded Jews. Synotia (moan) 08:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not a very nuanced take on the subject. Here's some further reading: Zionism and diaspora nationalism and Zionism and European Nationalisms: Comparative Aspects. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I underlined it as how it was perceived by people at the time. Not whether or not with our present 21st century knowledge it can be considered as such or not by political scientists. Synotia (moan) 09:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even at the time it was not so monolithic. There is of course Christian Zionism, which played a key role in the promulgation of the 'homeland in Palestine' aspiration. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Synotia is right.
 * Israel was created as a result of a Jewish nationalist movement, itself created as a result of the exclusionary nationalisms then prevailing in Europe.
 * For anyone wanting to understand the history of modern Israel, this sentence – or perhaps a better-worded version of it – is about as fundamental as it is possible to be.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph is still very long. What is the point of this lengthy sentence in the lead? "After World War II and the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and placing Jerusalem under international control." The plan wasn't implemented back then and is not relevant today. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * See here "Israel has been proclaimed as an                           independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,...", that's why it is important. It was based on this cable that the US gave de facto recognition to the new government. Without that, there was no basis for the creation of Israel at all. Perhaps the relevant history should be added.
 * I do agree that para 2 is still too long but that is not what I would be looking to trim myself. Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "basis for the creation of Israel" was the expiration of the mandate and the movement for Israeli independence. After the declaration of independence, war broke out and the plan soon became obsolete for Israel, not to mention the Arabs who rejected the plan since it was announced. This short-lived proposal was never materialized and is not lead-worthy. The lead is too long because of the trivia like this. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The plan became obsolete when the Haganah began taking control of large amounts of land that had been allocated to the Arab state, and expelling the Palestinian Arabs. This happened under the mandate and before the Israeli declaration of independence. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The mandate (Class A) contemplated independence of Palestine at mandate end (achieved in the case of the other three Class A's). The partition plan altered the premise according to its terms, it was an attempt at a fix (not the first attempt, Peel had earlier stated that the mandate was unworkable) for the fundamental contradiction in the mandate (independence of Palestine/creation of a national home) The UN would have been happy if the resolution had been implemented, which of course it wasn't. With hindsight, the Arab state should have been created as well and perhaps we would not be here now but I digress, the point is that the partition resolution is critical background to the creation of Israel, not "trivia". Look at any source discussing these events, odds are it will mention it and Peel eg Reich, Brief History of Israel- "In the light of experience and of the arguments adduced by the Commission...[the British government is] driven to the conclusions that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the aspirations of Arabs and Jews in Palestine, that these aspirations cannot be satisfied under the terms of the present Mandate, and that a scheme of partition on the general lines recommended by the Commission represents the best and most hopeful solution to the deadlock." Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All these hypotheticals are just not what the lead section of a country is for. Look what any country's lead says about history. They don't go into such level of detail. The plan belongs to the body of the article, not the lead. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your position but it is not really that helpful to revert just this part out when the whole thing is under discussion and is incorporated in various suggested drafts. I still don't agree with your position, all the encyclopedia links in the bottom section mention it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I humbly suggest to everyone the encyclopedia links in the bottom section are how we should resolve the remaining content disputes about the lead. Let's look at the WP:PROPORTION of coverage in those sources of various details, and summarize them accordingly? Levivich (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)