Talk:Israel/Archive 94

Three areas of POV
The three sentences highlighted in this edit are POV. They were all added by without consensus a week ago in this edit
 * ...the region historically known as the Land of Israel, Palestine, Canaan, or the Holy Land, which is regarded as the birthplace of the Jewish people => This region is the birthplace of two "people"; mentioning only one is not balanced.
 * The 1947 UN Palestine Partition Plan which proposed a two-state solution for this conflict was rejected by Arab leaders, sparking a civil war. => This attempts to "blame" one side for the war.
 * On May 14, 1948, Israel declared independence, and immediately afterwards the surrounding Arab states invaded, sparking the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. => Again, this attempts to "blame" one side for the war

The drafting in each of these areas goes against years of consensus across this project. The editor concerned should not have added such material, and then reverted it back in when challenged, without first gaining consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not about assigning blame, but reporting well-known historic facts. The Arabs rejected the UN partition plan (regardless of borders): FACT. The Arab states started the 1948 war by attacking Israel when it declared independence: FACT. Neutrality doesn't imply obscuring important facts that make you uncomfortable. Dovidroth (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Palestinians don't need to be mentioned in the paragraph about ancient history in Israel's lead section. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not? It is their history and their country too. "the birthplace of the Jewish people" is a modern nationalist concept; there were no "Jewish people" in those early biblical times either. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Don't believe the propaganda. I don't know about the "Early biblical times", but during the Second Temple period, there definitely was a Jewish people, and it is referred to in many sources of the period, including various Greek and Roman authors, and Jewish writings such as the Books of Maccabees, other apocryphal books, Josephus, rabbinic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and other sources of the period. Try reading Jewish Identity, that would be a good start. Tombah (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, cliché-sowing. Read Steve Mason on the word Ioudaios 2007 as I have told editors here for the nth time. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.(Nishidani)
 * You are refuting something I didn't write. You (and your links) agree with my statement that "there were no "Jewish people" in those early biblical times" - you are writing about 1,000 years later in classical times. And no classical source used romantic nationalist terminology such as "the birthplace of the Jewish people". If you wish to include language about which nations were "born" in this land, it will need to mentioned both nations. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What other nation are you referring to? Arabs originated in the Arabian peninsula, so Israel/Judea/Palestine certainly wasn't their homeland or birthplace. All other indigenous nations (e.g. Canaanites) are long gone.
 * If you are referring to the "Palestinian" people, it is a modern 20th century term with no historical basis. The Arabs who lived in the British mandate of Palestine did not refer to themselves as "Palestinian" until the 1960's, but rather as "Arabs", or "Syrians".
 * Therefore it's unclear why there is bias in @Tombah's statement. Tinelva (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all Palestinians are descended from Arabian Peninsula Arabs; in fact, there is ample evidence that some Palestinians, (particularly rural villagers in some parts of Judea and Samaria), are related to ancient populations such as Samaritans, Christians, and Jews who converted to Islam in the Middle Ages or Early Modern period. However, it is obvious that the ethnogenesis of the Palestinian people should not be discussed in the lede of this article for three main reasons: (1) it is a relative recent phenomenon, a product of the mid-to-late 20th century, and has no place when describing ancient history; (2) It was impacted by modern migrations to the area, starting in the early Islamic period and culminating in the late Ottoman and mandatory periods; (3) this article is about Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people, so the historic part of the lede should mainly focus on Jewish history in the Land of Israel, as prelude for the establishment of the modern-day state. The correct places to discuss Palestinian ethnogenesis would be the articles for Palestinians, History of Palestine. Tombah (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 20% of the nationstate of the Jewish people is demographically Palestinian, descending from people who lived there long before immigrating Jews became Israelis. The ethnogenesis of Israelis is far more complex in its diasporic aspects than the resident Palestinian population's historic past - in no continental nation on earth does anyone think that historic shifts in migration from contiguous areas substantially undercuts their contemporary identity as native to that nation. You cannot weed out the Palestinian element constitutive of modern Israelis without hammering at a nationalist POV that ethnocleans history, and sweeps such inconvenient realities under the carpet.(Nishidani)
 * To me, it's clear that Philo of Alexandria, a Jew who lived in Alexandria 2,000 years ago and referred to Jerusalem as the "mother-city" of all Jews, did think of the Land of Israel as the Jewish people's ancestral home. He might not had used those exact words, but it is obvious that this idea is based on historical truth and dates back at least to the Hellenistic period and is not a "modern nationalist concept" as Onceinawhile suggested above. Tombah (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

These are some of the sources discussed a few sections above; everybody should be able to access all of them via the WP:TWL links at the end of the citation: The content: I'm not sure where that leaves us exactly, but whatever we do, we should be summarizing the above (and any other recent scholarly summaries of Israel that may not be on the list). Levivich (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Oxford 2014 (TWL link)
 * 2) Riches 2016:  (TWL link)
 * 3) Hill 2017:  (|CX3652100191 TWL link)
 * 4) Ellicott 2020:  (|CX8011400102 TWL link)
 * 5) Dilworth 2022:  (TWL link)
 * Names/"birthplace":
 * Oxford 2014: "Israel comprises most of the Biblical Holy Lands (for history pre-1947, see Palestine)."
 * Riches 2016: Not mentioned
 * Hill 2017: "The land that is now Israel (which the Romans called Judea and then Palestine) is the cradle of two of the world's major religions, Judaism and Christianity..." (The Religion and History sections have several paragraphs of ancient history that I won't reproduce here.)
 * Ellicott 2020: Not mentioned
 * Dilworth 2022: Not mentioned
 * 1947:
 * Oxford 2014: "In 1947, the United Nations (UN) agreed to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, but Arabs rejected the plan and fighting broke out."
 * Riches 2016: Not mentioned
 * Hill 2017: "On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted a plan to partition Palestine into two economically united but politically sovereign states, one Jewish and the other Arab, with Jerusalem as an international city. The Arabs of Palestine, aided by brethren across the frontiers, at once rose up in arms to thwart partition."
 * Ellicott 2020: "In the years following World War I, Palestine became a British Mandate and Jewish immigration steadily increased, as did violence between Palestine's Jewish and Arab communities. Mounting British efforts to restrict this immigration were countered by international support for Jewish national aspirations following the near-extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis during World War II. This support led to the 1947 UN partition plan, which would have divided Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under UN administration." Also: "Arabs in the Mandatory and neighboring Arab states rejected a 1947 UN partition plan that would have divided the Mandatory into separate Jewish and Arab states, and the area has seen periods of invasions and armed conflict since 1948."
 * Dilworth 2022: "The State of Israel's independence was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 with the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine. It followed a resolution agreed by the United Nation's General Assembly on 29 November 1947 recommending the partition of Mandatory Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab States."
 * 1948:
 * Oxford 2014: "On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled. In the first Arab-Israeli War, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria invaded, but the Haganah successfully defended the state."
 * Riches 2016: "The state of Israel was established in what was formerly Palestine in 1948 as a Jewish homeland and has since attracted immigrants from almost every country."
 * Hill 2017: "The Jews of Palestine accepted the plan; on 14 May 1948, the last day of the mandate, they proclaimed the formation of the State of Israel. The next day, the Arab League states—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria—launched a concerted armed attack."
 * Ellicott 2020: "On May 14, 1948, soon after the British quit Palestine, the State of Israel was proclaimed and was immediately invaded by armies from neighboring Arab states, which rejected the UN partition plan. This conflict, Israel's War of Independence, was concluded by armistice agreements between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria in 1949 and resulted in a 50% increase in Israeli territory."
 * Dilworth 2022: "The State of Israel's independence was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 with the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine."

Per WP:BRD, Tombah's material has not achieved consensus yet and needs to be reverted prior to discussion. I already did so and Tombah re-inserted it, so please could someone else return these paragraphs to how they stood beforehand. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually, there seems to be rather strong consensus in favor of the edits. Personally, I'm not sure about the "homeland" part. However, stating that the Arab side rejected the UN partition plan, and that the Arab states invaded, is just stating facts. It's hard to see what the problem is supposed to be. Jeppiz (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There have been c.20 editors involved in a detailed discussion of the lede in the last few months. Which editors do you consider have stated themselves to be in favor of Tombah's proposed wording? My assessment is that the few editors who have given a clear view in the last 24 hours do not constitute a representative sample. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Rejected" and "invaded" seems to be how the RSes summarize it. Levivich (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The real problem is how Tombah's wording synthesizes these two factors. The previous wording was careful to avoid ascribing blame for "sparking" conflict. For contentious topics like outbreak of war, we should be looking to high quality secondary RSes - none of them blame only one side or the other for sparking the conflicts. We must do the same - either we avoid apportioning blame, or we give a balanced appraisal. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First, you shouldn't have reverted, you're the only one who is voicing objection to the changes (so far). I'm counting 5 editors who disagree with you (me, Tombah, Tinelva, Jeppiz, Triggerhippie). That's consensus, at least for the moment. Second, I don't see "blame" as being a factor. It's what the sources say: the Arab states rejected the partition plan and invaded. I don't know if one can "blame" them, but the RSes say the Arab states started the war. I don't like "sparking" as a word, the sentences could be improved, but I agree fundamentally the the current version is better than the version you reverted to. Levivich (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus on the lede like this is not formed in 24 hours. The four qualifying editors you listed are not representative of the perspectives discussed above over many months, and Tinelva does not count towards consensus. Per WP:BRD we are expected to stop and discuss after reversion. It is not WP:BRRD for a good reason. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Tombah did an excellent job finally summarizing the lead to replace that monstrosity from before. Concerning the 1947-48 part - I've already changed the wording, look carefully. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The new wording still does not work. It suggests that the sole reason for 1948 was Arab rejection of the UN and Israel. Singling out a single aspect like that is highly POV.
 * There are many other problems in Tombah's drafting. Two more examples:
 * The second paragraph is more a summary of History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, rather than a WP:WORLDVIEW summary of this land. Tombah has expressed a view that "this is the Jewish state, so the history should focus on Jews", but his view has not achieved consensus.
 * Around that time, Israel absorbed waves of Jewish immigration, while a sizeable number of Palestinians were expelled or fled juxtaposes these two in what is a core Israeli government talking point. The Palestinian population change around the time of the war was 3x larger than the Jewish one, and happened first, so why is it second? Also they did not happen around the same time, making it sound like a population exchange. The Palestinians were kicked out, refused return, and only after the hostilities ended did mass Jewish immigration begin.
 * The longstanding statement the longest military occupation in modern history was deleted, removing context of the uniqueness
 * Mention of the annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights was deleted
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Tombah's edit indicates a desire to insert clichés rather than sum up scholarship.
 * Israel is located in the region historically known as the Land of Israel
 * Eretz Israel is a religious, not an historical, term, whose usage down to modern times was mainly restricted to religious texts. It was not typically toponymic but that part of the area defined as coming under halakhic prescriptions.
 * which is regarded as the birthplace of the Jewish people
 * Google that and you get endless hits becausae it is the mindless cliché folk narratives adore. It is as meaningless as stating in the lead in other articles:
 * Lebanon/Syria/Egypt/Jordan/Iraq/Iran/Turkey/Greece '''is the birthplace of Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Iraqi/Iranian/Greek people.
 * Israel is no more the birthplace of the Jewish people than Greece is of the Greek people, both being from earliest times strongly diasporic. If, as the best scholarship tells us, Judaic identity began to shape itself from late Achaemenid/Hellenistic times, it did so when the large majority of Jews were living beyond Palestine. One might say the 'birthplace of Jewish identity' or something like that and nudge off from crap towards some semblance of historicity. The general point is though that it is anomalous in country articles (China is the birthplace of the Chinese people/Japan is the birthplace of the Japanese people'). Its only reason to be inserted here is the usual POV of claiming ancestral rights.
 * 'In antiquity, it was home to several independent Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, initially the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and again during the Hellenistic period under the Hasmonean dynasty.'
 * I.e. there was never any foreign kingdom (Philistia), or foreign sovereign authority for a thousand years.
 * ' In later history, the Jewish population gradually decreased as many were expelled, displaced, or emigrated, resulting in a significant Jewish diaspora. '
 * This is a euphemistic rephrasing of the usual nonsense narrative about 70CE. The population from 800-400 BCE suffered substantial decrease. The 'Jewish population' here apparently means 'the Jewish population in Palestine' because there is no evidence of a decline - to the contrary. there is much evidence of Jewish communities flourishing- throughout the Mediterranean. 'Expelled' refers to 'Jewrusalem' not Judah/Galilee/Samaria. It is false to assert that the Jewish diaspora began later. Like the Greeks, the Judaic/Israelite people were always in diaspora. In short, Tombah's 'excellent' summary mugs the lead with simpleton just-so stories that camouflage the old political story.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Tombah's edit indicates a desire to insert clichés rather than sum up scholarship.  or maybe Nishidani's remarks indicates a strong desire to underplay historical truths when it comes to certain aspects of history, obsession with debunking myths that frequently veers off course to support fringe viewpoints, or just outright dislike for editors who don't share his viewpoint.
 * The area in which modern Israel is situated has been referred to by the term "Land of Israel" for hundreds and thousands of years, and across many generations, much as the terms "Holy Land" and "Palestine" have done as well. Religious texts have of course used this term frequently, but not exclusively. Nonetheless, a name that has historically been exclusively employed in religious texts does not disqualify it as "not historical" - exactly the opposite. What exactly makes the term "Palestine", coined by Greek and Roman authors, and later used prominently by foreign individuals "more historical" (if that's even a thing)?
 * The importance of mentioning that the Land of Israel is where the Jewish people originated stems from the fact, that unlike the other ethnic groups you named, the Jewish people had a reputation as being a people without a land from late antiquity until the 20th century, especially when our readers are about to read more about modern period events that led up to the emergence of modern-day Israel, such as the rise of Zionism and the Aliyah.
 * Even though the history of Philistia may be fascinating, it has no bearing on the lead of this article, which acknowledges the existence of other ancient polities in the region but prefers to stay focused on the Israelite and Jewish polities because they were more notable historically and had a significant impact on culture, religion, literature, and most importantly for this article, the western perception of history, Jewish identity, and the emergence of Zionism.
 * "Euphemistic rephrasing of the usual nonsense narrative about 70CE" - did you actually read the piece? where exactly is the 70 CE events mentioned? My revision depicts a historical fact: Jews, who were the majority in the Land of Israel in antiquity, became a minority up until the present day following a process spanning several centuries. Yes, there were high points during the later Roman period, especially in the days of Judah the Prince, and indeed, there was already a sizable Jewish diaspora before the Second Temple was destroyed, but once more, I fail to see how this modification conflicts with that. The general trend, going from early Roman times to Ottoman times was of Jewish demographic decline, ending up with Jews being less than 10% of the population. This revision is exactly in line with the academic, historical analysis. Tombah (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see at least one 'historical fact' above that is entirely not demonstrable, and that is this concept of a historic 'Jewish' majority, in the modern sense of the word 'Jewish', when all that we actually know is that there was a 'Judaean' majority, for all the various meanings that that can carry. As with previous discussions, there is a strong element of synthesis in the assumption that sources talking about 'Judeans' means people from Judea that were also practicing Jews in the modern terminological sense. Back then there were no Pew surveys or the like, so this stuff is simply outright unknown - historical fact does not come into it in the slightest. It's exactly the same principle by virtue of which Palestinian Jews in Ottoman Palestine were 'Palestinians' - that of the prevailing demonyms being derived from the contemporary names of the geography, not based on anything related to religious affiliation. The assertion of fact above may or may not reflect the historical reality, but assuming that it does is methodologically deeply unsound. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why don't we make it about sources? I've seen sources that present a different image, so. The majority of the population in the country, from the southern Hebron Hills (Idumaea, where converted Edomites lived), up to Wadi Qana in Samaria, as well as in much of the Galilee and Perea, was Jewish before the First Jewish-Roman war, as far as I am aware. "Jewishness" is archeologically determined by material culture indicating distinctive Jewish customs in those areas, where the majority of the local population typically used Jewish burial customs, built mikvehs, used Jewish names alongside specific Hellenized ones, preferred stone vessels to adhere to Jewish purity laws, and more. That was the situation in most of Judaea. Samaritans only resided in a very small Samaria (stretching from Wadi Qana to modern-day Jenin), whereas only the Decapolis (which except Scythopolis, was situated in the Transjordan) and Paralia (the coastal plain) had a pagan majority (Greek settlers or Hellenized semitic populations). I have seen several scholars and sources that mention the region's predominance of *Jews* during that period. Check for example Edward Kessler's "An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations": Jews probably remained in the majority in Palestine until some time after the conversion of Constantine. 


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombah (talk • contribs) 11:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A single-statement 'probability' in an only marginally subject-specific work is hardly compelling. I imagine some rather more specific insight might be found in Judeans and Jews: Four Faces of Dichotomy in Ancient Jewish History. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The modern israeli history section should have some more information
The ongoing anti judicial reform protests and the rise of the israeli far right should be worth mentioning. The anti judicial reforms are one of the largests protests movement in israel's history. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Brief summaries of Israel
I thought it might help if we look at how academic sources summarize Israel, like in encyclopedia entries. I found these four in the free collections at WP:The Wikipedia Library (TWL); hopefully the direct TWL links work for everyone. Does anyone know of any others like these? Levivich (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * (TWL link)
 * (|CX3652100191 TWL link)
 * (|CX8011400102 TWL link)
 * (TWL link)


 * I bet there are more available via TWL's Oxford Reference access. Here's the first one I found:
 * (TWL link)
 * Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Do you think that's too old to be included? (More than 20 years ~ one generation.) Levivich (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked at them all, for older facts, I don't think it's a problem, but for newer stuff, I think we need modern (post 2020) and even then, they are rapidly being overtaken by events.
 * The styles/layouts vary quite a lot so Idk how much guidance we will be able to get from that, tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * |CX3652100191 Hill 2017, |CX8011400102 Ellicott 2020, and Dilworth 2022 are the three highest-quality, non-book-length sources I've come across so far. They don't exactly have a lead like Wikipedia articles do, but they do cover the same events. I think when it comes to how to describe particular events/topics, we can look and see how they describe it. For example, compare their history sections to our 2nd lead paragraph. (Or our body history section; I also think, frankly, the entire body could be balanced with these sources.) Levivich (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just noticing this is not 2001, online version per the TWL link is 2014. So yay. Levivich (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Britannica --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, also BBC. Levivich (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To my greatest sorrow, they did not make one for Israel, but you can take a look at this. Here is an example of how they do it for controversial areas. Synotia (moan) 08:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked at some children's lit for ideas, too: National Geographic Kids . Levivich (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * (TWL link) - Not a brief summary, but a useful source nonetheless. Levivich (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not sure how good it is, at least some of it (the chapters by Efraim Karsh and Sammy Smooha) strike me as rather biased. Levivich (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources (1947-1949)
These six sources are the "Israel" entries in encyclopedias of countries by academic publishers in the past 10 years, all available on WP:TWL. The quoted portions are about events from 1947 to 1949: Please feel free to add more sources below. Levivich (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Oxford 2014:
 * 2) Riches 2016:
 * 3) Hill 2017:
 * 4) Ellicott 2020:
 * 5) Dilworth 2022:
 * 6) The Statesman's Yearbook 2023:

Discussion (1947-1949)
I think it might be worth looking into just the 1947-49 portion of the lead and seeing if we can agree on language that's better than what's currently in the lead. I hope if there are other sources like the ones I've listed above (recent, academic, about the modern state of Israel) people will add them.

In the meantime, let's try this: Here's a list of what I think are key facts for 1947-1949. I've put in italics those facts that I think are "disputed", meaning other editors might think they're either not key facts, or they don't agree to my word choice/phrasing. So I think, per the six sources I quoted above, that list of 10 things are what we need to say in the lead about events in 1947-1949. Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) 1947 UN Partition Plan
 * 2) Was accepted by the Jewish Agency
 * 3) Was rejected by the Palestinian leadership
 * 4) Led to (or "exacerbated"?) internecine fighting between Palestinians (or "civil war"?)
 * 5) 1948 end of British Mandate
 * 6) 1948 Israeli declaration of independence
 * 7) 1948 Arab-Israeli War
 * 8) Arab League attacked Israel
 * 9) Caused Nakba
 * 10) 1949 Armistice Agreements


 * Just want to note here what Selfstudier proposed above at, the portion dealing with 47-49: (paragraph break)  Levivich (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The key sticking point is the absence of a reason why one key event occurred:
 * The Yishuv accepted the Partition plan (per Ben Gurion provisorily) which allocated 56% of the land to the Jewish minority. The Palestinians rejected the proposal. It assigned to the Arab majority 44% of the land. Not stating that means the 'rejection' becomes slanted towards the Abba Ebanish viewpoint that the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This is particularly so since immediately afterwards one uses various terms to insinuate that the fabulous six, or five (actually four ) 'invaded' and Israel defended itself (as per a few of the sources, which even mention Saudi Arabia as an attacker!).Nishidani (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I revised my proposal above to "The plan, which would have given a majority of the land to the minority Jewish population, was mostly accepted by Jews but rejected by Palestinians, leading to inter-communal war." Levivich (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, details like that (which are already in article's body) don't belong in lead, specially when the Arab side made clear that they would reject partition on ANY border. In order words, self-determination for me, but not for thee. And this is the root cause of the conflict: Arab's rejection to accept Israel's right to exist... on any border. Not to mention that most of that 56% of the proposed Jewish state was made of a desert (the Negev), and the UN not only had in mind the "irrelevant Jewish minority" living in Palestine at the time (one third!), but all the Jewish refugees (at least 100,000 Holocaust survivors) that were waiting to immigrate there as well (later joined by Jews from Arab lands), which is why they wanted to give the port of Haifa to the Jewish state to accommodate for the inevitable immigration, despite the city at the time had a significant Arab population. But it's not reasonable to include all these details in lead, isn't it? Also, please stop swearing in your edit summaries. It's not nice. Dovidroth (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a little bit of a conceptual clash there between the notion of the UN making plans based on non-resident populations and it being about self-determination. That's not really how self-determination has ever worked. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "In order words, self-determination for me, but not for thee. And this is the root cause of the conflict: Arab's rejection to accept Israel's right to exist..."
 * David, please don't throw clichés my way. Levivich and I would disagree on fundamentals, and we have frequently crossed swords (Levivich would smile at that, and say all he's doing is trying to avoid my invitation that he oblige me by falling on my aggressively proffered sword:)), but, he has a notable functional realism when negotiating, as is obligatory, a compromise text, and he showed that above in responding to my comment. What you wrote is a standard meme skewing the complexity of facts (for both sides) in favour of an unfactual spin. (a)the Arabs (not 'Arab's, and 'in order words' must be 'in other words', otherwise deaf cranks like myself will hear that as meaning 'in ordure words' ) did not reject Israel's right to exist in November 47 - Israel at the time didn't exist - they rejected a plan that foresaw a state for the Jews in one part of Palestine, and one for themselves in another part. They rejected the two-state solution (as did Ben-Gurion privately, and has Israel consistently over the last five decades). Self-determination for the Arabs consisted in a unified state composed of both Jews and Palestinians, which actually is the only realistic outcome if Israel, ever faithful to the original and never renounced Zionist project's intent) desires to remain a democracy exercising de facto sovreignty over all of historic Palestine). I and Levivich refrained from the obvious temptation to challenge the facts, and we agreed on a way to phrase the given fact with another set of facts (minority/majority) which defuses the POV slant in the earlier formulation. So let's stick to what facts are core, and avoid arguing about 'root causes', which leads nowhere.Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Jews accepted partition, it was the Arabs who rejected it!"
 * "Because the partition would have given most of the land to the minority!"
 * "But most of that land was desert!"
 * I've heard this exact argument a million times in my life, I bet y'all have, too.
 * Philosophically speaking, it's better to say why when you can. I think it's better to say why Palestinians rejected partition than to merely say that Palestinians rejected partition.
 * However, the "why" is complicated. Maybe my addition, "would have given a majority of the land to the minority Jewish population", is overly-specific or overly-simplistic. It's possible to write something else, like,
 * We're all flexible on some aspects and inflexible on others, myself included. FWIW, this is an aspect I'm flexible on :-) Levivich (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That wording seems like a fairly reasonable summation, although it is best to reiterate "by X leaders", rather than saying "by Jews", "by Palestinians", which is vaguely generalizing, i.e.: naturally begs Qs like: who? which ones? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I updated my draft above to specify "Jewish Agency" and "Palestinian leadership", based on language from Statesman's Yearbook 2023, which writes "The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency (not representative of all Jewish groups) but rejected by the Palestinian Arab leadership" (full quote/cite above). Does that work? Levivich (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Levivich's proposal is misleading and not an improvement. First of all, the "majority" of the land proposed for the Jewish state (56% is hardly a majority anyway) included the Negev desert, second the UN proposal was not made thinking only of the Jewish population already living there but on all the Jewish refugees in displaced persons camps that were waiting to emigrate to the Jewish state, so the "majority/minority" concept is irrelevant. Last but not least, Arab leaders were very clear that they would reject partition and a Jewish state on ANY border, so the amount of land offered to the sides wasn't the main cause of rejection. The best way to handle this is to put a link to the UN partition plan and let the reader reach their own conclusions. Dovidroth (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dovidroth: Do you mean the whole proposal (in another section above), or just the 47-49 part, or just the part ? If it's just the last part, what do you think about instead? Another formulation, which I think is what you would prefer (sorry for putting words in your mouth if I'm wrong), would be something like  Levivich (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The last one seems the best: "The plan was mostly accepted by the Jewish Agency but was rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders, who opposed any partition, leading to inter-communal war." Dovidroth (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure if we're going to achieve talk page consensus about the two variations, "would have given a majority of the land to the minority Jewish population" v. "who opposed any partition", that may need to be put in the "RFC pile" of decisions. Levivich (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Qplb191 (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Developed country
Do you agree we should add : “Israel is a developed country with a high standard of living?”

Facts: Israel ranked first in the Middle East by HDI, Israel's GDP per capita which is close to 60,000 dollars (in 2023) is much higher than the average in the region. Life expectancy in Israel is one of the highest in the world (ranked 8th) I think there should be a place for it and that it should be mentioned. Modern Israel is hardly mentioned. I agree that the ratings are unnecessary. But I think it should be added, do you agree? Qplb191 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * HDI includes all that, and we include the HDI ranking. And we already include it is a developed country next to it being a member of the OECD.  nableezy  - 15:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * “Israel is a developed country with a high standard of living” I think it should be added we can instead delete the HDI if it’s too long. Qplb191 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We say Israel is a developed country and a member of the OECD and later give the HDI ranking. I think that is considerably more informative than your suggestion.  nableezy  - 16:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * An OECD member it is developed country it has a high standards of living .It has the world's 28th-largest economy by nominal GDP, and ranks twenty-second in the Human Development Index. Qplb191 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I get that you want to add "has a high standard of living", but thats already included with the HDI ranking. Anyway, we know what you think, we know what I think, we can let others give their position now.  nableezy  - 19:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nableezy is correct. That addition makes the sentence reduplicative, with 'a high standard of living' a pleonastic gloss on 'developed country'. DCs are by definition countries with a high standard of living comparatively (though poverty rates even in these range from 12 to 20%).Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * so the HDI ranking can be deleted… Qplb191 (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * An OECD member it is  developed country and has a high standards of living .It has the world's 28th-largest economy by nominal GDP Qplb191 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not adding anything to that sentence, and the HDI is way more informative than "has a high standard (no s) of living".  nableezy  - 14:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

rankings in the lead
We've dealt with this previously, the lead is not the place for such puffery. Im going back to the version discussed here. Im going back to the version from the conclusion of that discussion in which minor and irrelevant rankings like Visual Capitalist's innovation ranking is not included. Nor are more pertinent ones like Israel's press freedom ranking.  nableezy  - 18:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is not ranking, literally describing modern Israel . if you want you can put that sentence “Israel ranks very bad in press of freedom” . You can not delete it just all paragraph like that…. Qplb191 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, we had this discussion and we had a stable version without the bloat that was since re-added. The idea we should be including random websites rankings in the lead of an encyclopedia article is absurd. But we already discussed this and we already trimmed down the bloat to what is pertinent and encyclopedic. You have since re-introduced that same bloat without discussion or consensus.  nableezy  - 19:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You can not delete all paragraph without reaching agreement on the talk page which you didn’t receive . If you want add the sentence about the bad freedom of speech but you can’t delete all paragraph just because you fell like. Qplb191 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But I do think we should add “ the country has bad freedom of press” Qplb191 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There was already agreement on not stuffing the lead with irrelevant stats, and you cant add it without that same discussion. Please review WP:ONUS, the onus for consensus is for inclusion.  nableezy  - 20:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The paragraph has been like this for months and is widely accepted. The "discussion" you present (which is not related to the specific topic) was from a year ago. Before you delete a paragraph you must get broad agreement! Qplb191 (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That isnt true, from May 2022 until you started re-stuffing irrelevant things in without discussion in Dec of 2022 the lead was stable with respect to rankings. Youve since rebloated it without discussion, and through edit-warring. We had this discussion already, here. It concluded with general agreement on what not to include. Until that agreement changes here on the talk page please do not re-add useless and unimportant rankings by non-authoritative sources.  nableezy  - 20:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You can not delete all paragraph that was there for a months without open a *new* discussion in the talk page (not from year ago) and without you got a widely agreement … and also there is literally not even one ranking…  Qplb191 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no, you need consensus for additions. I removed things that were redundant or unimportant. Life expectancy and per capita gdp is already in the HDI, which we include, the innovation list is some random website without any weight given to it in other sources, and the world happiness report is likewise of little importance, certainly not lead of top level country article importance. But no, you need to establish consensus for inclusion, you have the onus the other way around here.  nableezy  - 21:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First as I said you can not erase all paragraph without starting a new discussion.
 * second look at other countries leads : Netherlands Norway and etc has the Happiness report mentioned on any country there is a little bit of information about there’s GDP per capita human development as I said you cannot erase paragraph the was there for months based on what you think . Self revert and open a NEW discussion and get agreement . That all. Qplb191 (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, we already had consensus on not including such nonsense as CEO World Magazine ranking the worlds best education systems in what they say is a perception-based global survey of university students, industrialists, academic educational professionals, school teachers, assistant professors, associate professors, adjunct professors, university professors, visiting professors, global business executives, and education policy experts. No, a perception based survey in some crap source is not lead of Wikipedia article on a country worthy. And we already had this conversation, and we already had a consensus on what to include. If you want to change that it is on you to garner consensus to include it, not the other way around.  nableezy  - 15:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you agree we should add “Israel ranked 4th on the Happiness report this year” (2023) it’s need to be mentioned as it mentioned in every country that ranked very high on the Happiness report like: Norway, Netherlands and Finland Or countries that ranked very low (like Burundi ) …. Qplb191 (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't need any more trivial information, and even if it did, this wouldn't qualify, since there's not even a mention of it in the body, and putting things the lead first and the body second is the wrong way to go about things, per MOS:LEAD. So, first things first, you will need to incorporate this material into the actual page body in a way that satisfies other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the rank is very high (4th place) it has to be mentioned as it mentioned in all the countries with very high rank, Norway, Iceland , Finland etc… Qplb191 (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In other countries it is mentioned and it has to be if the rank is very high; see Finland for example,(The rank of the happiness report is not also in the body). Qplb191 (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If Israel ranked 20th place in the happiness report I would agree with you but it’s literally ranked 4th place it has to be mentioned if Norway that ranks lower than Israel it is mentioned in their lead. Qplb191 (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Countries . Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 11:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand lead: '''“ A developed country, New Zealand ranks highly in international comparisons of national performance, such as quality of life, education, protection of civil liberties, government transparency, and economic freedom. The country was the first to introduce a minimum wage, and the first to give women the right to vote. New Zealand underwent major economic changes during the 1980s, which transformed it from a protectionist to a liberalised free-tradeeconomy. The service sector dominates the national economy, followed by the industrial sector, and agriculture; international tourism is also a significant source of revenue.”''' Israel lead: “ Israel is a developed country and an OECD member,It has the world's 28th-largest economy by nominal GDP, and ranks twenty-second in the Human Development Index.”  clearly for some reason there is no information about modern Israel in the lead. Although it’s ranked very high (such as 4th place on the happiness report for example)Qplb191 (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * What's your point? Thanks for verifying there is no nonsense about happiness in other leads? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that there is almost no information about modern Israel, unlike other countries as I mentioned. So it is impossible to say that this is an "excess of information״ when there is almost no information about modern Israel. It is absurd that the happiness report ranking appears at the lead of Norway when it is ranked lower than Israel,in every country lead there is information about their performance in aspects of income per person, life expectancy, health care, etc... So why is it Israel that ranks highly (4th place in the world) you refuse to mention when there is almost no information ? All the 5th first countries in the happiness report have their rank/mentioned on their lead. Qplb191 (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And it's not "nonsense" it's a UN report based on surveys and indicators of life expectancy, income per capita, health and level of satisfaction with the country... It also appears in the lead of highly ranked countries such as Iceland, Norway and Finland (1st in the world) Qplb191 (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To illustrate what complete guff the happiness report is, I would draw attention to the List of countries by suicide rate, which famously shows that Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland have the highest rates of suicide in Europe due to the well-known effect of winter depression. By relying on dubious survey data, I guess the report manages to overlook the blindingly obvious. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * this is about level of satisfaction with the country and indicators of life expectancy, income per capita, health . And it’s is important report.
 * why all the countries have their performance in per capita income healthcare quality of life etc… and Israel don’t? Although Israel is highly developed country . Qplb191 (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Iceland, Norway , Finland have their Happiness index in their lead and so Israel, if not at least include Israel high performance in per capita index wealth per adult and etc… why isn’t it mentioned when in all the countries lead it is? Look at italy for example . Qplb191 (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these country pages are good articles, let alone featured articles, so there's no reason to use their leads as models. This is badly irrelevant whataboutism. Wikipedia is generally not a reliable sources, and anything below a good article is obviously not thoroughly reviewed. But, in any case, Iceland doesn't and never did have the index in the lead, Norway doesn't now because it wasn't in the body and so I've removed it, and on the Finland page I've started a discussion to either remove it or balance it with the country's glaring suicide statistics. Perhaps that will alleviate your concerns. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But why ALL the countries lead have the information about their per capita income, happiness, health care, quality of life, wealth per adult life expectancy and other indicators when Israel doesn’t and ranks very highly in this indicators? Qplb191 (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A big problem with Israel and statistics is the vaguery surrounding which populations are covered. Does any given index cover Israeli settlers, for instance, or does it include non-citizen residents in East Jerusalem? Since Israel has both fuzzy, disputed borders and a fuzzy, disputed population, it's unwise to make sweeping statements based on random indexes - which Israel's rather unique setup will have just been shoe-horned into somehow. It is only really wise to use the very broadest and least complex/nuanced indicators, e.g. OECD, GDP, HDI, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First, it is mentioned millions of times that Israel's data is covered in the occupied Golan Heights in East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Life expectancy, wealth per adult GDP per capita, quality of life healthcare and etc... they are literally by official bodies like the UN or official banks report like Credit Swiss . If Italy, Poland or Spain, which are less developed than Israel according to all the indicators, this is mentioned in their leads also in Israel's lead it should be mentioned. Qplb191 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd bring up Credit Swiss as this particular junction. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Random stats should be linked to an article like International rankings of Canada that links from the lead at Canada (that keeps random stats to a minimum in the lead... best fallow FA examples). Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Loving that solution for clearing clutter, and International rankings of Israel already exists! Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If Israel has the heights wealth per adult in the Middle East ,one of the heights life expectancy in the world (8th place) ranks very high in health care and has very high Per capita income one of the countries with the highest average of assets and capital per capita it is need to be mentioned as it mentioned in all of other countries lead. Qplb191 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It's also got the biggest apartheid problem in the world, but we haven't even agreed to put that in the lead yet, so I would really just hold onto your horses regarding this granular stuff. OECD and HDI status cover most of the bases anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no connection. Literally no connection between Israel's economic success and the high standard of living, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If every country has its ranks (however they are democratic or not) Israel should also have it as well, either everyone has it or no one. Qplb191 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Per above, follow FA country article examples and go to International rankings of Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No stats in leads....move to the body and say somthing in the lead like   Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And better still if there was a reliable source saying that or something similar. And per Iskandar, linked to International rankings of Israel, problem solved. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * but in all the countries it’s in the lead there is no other place in the body to put it. See spain italy and they are less developed than Israel . Why there is not information about modern Israel in the lead? It’s unfair because all the countries does and Israel ranks very highly in all the quality of life/standard of living indicators. Qplb191 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It has very high per capita income, one of the heights life expectancy in the world ranked 4th in the Happiness index (which includes in other indicators) has the heights average wealth per adult in the Middle East and etc… it should be mentioned like all the other countries. It’s unfair that Italy lead includes that and not in Israel’s lead. Qplb191 (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of those articles are C-class; they are useless as examples. No one is stopping you from going and challenging the presence of unnecessary international rankings on other country pages. Have at it! Have fun! Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See new Zealand, France United Kingdom, Iceland literally all the developed’s country leads. Qplb191 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As long it is mentioned in all other countries leads it should be in Israel lead as well. Qplb191 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean...lets look at FA articles like Japan or Canada ...or even  low level articles like the USA or Russia that says the facts without  too many rankings or citing one matrix over another.....both link to a main article in the lead and cover random stats in the body. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 18:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But in most of the countries it is mentioned view Iceland Austria I’m not asking to put all these ranking in the lead. I am only asking to put sentence like:
 * ” Israel is a developed country with a high standard of living
 * performing high in per capita income ,life expectancy…” Qplb191 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You appear to be in a minority of one atm. Time to drop it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Official language
Shouldn't the 'recognized language' in the infobox be changed to Hebrew, as is explained in the main text? TheBartgry (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)